SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESE. RELIANCE ON PREVIOUS EIRSComment E-1: “On page II-23, the EIR refers to other Management Plan actions that havepreviously undergone environmental review, and therefore may go forward independent ofcertification of this EIR. Alameda County believes that the existing surface mining permits in theSunol Valley fall into this category, and could proceed under the existing Alameda Countyenvironmental documentation, regardless of whether the SFWD Watershed Management PlanEIR is certified.” (Alameda County Community Development Agency)Comment E-2: “Pages III.D-23 and 37 indicates that future reservoir design, construction, andoperations may require additional environmental review because specific plans have not yet beenprepared. However, to the extent water storage is part of the reclamation plans for all of theaggregate mines in the Sunol Valley, as well as in Livermore and Pleasanton, the environmentaleffects have been adequately addressed by Alameda County in prior adopted and certifiedproject-specific environmental reviews. There may be some aspect of San Francisco’s futureoperations that cannot yet be anticipated, but no part of the previously reviewed and approvedmining or water storage reclamation is subject to debate at this time.” (Alameda CountyCommunity Development Agency)Response: Ongoing mining permits and leases, like other SFPUC ongoing watershed activities,are part of the environmental setting and may proceed independently of this EIR. AlthoughMission Valley Rock Company is in receipt of a surface mining permit from Alameda County,mining under SMP-32 can not commence without a lease from SFPUC as the landowner andtherefore is properly reviewed under CEQA in this EIR. Although future water storage facilitiesmay require additional environmental review, no part of the previously reviewed and approvedwater storage reclamation would require additional review, as stated by the commentor.Comment E-3: “…the Department does not concur with the statement that impacts associatedwith mining expansion and extended timing as being unavoidable. In a memorandum to Mr.James Sorenson, Alameda County Planning Department, dated August 24, 1994, the Departmentrecommended against certification of the Mission Valley Rock Co; Surface Mining Permit andReclamation Plan SMP-32: Draft Environmental Impact Report, based on the inadequatediscussion of several resource issues. The fact that Alameda County certified a DEIR inNovember 1994 does not change the significant unmitigated resource impacts of the project. Inaddition, the steelhead and California red-legged frog have been listed as threatened sincecertification of that document.” (California Department of Fish and Game, Central Coast Region)Comment E-4: “… your findings of insignificant impact for the Sunol Valley gravel-miningactions should not rely on past CEQA findings for gravel-mining projects, nor on futurediscretionary actions by permitting agencies.” (California Regional Water Quality ControlBoard, San Francisco Bay Region)Comment E-5: ‘The EIR’s evaluation of mining alternatives (pages VII-18 through VII-30)refers repeatedly to findings made by the County during environmental review for the existingNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.20 ESA / 930385