SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESarea will lower its wildlife productivity and diversity over time. Human intrusion can also reducethe effectiveness of foraging bald eagles, a Watershed special-status species, when feeding youngor on wintering grounds (Garret, 1981)” Page III.E-32. If this was really an issue, then explainwhy you find an active Bald Eagle’s nest located in a heavily public used park like Del Valle?Quarry operations completely destroy habitat and leaves nothing to harass. Would the proposedEast Bay Regional Park District’s trail segment from Sunol to Pleasanton Ridge the “CalaverasRidge Trail” be compromised if SMP 32 was permitted?’ (Maryanne Canaparo)Response: The DEIR evaluates the program-level impacts associated with increased public useopportunities. It is noted that public use opportunities would be located in areas of lowvulnerability, primarily within the Sunol Valley, in the secondary watershed. At a program-level,the DEIR recognizes that golf course expansion could be associated with water quality andhazardous materials impacts, but that the area of expansion could be located such that impactscould be minimized (DEIR page III.D-32). In addition, hazardous materials managementprocedures included in the Management Plan would reduce potential impacts (DEIRSection III.M). At a program-level, the DEIR recognizes that increased public use and theconstruction of public use facilities could be associated with soil erosion and other geologicimpacts (DEIR Section III.C), water quality impacts (DEIR Section III.D), natural resourcesimpacts such as wildlife disturbance and spread of invasive species (DEIR Section III.E),construction-related air pollutant emissions (DEIR Section III.F), increased fire hazards (DEIRSection III.G), cultural resources impacts (DEIR Section III.H), aesthetics impacts (DEIRSection III.I), transportation impacts (DEIR Section III.J), and construction-related noise impacts(DEIR Section III.L). The DEIR and the Management Plan include measures that would reducethe potential impacts associated with construction and operation of public use facilities at aprogram-level. However, the project-level impacts associated with increased public use, andmitigation recommendations, would be evaluated at the time specific projects are proposed forimplementation.As noted in the responses in Section II.E above, most of the potential impacts of SMP-32 wereevaluated in a separate EIR. The SMP-32 EIR discusses the potential effects of the quarry on theplanned Pleasanton Ridge to Sunol Ridge trail (SMP-32 EIR, pages 115 and 116). That EIRnoted that SMP-32 would be visible from the planned trail, based on the 1989 East Bay RegionalPark District Master Plan’s schematic alignment through SFPUC lands near the temple, andwould be visible from Pleasanton Ridge. Views from Pleasanton Ridge are at some distance (themiddle-ground view) and would be in the context of existing adjacent visible quarry operations.Mitigation measures were adopted to minimize visual impacts on the possible trail alignment(berming, landscaping, trail planning by EBRPD and SFPUC, and other measures) and werefound to reduce visual impacts to a less than significant level. The Management Plan EIRevaluates the potential impacts associated with changes to SMP-32 and changed conditions sincethe SMP-32 EIR was certified (see DEIR pages III.E-35 through III.E-38, in particular). Nosubstantial adverse impacts to the planned trail segment have been identified in association withthese changes. Management Action sun11, which calls for a ¼ mile backfilled buffer areaadjacent to the temple, would further reduce visual impacts on a possible trail in the temple area.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.39 ESA / 930385