The public input opportunities ended years ago apparently so I will be asking for a supplemental EIR.
My comments:
A goal of the South Bay restoration project was to retain recreation, but we are losing unprecedented access to nature and wildlife with the 9-mile loop trail out on the bay. Mitigating it with a paved trail along highway 237 and the zig-zag levee trail past garbage dumps and the sewage plant does not come close to equaling what was lost.
As mitigation for the lost trail a new park trail loop around pond A18 should be allowed while breaching and bridging the existing levee. Mitigation for allowing a new pond A18 loop trail could be satisfied by the park being responsible for creating more water bird nesting islands in pond A18 and providing the species and habitat stewardship staff and funding for the pond in perpetuity.
The pond trail would be an important aspect of the park to get families and the elderly/disabled out into nature and on the bay with docent or self-guided tours. Having the loop trail as part of an official park will allow for controlled use such as seasonal closures and park staff for law enforcement and environmental stewardship.
Recreation is the third most important goal of the project but is lacking in the plan. Where were the stakeholders for this aspect of the plan? Recreation is mentioned hundreds of times in the plan and increasing recreation is part of almost all the stakeholder’s general plans. Why were there no city or county or state or even national park agencies as stakeholders? The recreation additions in the project are a couple of benches and a few miles of unattractive trails while losing the loop trail.
The plan does not retain the level of existing recreation and what replaces it is inadequate. This plan is unbalanced without any recreation stakeholders and needs more recreation to be balanced. The plan had no stakeholders representing recreation and inadequate public input. The Lead Agency should prepare a supplement to the EIR with the changed situation of potentially having a new loop trail on pond A18 as per CEQA Guidelines §15163.
Public outreach and input was inadequate with only 3 private citizens commenting on the plan. I personally never heard about any public input opportunities. The notices were only posted on two obscure websites, the water district and Corps of Engineers. The park I mentioned has a petition which garnered over 500 local signatures and hundreds of positive comments in under 30 days.
California State Parks would entertain stakeholder status. The Chief and Deputy Director of the Division have offered to meet with any local officials.
Prop 68 or other funding should be explored for smoothing out the zig-zag levee to be more natural.
All the adjacent levees fit in with nature, the zig-zag has a painfully man-made appearance.
Trail connectivity is hailed in the project plan while at the same time, discouraging commuting with bikes on the levee by not paving is stated in the plan and reducing the potential numbers of people who might use the Refuge trails to connect between the existing Coyote Creek section of the Bay Trail and Sunnyvale is stated as a beneficial impact.
Connecting commuting routes should be a priority to get more people out exercising and out of their cars. To encourage commuting by E-bikes, a separate trail on the inland side of the levees should be included. Create a terraced levee with the separate inland, down slope trail reserved for E-bikes and other zero emission personal transportation that would normally cause conflicts with hikers and bicycles. The down-slope location of the “commute” trail will be visually screened from refuge visitors and wildlife. The more people not commuting by fossil fuel burning cars the better for the refuge, sea rise and all of us and should be encouraged, not impeded.
As stated in the plan; Under the McAteer-Petris Act, the BCDC requires locations for water-oriented land uses and increased public access to shoreline and waters and encourages the provision of maximum feasible public access to the bay and its shoreline, The San Francisco Bay Plan contains policies that encourage the development of waterfront recreation facilities and linkages between existing shoreline parks and requires the provision of these opportunities in relationship to sensitive biological species, habitats, and future restoration of managed ponds. The BCDC amended the Plan in August 2005. The amendment focuses on the significance of the need to maximize public access and recreational opportunities along with the environmental aspect. The amendment failed to meet that goal.
Questions:
Does the project have jurisdiction over pond A18 and the levee around it? Would the treatment plant authority be able to open a loop trail around their pond as part of a multi-use park if desired?
Is Phase I and specifically any work on the A18 levee delayed by federal funding?
What is the official procedure to amend the project plan? Would any action by Congress be able to save the pond A18 levee from destruction or would an emergency injunction be needed?
References from plan:
The lead agencies have designed the new proposed levee-top routes (maintenance roads that could be used as trails) to remain gravel. Leaving this trail unpaved would promote its use for educational tours and bird-watching over its use as a commuter route.
One of the proposed trail improvements that would be funded by the non-Federal sponsors (i.e., is not cost-shared by the USACE) is creating a paved section of the planned Bay Trail along SR 237. Once this trail is paved and linked to other existing Bay Trail segments, users would be able to quickly and more safely pass through the area. This would have the added benefit of reducing the potential numbers of people who might use the Refuge trails to connect between the existing Coyote Creek section of the Bay Trail east of the study area and the Sunnyvale section of the Bay Trail west of the study area for purposes other than Refuge visitation. Trail users would still be able to easily access the Refuge trails but would have the option of using the more direct, paved SR 237 trail. This is a beneficial impact.
Pond A18 (about 860 acres), owned by the City of San José, is also included in the Shoreline Phase I Study Area, although it is not included in the SBSP Restoration Project study area and is not covered in the SBSP Restoration Project Programmatic EIS/EIR. Although Pond A18 was not considered in the SBSP Restoration Project, primarily due to not being a USFWS-managed property, the actions being proposed for the pond are similar to those proposed for the rest of the Alviso Complex ponds, and the addition to the Shoreline Phase I Study Area is consistent with the goals for the greater South Bay tidal restoration”.
Pond A4, owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and Pond A18, owned by the City of San Jose, are not part of the SBSP Restoration Project; therefore, the condition of these ponds was assessed through coordination with the respective landowner.
