SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESwatershed downstream from Crystal Springs reservoir or in the Alameda Creek Watersheddownstream and upstream from the Alameda SFPUC impoundment.I strongly support the comments submitted by Richard Izmirian on behalf of several Californiaconservation organizations and fly fishing clubs.” (Tripp T. Diedrichs)Response: As noted above, many comments were received regarding potential impacts toanadromous fisheries, particularly steelhead, within the project area. The DEIR states that“…healthy populations of resident rainbow trout are landlocked behind the Watershed dams”(DEIR page III.E-1). The DEIR also points out that although resident rainbow trout andsteelhead are related forms of the same species, the resident rainbow trout are not part of thepopulation listed as threatened. The DEIR further points out that “due to a downstreamimpoundment in Alameda Creek, this stream is not accessible to steelhead” (DEIR page III.E-17).These conclusions are verified in the recently completed Assessment of the Potential forRestoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed. This documentwas developed by the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup (Workgroup) to assessthe potential of restoring the steelhead population in Alameda Creek and identify actions thatwould need to be taken to begin restoration. The document notes that while suitable habitat existswithin the Alameda Creek watershed to support spawning and rearing of steelhead, this habitat isin upper Alameda Creek. The Sunol Valley is characterized in the Workgroup’s documentprimarily as a migratory corridor. This is due to permeable channel conditions, which causeswater to percolate into the shallow alluvium and brings about water levels that are often tooshallow for spawning and rearing. These natural conditions have also contributed to a historicallack of natural riparian habitat.Some comment letters discuss ongoing operations of the SFPUC, some of which have resulted inless surface water flowing downstream of the SFPUC’s dams. Many Management Plan actionsare designed to lessen the impact that operation and maintenance practices might have on theenvironment. Beyond these actions, the Management Plan does not and is not intended to addressor change ongoing operation of the water supply facilities within the Watershed. CEQA requiresexamination of a project’s potential impacts on the existing environment, defined in CEQAGuidelines Section 15125(a) as the baseline physical conditions extent at the time the notice ofpreparation was issued. Although CEQA does not require analysis of a project’s possible impactsupon future potential environmental restoration projects, there is no evidence that implementationof the Management Plan would significantly impede efforts to restore anadromous steelhead tothe Alameda Creek watershed. Nor would Management Plan implementation adversely impactexisting reservoir populations of resident rainbow trout. Management Plan Action fis1 (maintainaccess for fish species of concern from reservoirs to upstream spawning grounds) and otherproposed Fisheries actions are designed to benefit this species. The potential for restoration ofviable anadromous steelhead populations in the Watershed is recognized and supported by theSFPUC. Certain changes are being proposed by the SFPUC as a separate project to assiststeelhead restoration efforts, as described below.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.80 ESA / 930385