SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESReliance on Previous EIRs), the Management Plan EIR does not identify a potentially significantprogram level impact to hydrology and water quality resulting from mining existing quarriessouth of I-680 wider and/or deeper. However, because of the uncertainty about the timing andextent of future proposals for expansion of mining south of I-680, and the lack of acomprehensive groundwater and hydrologic study for that area, potentially significant projectlevel impacts cannot be ruled out. Therefore, a discussion of potential impacts to Alameda Creekand its resources, and a mitigation measure, has been added to EIR Section III.D, Hydrology andWater Quality. Please see the response to Comments H-7 through H-10 (see Section II.H of thisdocument) for this discussion.Some of the SMP-32 project details are described in the Management Plan, and thus in the EIR,to make clear to the reader the minor changes to SMP-32 proposed under the Management Plan.Detailed analysis of the impacts of SMP-32 was developed in Alameda County’s EIR for thatproject. That analysis is supplemented by the Management Plan EIR to account for minorchanges in the project and the listing of additional special status species since the approval of theSMP-32 EIR by Alameda County. The Management Plan EIR, based on the new information andanalysis, found potentially significant impacts on natural resources (see DEIR pages III.E-35through III.E-38), which could be mitigated to less than significant levels through new mitigationmeasures (see DEIR pages IV-3 and IV-4, Section IV.E.2.0, mitigation measures 1, 2, and 3).Further details regarding SMP-32’s relationship to the Management Plan actions can be found inthe Sunol Landscape and Recreation Plan and the Sunol Valley Resources Management Element,both of which are part of the record for this project.The conditions of approval for SMP-32 imposed mitigation measures to reduce the impact ofnoise on sensitive receptors, protect wildlife, and protect people and facilities from seismichazards. Backfilling of a ¼ mile landscaped buffer was included in the SFPUC preferred miningalternative to further mitigate for potential impacts to cultural resources. As described in theSMP-32 EIR and the Management Plan DEIR, the mining operators will use conveyors totransport aggregate offsite to the existing Mission Valley Rock Company processing plant, inorder to minimize changes in noise and truck traffic. Further details regarding the mitigationmeasures required under SMP-32 are discussed in Section II.I, Natural Resources, Section II.M,Cultural Resources/Sunol Water Temple, and Section II.O, Noise of this document. The loss of140 acres of prime agricultural land was an unavoidable impact described in the SMP-32 EIR andthe Management Plan EIR.The creek bed would not be excavated under the proposed Management Plan (see DEIRFigure III.B-3). Several comments state that the impacts of the changes that are suggested by theManagement Plan are not fully examined or mitigated. Impacts to natural resources from theproposed Sunol Valley activities are analyzed on DEIR pages III.E-35 through III.E-39. Inparticular, Comment F-7 mentioned a mitigation measure (Action wil1 – conduct site specificsurveys), and claims it was not adequate to reduce impacts. Three additional mitigation measureswere identified on DEIR pages IV-3 and IV-4 as necessary to avoid potentially significantimpacts. Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality are also described on DEIRpages III.D-27 through III.D-30. Comment F-7 asks for further analysis of the management ofNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.29 ESA / 930385