SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESprotection. The manual illustrates several innovative ways to design structures, parking lots,drainage systems, and landscaping to protect water quality. It may be obtained at most cities’planning departments or by calling Forbes Press, which distributes the manual for the Bay AreaStormwater Management Agencies Association, at 877-773-7247.” (Regional Water QualityControl Board)Comment H-6: ‘… regarding nurseries (page III.B-14) the DEIR states that “under theManagement Plan, nurseries would be required to establish greater setbacks from Alameda Creekin order to better buffer the creek from any pollutants that could be inadvertently discharged.”The Management Plan fails to identify the distance of the increased setbacks. The Departmentrecommends that this information should be included in the DEIR.’ (California Department ofFish and Game)Response: Alameda County Water District’s comments regarding participation in local planningefforts, including the Upper Alameda Creek Watershed Management Program are noted.Many proposed Management Plan actions reviewed in this programmatic EIR are intended onlyto establish direction or guidelines for implementing future projects. They are not yet associatedwith project level proposals or locations. The Department of Health Services has concernsregarding Plan actions that call for the use of reclaimed water. Management Action con2 calls fora feasibility study and, therefore, represents a speculative project. Any specific use of reclaimedwater would undergo further environmental assessment, including compliance with regulatoryrequirements set forth by the Department of Health Services and the Regional Water QualityControl Board. Similarly, additional environmental review would be required for specificimplementation of access projects (des8, sun17, WA 15.2 and WA 15.4) mentioned in the abovecomment.Golf course expansion and changes in the operation of nurseries are only speculative at this point.It should be noted that while golf course expansion may be considered under Policy 18.1, theManagement Plan does not include a policy or management action that specifically calls for theexpansion of the golf course. Should such a proposal be advanced, project level environmentalreview would be required. Any proposed golf course expansion would require implementation ofManagement Plan Action lea5, which addresses integrated pest management implementation,including the preparation of a chemical application and management plan by the lessee. In regardto changes in the operation of nurseries, the setback contemplated would be consistent with theWater Quality Vulnerability Zones shown in Figure 2-3 of the Management Plan (page 2-6).Nursery operations would not be permitted within high Water Quality Vulnerability Zones. As ageneral rule of thumb, the SFPUC Land and Resources Management Section would consider aminimum setback of 300 feet to be appropriate. The Regional Water Quality Control Board’sjurisdiction and project planning guidance are noted with regard to these future projects.Comment H-7: “Bentonite walls are not presently installed around all sides of all of the pits, asseems to be implied by discussion on page III.D-7. In fact, the walls are only installed aroundthree sides of SMP-24, and no walls are installed around any of the RMC Pacific Materials pits.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.42 ESA / 930385