The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.7 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