HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.7 Camp Parks EIR Cj
DuBaflz
AGENDA STATEMENT t420.`57)
Meeting Date: August 23, 1982
SUBJECT : Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Camp Parks
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Excerpts from the DEIS
•
RECOMMENDATION Consider sending a request to the U.S.Army that the project include
a noise barrier as a mitigation measure to reduce noise and visual
impacts.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION : The U.S. Army has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) on the reactivation of Camp Parks for Army Reserve training activities. The
project consists of 32 training facility components including weapon ranges, skill courses,
driving areas and support facilities. The project also includes the reacquisition of the
Tassajara Creek Regional Park from the East Bay Regional Park District.
The DEIS identifies two potential impacts on City areas:
1 ) Based on the worst case (maximum use of the weapons ranges) , the project would generate
noise impacts on the residential areas along Dougherty Road from Arroyo Vista (Koman-
dorski Village) to the County Line. The noise estimates, however, do not consider the
shielding effect of the hills and trees.
2) The military training activities would be visible to and detract from the views of
future residents of the upper Dougherty Hills area.
The Staff recommends that the project include the following Mitigation
Measure: Construct a 6 to 8 foot high noise barrier (heavy timber or masonry) along but
set back from Dougherty Road.
The noise barrier would reduce potential noise impacts on the Dublin
areas adjacent to Dougherty Road. The barrier would also help minimize the visual impacts
of military training activities that would otherwise be visible to residents in the Dougherty
Hills area.
NOTE: The DEIS is on file for review in the City offices.
Copies To:
ITEM NO. 8. 7
4;)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REACTIVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA,
CALIFORNIA
Z
LEAD AGENCY - Sixth U.S. Army and HQ Presidio of San Francisco
COOPERATING AGENCIES - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
1 TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION AND AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS
Reactivation and Implementation of Development Plans for Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California
ABSTRACT
1 This report documents the environmental impacts of the reactivation of Parks
Reserve Forces Training Areas (Parks RFTA) for Army Reserve Component (RC)
training activities. Thiry-two development plan projects provide facilities
training needs of over 90 RC units in the San Francisco/San Jose/
Sacramento areas. Training activities include nine weapons ranges, non-
weapon skills courses and sites, tactical driving and maneuvering areas, and
training support facilities. The proposed action includes reacquisition of
Tassajara Creek Regional Park from the East Bay Regional Park District. Two
1 alternatives were studied in detail: no action and reactivation up to the
limits of current installation (no reacquisition of the regional park).
Questions and comments on the Approved By:
Draft EIS should be directed to:
Mr. Alex Maciejewicz Af
Facilities Engineering JO H. KERN
HQ Presidio of San Francisco 'olonel, CE
) San Francisco, California 94129 Engineer
(415)561-5176/4817 Sixth US Army
Comments must be received by: SEP 3 1982 . Approved By:
raa
Prepared By: BEVE L. cGRUDER
Colonel, CE
1 HQ Presidio of San Francisco Engineer
and US Army Forces Command
US Army Engineer District,
San Francisco
Appro d By:
1 JOHN B . ROSAMOND
Colonel , GS
Chief , Construction Management
Office
I
I. SUMMARY
I.1 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
MAJOR FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. The findings of the
environmental analysis indicate that the proposed development to full
11 utilization of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) including the
reacquisition of Tassajara Creek Regional Park (Alternative 1) would cause
potential adverse environmental effects of varying degree in the following
areas: soil erosion, surface water quality degradation (sedimentation) ,
direct pr indirect wildlife habitat disturbance, potential archaeological
resource disturbance, cumulative exceedance of sewage treatment allocation,
loss of regional recreation opportunity, noise generation from weapons ranges,
and indirect land use and local General Plan effects from noise intrusion.
raieTTEUI energy consumption impacts were identified as a result of fuel
savings from the reduced amount of motor vehicle travel by Reserve Components
to the centrally located and close in Parks RFTA. Environmental effects
investigated and found to be insignificant included seismic groundshaking,
ground water quality, wetlands impacts, stormwater runoff quantities,
floodplain impacts, local and regional air pollutant emissions, fugitive dust
generation, motor vehicle noise,1traffic operation and safety, local services
(except sewage treatment) , view corridor and viewer opportunity alteration,
historic resource effects, and public hazards from CS gas, explosives,
ammunition or the vertical trajectory of subcaliber mortars. In addition, a
biological assessment of effects to the endangered species, San Joaquin kit
fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) indicated that the proposed project would not
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
MITIGATING EFFECTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND SUBALTERNATIVES. Four sub-
alternatives to the proposed action regarding options for reacquiring
Tassajara Creek Regional Park (Subalternatives la through 1d) , an alternative
reactivation with no park reacquisition (Alternative 2) and the No Action
Alternative (Alternative 3) are examined in detail in this analysis. The four
Subalternatives (fee title acquisition, exchange of lands, short term lease,
and time sharing joint use) yielded few variations in environmental impact.
No exchange lands are available, so that Subalternative would be infeasible.
Fee title acquisition would necessarily be effected through exercise of the
Army's right to reacquire the formerly excessed lands for national defense
purposes. A short term lease (20 years) would provide the opportunity to
return the park to recreation use when the surrounding population would be
larger. Time sharing joint use was found to create significant logistical and
potential use conflict impacts.
The primary mitigating effects of Alternative 2 would be to eliminate loss of
regional recreation and public viewing opportunities by maintaining Tassajara
Creek Regional Park in recreation use. Also, soil erosion, sedimentation and
habitat disturbance impacts would be reduced. Tassajara Creek would be ef-
T1 fectively protected from increased sediment transport and riparian habitat
damage. Land use conflicts between military training and recreation on adja-
cent properties would occur, related primarily to weapon range noise gener-
ation on weekends. Otherwise, impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to
the proposed action.
I
I-1
I
I.2 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Limited local controversy has arisen regarding the proposed reactivation of
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA). Local issues of concern have
focused on (1) conversion of Tassajara Creek Regional Park to military
training use and (2) aircraft safety over Parks RFTA.
• 1.3 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The means of reacquiring Tassajara Creek Regional Park from the East Bay
Regional Park District is the only major issue requiring resolution.
•
•
•
•
•
•
I-4
] 0 0
J
- - 1 ' 17/''-'---- 17:"..\-1*--z- rQ '\s'% / f r.'L----)'lb?' --iff'.'1,,C3— c ,--7_....-----1... (n-,. -.''kip-- )te`x,-4.--- 2 I.
row -Hill -7,— I•/ -.-„7,-._ i . 1 ,- Illy
3 \ 1,
- Y " , I '1ti -• `1V �l'. � \7 ' `... ■ .. I
--,.. ,• s —2 k•--/r\,..., /,--.r2p,,,_,\/,..., y 1 II , - ,______ s•, - ‘ 1 , . , ...i,..,,,,......
3 ..---..& i •:. )
•
/ ,\,.....\..:;::„; 7Q \: \ I‘ ,....._1 (...>f')' C:(.17. 0 7,4 si"fr.,
,. ��,PROJECT t J. . .;,.. / Q**I. N -L_.... 417 , L--it- I. -' ""/ _!--%---` i 1 ,--' ; ,..v)' 1
3 •4 —..r • `,,• •�PARKS RESERVE��`_! r„.•' . r/ • '�,-- • •� /y
-- -- TRAINING AREA - -�
--o+ '`'FORCES _�_:••••• -•� %� �'i' 01,••'1-�
I,rAeK- • t is r �� .k ", TASSAJARA , , 1
.�� . 'I R x _^- : ` �' (- CREEK L . \. /?,i- •�
_ \ --� �,CJ REGIONAL PARK
•1 • . , ori rjictk. f P , 'pt 0. \it( cant �^
a8e \• D .. . O L., . '• i < 9to O t
3 . ,:■'' . '--) e--, Mei
w- _. -.5. ,4 . , • k r , ,dint_
„ ...:=.. ..„, ,, , .. . .
411:0, 1, ,
, v . .1- ER, \-7,_ 1 a#9 7:,
I ) —if—' r —1-1 IMMIlksomalmsunsw— i 116 •. b\ ,
xii
i /111 . .6 - ! . . 1111 �� .•
04.41(9-• ,.175 1 tillara .13 SN ....t, _______ ,.. _____ _._. ___ ....., r : __ •• .
r ' e i.,,,,;*„ ._ _ Y
i.t",,,.. ,...... i 1 •a, -ts ...- vorommos • '1- • •
1 �t ' titi'WI
�N-r,}+s ice '• ' A 11111616a7
• r�litJT IY O'��I� •s • L7 sane Iu 4/ f ' I...
�11L tts/ ' R sa- - •, (Alameda Col
/ ,t...4..../A\ - _ - ---��. . ^ -INTERSTATE 580'•: C. "'v /.
4 Yle„ .. .\3 .. g• : 1 • . 1.-
t
1..---■ \ 1p--- v. .
---■ \ VQ1 -.). S , : ■
1
3 6=1110
® FIGURE 2. LOCAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
:I SCALE
earth metrics 1" 6< 2500'
TT_1
I
0 0
— J ' I- ' ' ` '.��`�\) / �� rr (i ' . (.2. -
• 0 --- •, \ . eciiii 19•11 ..'." -;. y.r..•.::.7 i'm (j/ ii/1---,./\-- / / ' - ---( , 1
- "=„3,_,', ...„). , .,,,—, , , A,: ............,..,..%,,e', \-, i',., — i")// \ p ._:,
..„:.. .. ....,..?„.. ...... ,_,...,",.....- ,LN.J . _.
4, O -=J -'f( ( a • — rJ� C •e i .', 44
• ` + �. :5.."•'.tit :v\.▪ ;; ,y�� _• ', OM •
,'7 1s, / / 0 1 ?,',.. .... ..'..... .,14"...yf ��� ,� �r/•'• +'••'1�:. • a '��• ;^', ` - `' '•.\f • -;-' . = r I • 7„•.......*:t;!: ... r%^,.' •• " l .l-rt •+.+�W 1 "^ \. , z �
• --s,\� ° ; .�: ...p.......-....t.. j .: 5: Sips.. •* Vr '.r.: \`•
..6' ',71.--7---:-.- - I) 6::••••';-,•...'• *•:•.*:?•,.*:•;•!".1:,t. •:•';:tk••'I ...--.11,."":0■•••A%l' ,' 1?": / ---7. ,-' ,1 •--: 11.411itt.,sgJ.__ _
s ZW k / - ' ,lux V )11: ..4?,,,'
' eb.▪ V.• ."::.......1::•t..4.0 1,--. , \ i, , .
- 41 �' _ 'mi �l �i�,'r s. .
.vAeoy .I k.... tilr . ? 0, ''' ie:j -•\ ,-,) '''5-i. ,_ L. .. 5, -- =
.(A'MADO ) •, r./ `s I( " ' ,� ti
.� ,J : , , v .'1 Q.� .� i4• ,�,�.
n •.. , on. ' -•G` A, .9 P p -4 ,12}r • .-,r
1 e ID 6 i ?'U _' /- � ) < ll � I I••• E....* — . ....3S, .." r
-.• pi -- �_ sir. Fi�•► - \/1,��/ 4 0
ipos.,4; . 's7 v 'JI a 8 ,:i
�. phi
.i OHM' . tea
.0 40 4■4 •s--. is Pr.te,---)--- :111-0 mil
- .� ° tt..„.. ,... .,°... \•
�. i 1♦.. •.
•iI.�1 + ._. __. .' 0�_ �;E_ • =• , ,if ii _�� _-_
...- •• ...— - i ; 1.• mmissim IA • I
1�• 4
c ;T: Lr -
*I -M �' 3,- (Alameda CM •
s v scl:fi...;5.1. .I I N : , . ...
: i •• 4 \ I. i • A 's le : ir ' , /.,
i
NOTE: Facility numbers are keyed to Table-3 ( O? landscape plan includes
camp perimeter and range areas.)-Q Weapons ranges safety zone.
{
i t.
0 FIGURE 3. LOCATION OF TRAINING FACILITIES
-maws III IP SCALE WITHIN PARKS RFTA
earth metrics 1" - 2500'
., ;; ■•••
TTT_9
.......„-----
i
3
0 0
AI TABLE 3. TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA
REACTIVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
-ai
TRAINING FACILITY a FACILITY COMPONENTS INTENDED USE R/N b
Tim
in 1) .38/.45 Caliber - 20 meter range Allows familiar- R
f, Pistol Range - Encasing berm ization with pis-
- 20 firing positions tol firing using
- Fixed and swiveling service ammunition_
11,
targets
III - Control tower, 10 feet
- Portable latrines
2) M-16 Rifle Zero - 25 meter range Allows zeroing or R
Range - Encasing berm calibrating rifles
- 10 firing positions for true aim using
- Control tower, 10 feet service ammunition.
- Portable latrine
- Concrete pipe foxholes
with covers
3) M-60 Machine Gun - 10 meter range Allows familiar- R
-17 10 Meter Range - Encasing berm ization with ma-
- 10 firing positions chine gun firing
Bill - Portable latrine using of service
ammunition.
4) M-16 Rifle - 300+ meter range Allows reserve N & R
Field Fire - 10 firing positions units to qualify/
Range - Infantry Remote Target- familiarize annually
System (IRETS); mov- in rifle firing using
ing and pop up targets service ammunition.
- Hill backing and en-
casing berms
- Baffles to prevent Night firing is
raised weapons; eleva- possible
tion limitation device
- Control tower, 10 feet .
- Concrete pipe foxholes
with covers
- Portable latrine
Y. - PA system
Ia Training facility numbers are keyed to their location on Figure 3.
b R=Renovation, N=New
E Source: Sixth U.S. Army (1981).
1101 ,
I (continued)
CO 0
TABLE 3. TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA
REACTIVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (continued)
TRAINING FACILITY a FACILITY COMPONENTS INTENDED USE R/N b
15) M-203 Light - 4 lanes To allow practice R
Antitank Weapon - Encasing berm firing of subcali-
(LAW) M-72, - Concrete pipe fox- ber training rounds
Grenade holes with covers for Light Antitank
Launcher (TPT) - Salvage vehicle targets Weapons, M-203 and
Range - Control tower, 10 feet Grenade Launcher,
- Portable latrines M-72. Projectiles
emit pop and puff of
smoke to simulate
firing (not
explosive).
•/6) Antitank - 6 concrete pipe fox- To familiarize R
Guided Missile holes with covert reserve units with
(ATGM) Tracking - Portable latrines target tracking
Range using Dragon and Tow
launchers which will
utilize blanks.
7) MUST (Medical - Prepared site To familiarize N
Unit) and - 200 linear feet reserve units with
Bivouac Site gravel lined drain- the erection of MUST
age channels (medical) shelters,
- Fencing use of medical equip-
ment and bivouac sites.
'18) MEDEVAC - Unpaved level site To allow simulated R
Helipad - Wind sock casualty delivery
to MUST site via
medical helicopter;
to provide for actual
emergency evacuations;
to provide for limited
arrivals of administra-
tive personnel.
a Training facility numbers are keyed to their location on Figure 3.
b R=Renovation, N=New
Source: Sixth U.S. Army (1981)
(continued)
111-4
W
ill 0 0
_. . TABLE 3. TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA
REACTIVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (continued)
1
TRAINING FACILITY a FACILITY COMPONENTS INTENDED USE R/N b
' /9) MP Station - Upgrade existing To provide a R
structure facility for MP
- Relocate existing training and for
, r,, detention cells actual MP use dur-
ing weekend train-
ing periods.
`"10) Prisoner of - Raze existing dilapi- To provide a com- N
War (POW)/ dated sheds pound for use by
SERE Site - Contruct a barbed all units for SERE
wire fence training, and MP/MI
e.
- Erect flood lights units for prisoner
- Consruct two 12 foot control and interro-
high guard towers gation training.
Renovate existing
building
1::: V,/ Field Kitchen - Site preparation To provide a secured N
Site - 600 foot linear fence area for field kit-
chen equipment during
training use of the
post.
12) Demolition Range - 3 excavated and sand To permit training N
filled pits, 2 foot of demolition spec-
depths and 10 meter _ ialists in electric
diameters and non electric
g - LSan d bbunk ee ncasement priming g lay 4 n pnad rl
oed-
..?I
• training charges
(explosive).
113) Basic Driving - Stripe and mark To provide an area R
Course roadways for basic training
I - Fabricate driving in driving light
MI barricades and heavy military
vehicles.
I
r
t a Training facility numbers are keyed to their location on Figure 3.
b R-Renovation, N=New
' ,
Source: Sixth U.S. Army (1981)
(continued)
TTI-5
s
'�'. TABLE 3. TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA
.I REACTIVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (continued)
« , TRAINING FACILITY a FACILITY COMPONENTS INTENDED USE R/N b
✓14) Artillery/Mortar - Fabricated mock build- To train observers R
Subcaliber Range ings and targets; 1/10 and gun crews in
Aand Target De- scale firing, tracking
` tection Range and directing ar-
tillery mortar fire
(practice rounds,
• not explosive).
.~ ✓15) Expert Field - Small obstacle course To permit training N
, of litter bearer
, Medic Badge
Course (EFMB) teams and other ob-
stacle course train-
" <= ing.
To conduct EFMB
1 evaluation. .
- '' s 'V16) Confidence - Larger obstacle To provide a course - N
,.FLcourse for training of
r r Course
44' small unit leaders
; and physical con-
ditioning of troops.
1.
. 17) Vehicle - Place deadman To provide vehicle N
r-. Recovery Site vehicle and hold- recovery training.
-'-. fast in existing
rid stock pond
. i✓18) Expert Infan- - 10 work benches and To provide a test- N
. trymen Badge display tables ing area for con-
Site (EIB)
duct of EIB train-
- >,
, ,-- ing/evaluation.
'/✓19) Basic Physical - Track, one fourth To provide physical R
AY-
Fitness Train- mile conditioning.
# 4; ing (BPFT) To provide a physi-
cal training test
site.
; ' ' a Training facility numbers are keyed to their location on Figure 3.
..,•4 b R=Renovation, N=New
.•
• Source: Sixth U.S. Army (1981)
k
Atf (continued)
' ,.- 1II-6
TABLE 3. TRAINING FACILLITIES IN THE PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA
REACTIVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (continued)
llTRAINING FACILITY a FACILITY COMPONENTS INTENDED USE R/N b
71 —
/120) Rappel Tower - 40 foot high timber To provide struc- N
tower with open plat- ture for rappel
form on top training.
11 `4/21) Lineman's Course - 40 foot poles in a .To provide a site R
(Pole Orchard) sawdust bed; 8 poles for pole climbing
1 training for linemen.
22) Land Navigation - 90 markers To provide a facility N
Course - Course layout for training in map
reading and land
navigation.
11 123) Mask Confidence - Relocated quonset hut To provide for R
Chamber - Portable latrine respirator mask
-' 1200 square foot pad confidence train- .
1 for new location of ing utilizing CS_
hut gas.
124) CAMMS/CPX - Modified existing To provide train- R
Facility Com-
puter building ing in computer-
ized map maneuver-
Map Manuever ing.
System
'/ 25) Ammunition - 2 excavated hill- To provide vehicle R
Holding Area side dugouts with parking spots for
reinforced berms safe, temporary hold-
ing of ammo and explo-
sives during training.
/26) MOUT/RIOT - Existing buildings To provide an area R
Training for riot control
I and urban combat
training possibly
using smoke grenades.
31 7JI .
a Training facility numbers are keyed to their location on Figure 3.
b R=Renovation, N=New
3 .
Source: Sixth U.S. Army (1981)
(continued)-
III-7
11
,.
TABLE 3. TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA
REACTIVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (continued)
TRAINING FACILITY a FACILITY COMPONENTS INTENDED USE R/N b
%/27) Squad Defensive - Foxholes and To provide an area R
Positions fortifications for defensive posi-
tion training for
simulated attack
from EBRPD lands.
28) Hand Grenade - Existing area To provide an area N
Practice Range - Foxholes for practice gre-
nade training (not
explosive).
✓29) Tactical - No major construction To provide an area R
Driving Site - Use of existing for overland driv-
terrain ing of up to 5 ton
wheeled vehicles on
a navigated course.
v'30) Field To allow for prac- N= -
Fortification tice placement of
Mine Site mines (inert mines,
not explosive).
31) Wash Rack, - Trench and gravel To provide an area R
Motor Pool, wash rack for for vehicle clean-
Clothing Sales vehicles ing.
Store c - Upgraded building
To provide a facility
for training quarter-
master personnel in
clothing issue.
J., 32) Landscape Plan c - Vegetation strips To minimize aes- N
around ranges and thetic intrusion
camp perimeter of weapons firing
and detonation areas.
a Training facility numbers are keyed to their location on Figure 3.
b R=Renovation, N=New
c Not currently funded or programmed for development.
Source: Sixth U.S. Army (1981)
•
III-8
V.5 NOISE
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1.
Training Activities. Due to the differences in noise generation from the
training activities the following discussion will be divided in large
amplitude impulse noise sources and all other noise sources.
LARGE AMPLITUDE IMPULSE NOISE SOURCES. It is important to recognize the
differences of the described noise sources, since the effects from the noise
sources vary, depending on the maximum noise level and the duration of the
event. The noise source is characterized as a "large amplitude impulse" (very
high level and very short duration) and would include only one type of train-
ing activity proposed: the detonation of 1/4 pound explosives in the demoli-
tion range.
A study conducted by the U.S. Army Environmental Health Agency estimated the
extent of noise impact from the single event explosions (U.S. Army, 1981). In
the study, a 62 CDNL noise contour, based on worse case activities at the
demolition range (maximum use of the range) was calculated. The contour would
extend several hundred feet beyond the installation boundaries in the
northeast portion of the Parks RFTA (see Figure 17). The noise would also
extend 500 feet into the property that is currently Tassajara Creek Regional
Park.
OTHER NOISE SOURCES. Other noise sources include motor vehicles used during
basic driver training and tactical overland driving, small arms used on the
firing ranges, and transportation noise due to travel to and from the instal-
lation. The area which would be used for basic drivers training is located in
the southern portion of Parks RFTA. Based on the projected use, the calcula-
ted 65 ADNL noise contour of this activity would not extend past the immediate
vicinity of the course's roadways, entirely within government property. Small
arms firing to be in regular use on the weapons ranges would represent the
most significcant noise sources of training activity within Parks RFTA.
The Environmental Health Agency's study also examined the extent of noise
generation from the small arms ranges (U.S. Army, 1981). The calculated 65
ADNL noise contour, based on worse case utilization of the weapons ranges
(maximum use o f "r n _stations) would include the maj or portion of the
installation, a portion of Komandorski Village; one to two square miles of
vacan panned for future residential land use to the west; approximately
one a squ. e m e o vacant land to t e nort ; an. the major portion of
rassajara Creek Regional Park to the east (see Figure 17). It should be
noted, that the computations of the ADNL and CDNL noise contours do not
consider the sh e o e topography and vegetation. Therefore,
the noise contours should be considered as worst case estimates of the effect
on the community.
Reactivation of Parks RFTA to full utilization would generate a small increase
in the traffic volumes on the roadways in the vicinity of Parks RFTA. The
highest project related increase would be found on Dublin Boulevard (see
Figure 14) . The increase would represent 12 percent over existing levels.
Increases in motor vehicle generated noise would be less than 1 dBA. This
V-11
I
1
V. 11 URBAN QUALITY AND AESTHETICS
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1. The construction and renovations required for the
development to full utilization (including all Subalternatives) of Parks RFTA
include renovating existing ranges, lengthening of berms, building control
platforms ten feet in height and other relatively small scale facilities. No
new buildings, roads, parking areas or other major facilities are proposed.
The tallest structures among the training facilities would be the Rappel Tower
(020 in Table 3 and Figure 3) and Lineman's Course pole orchard (#21), both 40
feet in height. The facility with the largest area would be the M-16 IRETS
range (300 + meters with moving targets in the field and a berm, foxhole, and
u control tower system around the firing position).
Since all the facilities are of a relatively small scale in terms of height
and mass, only minor physical alterations of the Parks RFTA landscape are
effected. The northern portion of the installation should retain its open
space character, since the grasslands will be retained and a minimum of new
facilities would be located north of the range firing positions.
No permanent structures are planned for the current Tassajara Creek Regional
Park property. The primary training uses would be for tactical driving
(overland) and field maneuvering. The overland vehicle driving can cause
erosion scars and visually discernable paths on the hillside landscape.
Adequate management of land resources by the Army will moderate and minimize
damage to the existing landscape. - _
View Corridors. Major view corridors of Parks RFTA from viewpoints around the
# southern portion of the installation would not be significantly altered. The
small scale of the training facilities would be obscured by the presence of
the more prominent cantonment area in this portion of Parks RFTA. View cor-
ridors from Interstate 580, Dublin, Komandorski Village and the southern seg-
ments of Dougherty and Tassajara Roads would not be significantly altered.
4 Training facilities in the northern portion of the installation are mostly
located with a central area surrounded by low elevation hills. Consequently,
most facilities would not be visible. Certain towers and facilities would
cause insignificant visual impacts for views from points surrounding the
northern area of Parks RFTA. The visual corridor of the designated scenic
route, Tassajara Road, would be essentially unchanged by training facilities.
The range areas would be visible from certain points along Dougherty Road,
another designated scenic route, but landscape alteration would not be
significant.
The only major view corr s tha
tered by several training
ak , facilities wo . . - . - . .e - - . . - I.u:hert Hills. •
e upper portions of the eastern slope of those hills overlook the weapons
ranges and central areas lanned for the medical it bivouac, MEDEVAC helipad
Iii
n o st courses. Military activity would be_plainly visible from several
locations above the 480 foo* contO r of the hill slopes. The proposed and-
scape plan around the range perimeters would reduce, but not eliminate the vis-
ibility of these facilities to the Dougherty Hills area.
View Opportunities. The conversion of Tassajara Creek Regional Park to
military training uses would remove an area containing several prominent vista
V-25
points from public viewing. As a result, potential public viewing opportuni-
ties originally available from the park would be adversely affected, however,
current low levels of public usage of the park minimize its importance as a
public viewing resource.
Sensitive Receptors. The major area of concern for visual impact to sensitive
receptors would relate to future residential development of the Dougherty
Hills. The military training activities visible from upper elevations of the
' dills would detract trom residential views, but would not be significant
enough to prevent development. Except for this area, no adverse effects would
e expecte or nown sensitive receptors with this alternative.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2. The visual effects of this alternative would be
mostly similar to Alternative 1 regarding landscape alteration, view corri-
dors, and sensitive receptors. No difference in the amount of construction is
proposed between the alternatives; however, since Tassajara Creek Regional
Park would be excluded from the training area, there would be no direct
physical impact on the current park area.
Recreation visitors would be present in the park on weekends, creating an
additional area of sensitive& receptors affected by training activities. Park
visitors could only view the training facilities and activities from the two
prominent knolls and the minor ridge along the park's western boundary. Most
views from the park would be obscured by intervening landforms. Retaining _
Tassajara Creek for park use would also eliminate any loss in view opportun-
ities for the public.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3. The Parks RFTA landscape would undergo no signi-
ficant alterations with the No Action Alternative. Consequently, no signi-
ficant visual impacts would be anticipated.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The following measures are recommended to reduce impacts
of the project on urban quality and aesthetics.
- Implement the proposed landscape plan on range berms and around the
Parks RFTA perimeter (Alternatives 1 and 2) as part of an ongoing land
management program.
- The U.S. Army and county officials should coordinate regarding the
location and layout of residential development of Dougherty Hills to
minimize visual effects. Concentration of homes on the western slopes
of the hills would minimize the number of units that would be affected
by views of training facilities (Alternatives 1 and .2).
- Perimeter planting along the boundary between Parks RFTA and Tassajara
Creek Regional Park should be considered to reduce the visibility of
training facilities from higher elevations in the park (Alternative 2).
V-26