SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESReservoir. These dams are presently listed as the upstream extent because they currently areimpassable barriers and block upstream passage.In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following requirements of the species:(1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sitesfor breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and, generally (5) habitats that are protectedfrom disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical or ecological distributions ofthe species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to these factors, NMFS also focuses on theknown physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) within the designated areathat are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special managementconsiderations or protection. These essential features may include, but are not limited to,spawning sites, food resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation.In accordance with the stated intent of the Management Plan to “. . . establish comprehensivepolicies and actions for managing the land and resources of the Alameda Watershed . . .”, NMFSencourages the SFPUC to expand the scope of the DEIR to more comprehensively address themanagement issues surrounding listed salmonids in the Alameda Watershed. The eventualrecovery of these depleted populations depends on the efforts of federal, state, and local agenciesworking collectively to enhance the quality and increase the quantity of habitat required by listedsalmonids to survive and recover to healthy, sustainable levels. A revised management planwould be the appropriate planning document to address salmonid issues in this watershed, andcould make a significant contribution to this effort. Such a plan would help focus federal, state,and local resources needed to restore salmonids in the Alameda Creek watershed. Specific areaswhere the DEIR could be improved in this regard include: (1) address adequate stream flows tosupport juvenile and adult salmonids throughout the stream reach (2) protect water quality fromcattle grazing and gravel mining operations, (3) protection and repair of riparian habitat, and(4) provide passage around or removal of fish passage barriers, (5) manage watershed operationsto limit downstream impacts on critical habitat outside of the SFPUC Alameda watershed.’(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)Comment I-40: ‘The presence of central California coast (CCC) steelhead, a FederallyThreatened Species, is dismissed on page II.E-17. The report states: “Due to a downstreamimpoundment in Alameda Creek, this stream is not accessible to steelhead. Lower AlamedaCreek contains a small population of steelhead, which is currently known to extend upstream to abarrier associated with the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tracks in Fremont.” Table IX.B-2lists steelhead trout as having a low potential to occur within the watershed. These assertions areincorrect.The EIR needs to analyze the impacts of SFPUC management actions on CCC steelhead for thefollowing reasons:• Juvenile CCC steelhead are documented to already be present in upper Alameda Creekwithin SFPUC watershed lands;NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.72 ESA / 930385