SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESResponse: In response to this comment, DEIR Section III.B, Land Use, page III.B-6,Table III.B-1, column “SMP-24,” line “Mining Phases” has been revised:Parcel 3 tends to be mined during the summerdue to water levels in the pit during wintermonths. The upper level of parcel 3 Parcel 5is typically mined in wet weather due to gooddrainage in the pit.Comment F-7: “Sunol Valley / Gravel Mining – The Sunol Valley section of the ManagementPlan includes many proposed actions that go well beyond the level of specificity that we wouldexpect in a general management plan, and this level of descriptive detail is not sufficientlysupported by a more detailed evaluation of these actions in the EIR. The Management Planproposes to expand existing gravel mines, add additional mines, increase the period of operationof these mines, and then reclaim the pits for water storage. It details a ¼-mile wide landscapedbuffer for the water storage pits, but no buffer for, or restoration of, the Alameda River corridor.It also proposes other, very specific, design elements. The only mitigation proposed for theimpacts of the Sunol Valley actions is to “conduct site-specific review of new structures, linearfacilities, parking lots, roads, or trains to avoid adverse impacts to wildlife” (Table III.E-8), andonce again, there is no assurance that this measure will be implemented (Table II-1). We believethis action, even if it is implemented, does not sufficiently offset the proposed impacts.The EIR should discuss the long-term impacts of this plan on the designated beneficial uses ofAlameda and San Antonio creeks (cold freshwater habitat, fish migration, fish spawning, wildlifehabitat, and preservation of rare and endangered species). There are many ways in which theproposed Sunol Valley plan may impact these beneficial uses. For example, the excavation of themines within the historic creek-bed may effect the hydrology of the creek, potentially loweringthe water table and reducing flow levels. Management of the reclaimed pits for water storagecould further impact the stream by fluctuating water levels, particularly during the driest yearswhen this secondary water supply would most likely be used. The EIR should fully evaluate allpotential impacts.” (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco BayRegion)Comment F-8: ‘Attempted rape of a beautiful virgin. I admit that this is, indeed, a strongstatement. However, I can think of no better analogy to apply to what is going on in Sunol, CA.Someone is trying to push through an “Environmental Impact Report” that purports that theimpact of placing a strip mine rock quarry on the picturesque property at Highway 680 andPaloma Way in the bay area’s jewel of Sunol, California can be mitigated. Those who are eitherstanding aside to observe or actually participating in propagating such a plan are essentiallycondoning or committing attempted rape of beautiful virgin agricultural land in a sceniccorridor of the east San Francisco bay area.The screams have only just begun. Undoubtedly, you are hearing from the vocal group of uswho are fortunate enough to have achieved the dream of living in rural Sunol. Indeed, we aretrying to speak on behalf of the quiet, beautiful, god created stretch of virgin agricultural land andNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.26 ESA / 930385