SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESsurveys for the species. The potential impacts of SFPUC management actions on the Westernyellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat in the watershed, including impacts from dam operation,water diversions, and cattle grazing need to be analyzed, and the significant impacts avoided ormitigated. This has not been done.” (Alameda Creek Alliance)Comment I-15: “Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) and the Pallid bat (Antrozouspallidus). Both of these bat species, which are Federal Species of Concern, are presumed in theEIR to have a moderate potential to occur within the watershed. However, both species areknown to be present in Sunol Regional Park, which is within SFPUC watershed lands (JoanneFreemire, EBRPD, pers. comm., 2000). The SFPUC should presume the species to be presentwithin the watershed, and conduct comprehensive protocol surveys for the species. The potentialimpacts of SFPUC management actions on the Townsend’s big-eared bat and the Pallid bat andtheir habitat in the watershed need to be analyzed, and the significant impacts avoided ormitigated. This has not been done.” (Alameda Creek Alliance)Comment I-16: “American badger (Taxidea taxus). The American badger is presumed in theEIR to have a moderate potential to occur within the watershed. However, the species has beensighted at Flag Hill in Sunol Regional Park, which is within SFPUC watershed lands (JoanneFreemire, EBRPD, pers. comm., 2000). The SFPUC should presume the species to be presentwithin the watershed, and conduct comprehensive protocol surveys for the species. The potentialimpacts of SFPUC management actions on the American badger and its habitat in the watershedneed to be analyzed, and the significant impacts avoided or mitigated. This has not been done.”(Alameda Creek Alliance)Comment I-17: “California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). The EIR confirms that theCalifornia red-legged frog is present within the watershed. Sightings along Alameda Creek in1993 and 1997 are mentioned (page III.E-22). Sightings were also made in 1998 in upperAlameda Creek at two locations below Little Yosemite and near the confluence with WelchCreek near the site of the proposed recapture facility (Trihey & Associates, Inc. 1999) and frogswere also seen in this area in 1999 (Tom Taylor, Entrix, Inc., pers. comm., 1999). The specieswas also seen at several sites along upper Alameda Creek in 1999 during electro shockingsurveys by EBRPD personnel (Pete Alexander, EBRPD, pers. comm., 1999). FWS believes thatthe timing and duration of water releases from reservoirs can render a stream unsuitable forCalifornia red-legged frog reproduction and maintain populations of exotic predators indownstream areas (61 Federal Register 25813, at 25825). FWS has also published considerableinformation about the threats to the frog due to habitat alteration from livestock grazing (61Federal Register 25813, at 25826-25827). This information is attached as Appendix 2. Thepotential impacts of SFPUC management actions on the California red-legged frog and its habitatin the watershed, including impacts from dam operation, water diversions, and cattle grazing needto be analyzed, and the significant impacts avoided or mitigated. This has not been done. Theanalysis of the potential impacts from gravel mining is completely inadequate.” (Alameda CreekAlliance)NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.58 ESA / 930385