SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESIf adult or tadpoles or the California Salamanders are found within a specific body of water underthe mining, the frogs or salamanders would be immediately moved or captured and moved tosuitable upstream sites by a biologist.Okay. Well, I’m not sure what passive means, but what comes to my mind – “shoo, salamanders,go upstream,” and then encaptures it.Well, there are a couple of problems with this mitigation. One, it’s only done annually, so whatabout all those frogs that wonder in between the pits, in between the yearly visits. Andfurthermore, when you do relocate annually like that, you may be putting it into territory that maybe taken up by others of its kind. So, it will be competing with the ones that’s already there andprobably will be competing until they die.’ (Joanne Freemire – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Response: The annual surveys proposed in the DEIR are designed to ensure that special statusspecies have not taken up residence in areas of ponded water within mining lease boundaries, andto establish protocols for how to avoid impacts to the species in the event they do colonize theseareas. Guidelines for establishing mitigation acreage provide for instituting new mitigation areascontiguous with existing habitat but not overlapping so that the kind of competition for resourcesdescribed in the comment above does not occur.Comment I-30: “Loss of agricultural land will result in loss of habitat for raptors and otherbirds.” (Golden Gate Audubon Society)Comment I-31: “It [SMP-32] will result in the loss of habitat for wildlife and it will destroy 140acres of prime agricultural land, farmland, sorely needed to grow food to feed hungry people.”(Patricia Stillman – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Comment I-32: “There are a number of endangered species that are present on the [SMP-32]site that were completely ignored. The wishes of the town of Sunol were completely ignored. Itwill probably go down in history as one of the worse pieces[uses] of land in Alameda County.”(Bob Frillman – Pleasanton Public Meeting)Response: Loss of prime agricultural land due to mining under SMP-32 was found to be anunavoidable significant impact in the Management Plan EIR. Based on the EIR’s analysis ofnatural resources, with adoption of suggested mitigation measures, significant impacts on wildlifehabitat or endangered species would not occur from SMP-32 implementation and no evidence tothe contrary has been received.2.2 STEELHEAD/FISHERIESComment I-33: “Steelhead: Landlocked steelhead have been identified within the AlamedaWatershed. Populations located within the two SFPUC reservoirs (i.e. Calaveras and SanAntonio) utilize the reservoir tributaries above these two reservoirs. Alameda Creek and many ofits tributaries are also utilized by steelhead. Recent studies have determined that these fish arepart of the Central Ecologically Significant Unit (ESU) for this federally-threatened species.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.67 ESA / 930385