SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESpreferred alternative Option 1 and Option 2.” These options are outlined in Table VII-3, howeverthey are not discussed in the text. It is not entirely clear how they compare to other options, forexample, whether or not San Antonio Creek is proposed for mining. Without the text description,it is not possible to assess which option is preferred. However, in previous meetings, theDepartment has recommended Mining Alternative A. This alternative maximizes increasedpublic access on the north side of I-680 in an area closer to the fringes of the watershed wherethere are fewer resource impacts, as compared to areas that are located in the interior of thewatershed.’ (California Department of Fish and Game)Response: The comment regarding the recommendation of Alternative A is noted. The textdiscussions of the preferred alternative options can be found in several places in the EIR. DEIRChapter II – Project Description (page II-16) is the first place these options are described. Thecommentor is also referred to DEIR pages III.D-28 and III.D-29 in the Hydrology and WaterQuality Section for further explanation of these options from a hydrologic standpoint. SanAntonio Creek is not proposed for mining under the preferred alternative (see DEIR FigureIII.B-3 and pages VII-21 through VII-23). Mining alternatives that included mining in SanAntonio Creek were rejected because of California Department of Fish and Game concerns thatthe creek is a wildlife corridor. Alternative B is the only alternative that would include mining ofthe creek, and that is not the preferred alternative.2.0 CUMULATIVE MINING EFFECTSComment F-24: “Page III.P-6 discusses the combined effects of different mining operations.Calaveras Road would be the haul route for Apperson Ridge quarry products and is the same roadused by RMC Pacific Materials. Mission Valley Rock has an independent access road atAthenour Way / Andrade Road. However, the combined impacts of Apperson and RMC areunlikely to be cumulative, in the sense of being additive, because the Apperson Ridge Quarry isunlikely to begin operation until the market forces create a demand for more expensive material,and that would likely be after RMC has completed mining of its areas in the Sunol Valley.”(Alameda County Community Development Agency, Planning Department)Comment F-25: “The EIR provides a brief discussion of the Apperson Ridge Quarry in the“Cumulative Analysis” section. This analysis does not include a thorough discussion of thecumulative impacts of this quarry on Watershed lands. While an updated project impact analysesappears warranted by Alameda County to address changes in project circumstances, the subjectEIR should also consider in general terms these same impacts to Watershed lands. This analysis,if and when a specific proposal to commence quarrying is submitted, should include impacts fromor to water quality, fuel spills, truck noise, blasting noise, air quality, aesthetics, plants andwildlife, special-status species (especially Alameda whipsnake), public safety, risk of wildfire,increased traffic, roadway relocation/expansion, park and Watershed operations, and impacts topark and Watershed users.” (The East Bay Regional Parks District)Response: As noted by Alameda County, combined impacts of the Apperson Ridge Quarry andmining in Sunol Valley, in the sense of being additive, would not be considered “reasonablyNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.33 ESA / 930385