SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESF. MINING1.0 PERMITTING ISSUESComment F-1: “It is apparent that the watershed plan could result in restrictions on futuremining in the project area. Therefore, it would be useful to the environmental impact analysis toquantify the impacts on aggregate resource availability for each of the various future miningalternatives. Impacts on aggregate resource availability of the proposed alternatives should bequantified in terms of available mineral resources and projected needed. (The 1975 SurfaceMining and Reclamation Act defines resources to include reserves, and reserves are defined asaggregate for which the lead agency has issued a permit to mine.)The Division has published Open-File Report 96-03, Update of Mineral land Classification:Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, byKohler-Antablin, Susan, 1996. This would be useful reference for addressing the project’saggregate resource impacts, particularly its supply impacts. We recommend that Open-FileReport 96-03 be used in responding to the above comments.” (Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology)Comment F-2: “The State-designed Mineral Resource Zones are discussed briefly onpage III.C-5, but no map or follow-up discussion provides the reader with an understanding ofwhether all or some of the areas might be precluded from mining due to Plan policies andmanagement actions. Please clarify the resource areas, project areas, and potential impacts, ifany.” (Alameda County Community Development Agency)Response: These comments appear to be concerned with potential loss of availability ofdesignated mineral resources. The relative amount of resource that would be extracted under thevarious mining alternatives is proportional to the resulting water storage volume upon completionof mining; these amounts are given for each mining alternative on DEIR pages VII-19 throughVII-23. The preferred Management Plan alternative maximizes mining in comparison to otheralternatives. Under the definition of “reserves,” as presented by the Division of Mines andGeology, the Management Plan would result in the same or more aggregate mined than theamount allowed under existing Alameda County permits. The Management Plan is intended tomaximize resource extraction consistent with environmental and political constraints.Comment F-3: ‘Page II-45 / Action sun2a “Work with Alameda County to amend the existingpermits south of I-680 to achieve a maximum mining depth of 200 feet and a maximum miningfootprint.”Expansion of the mining depth and footprint should be the preferred action. This option willsubstantially increase the water storage capacity of the lakes. It is well documented that NorthernCalifornia experiences extended periods of drought. The increased water storage of the lakes forsuch an event would be invaluable to the local Bay Area communities.’ (RMC Pacific Materials)NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.24 ESA / 930385