SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESComment G-2: ‘The Plan and EIR contain a variety of statements that are supportive of someexpansion in access to the Alameda Watershed, including trails around the Sunol Temple andalong Sunol Valley, and access to reservoirs for fishing and boating, however there is no specificinformation about proposed alignments or locations for these new access facilities, or anyproposed time frames for construction of such facilities. While we are pleased that SFPUC isproposing such access improvements, and we support SFPUC’s efforts, we are concerned aboutstatements in the EIR which do not commit SFPUC to actually making the proposedimprovements. For example, on page III.B-11, the EIR states that “recreational uses such aspublic access, fishing and boating may be allowed at some time in the future at one of thereclaimed mining pits” (emphasis added). We request that, when possible, the Plan and EIRcontain more specific information about proposed access facilities, including maps of proposedtrail alignments and reservoir access points, and that there be specific affirmative language toconstruct these improvements within an appropriate time frame.’ (East Bay Regional ParksDistrict)Comment G-3: “The EIR and Plan also contain policy statements stating SFPUC’s intention toremove certain types of access from the interior of the Watershed, namely equestrian and bicycleaccess. The EIR proposes that these uses be relocated to the perimeter of the Watershed. Arethese uses to be replaced with equal trail mileage? What would be the impact on other openspace areas, such as Sunol or Mission Peak, if displaced trail uses are not replaced on SFPUCWatershed lands?Management Action roa 2 in the Plan calls for relocating existing high use roads that are locatednear streams and causing excessive erosion. The Plan and EIR should specify which roads maybe affected by this management action. How would this policy affect or apply to existing Districtmanagedroads and trails within the Watershed? What affect would this have upon existingrecreational uses? Would this policy also be applied to the 2.8 mile segment of SFPUCWatershed roads that are under easement for the Apperson Ridge Quarry? If so, what is thesignificance of the potential relocation of applicable road segments?” (East Bay Regional ParksDistrict)Response: In response to these comments, it is noted that the permitted uses of Watershed landsleased to the EBRPD are subject to the requirements, terms, and conditions of the lease. Futurechanges in lease conditions would be guided by the Management Plan. The project specificimpacts of road relocation would be evaluated when such projects are proposed. TheManagement Plan is intended to provide broad management objectives and policies to guidefuture actions and projects in the Watershed. The plan is not a trail plan, and is therefore notintended to designate specific project details such as trail alignments and facilities. Regardingfuture East Bay Regional Parks District facilities, the Management Plan and the DEIRcontemplates new trail construction in areas of low vulnerability. This could include SunolValley and Niles Canyon, which are downstream of the primary watershed. The ManagementPlan does not propose specific projects for public use facilities or trail alignments, but provides amanagement framework for providing increased opportunities, where compatible with theprotection of watershed resources. The East Bay Regional Parks District is correct in itsNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.36 ESA / 930385