SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

More documents

Recommendations

Info

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTSB. LAND USEpreviously analyzed and mitigated in the previous environmental documentation prepared forSMP-24 and SMP-30. It may be reasonably assumed that Alameda County would applyconditions of approval to the permit modifications consistent with those applied to SMP-24,SMP-30, and more recent permits such as SMP-32 that mitigate significant effects of mining. Interms of land use impacts, these mitigation measures include an understanding that uponcompletion of mining, reclamation uses are assumed to be agriculture and water storage. Anyother uses would have to be approved by Alameda County. The analysis of potential impacts toother resources (i.e., water quality and natural resources) associated with SMP-24 and SMP-30are discussed in the relevant topic sections of this EIR.Expanding the mining footprint within the leased area, proposed under Action sun2a, couldconflict with some existing nursery operations in the valley. However, the conflict would notlikely be significant due to the extent of existing adjacent mining activities (including gravelprocessing plants and reclamation pits). Depending on the specific location and extent,expanding the mining footprint could cause a significant impact of loss of prime agriculturalland. Amendment of the existing permits would be subject to project-level environmental reviewby Alameda County.Reclamation of mining pits as water storage reservoirs could have effects on nearby land uses.For example, localized climate changes could occur due to the presence of relatively large bodiesof water. At this time, such impacts cannot be assessed because future land uses and detailsabout reservoir operation are not known. However, future environmental review would berequired at the time construction of an operating system for the reservoirs was proposed todetermine potential impacts and mitigation measures.Science and Educational UsesScientific study is currently allowed by permit only. The Management Plan would continue thispractice, with the goal of increasing the understanding of the Watershed’s resources andbiodiversity (Policy WA11). The Management Plan considers the development of a WatershedVisitor Education Center (Action pub4), which would provide docent-led activities and othereducational activities (such as docent training). It could also serve as a day-use picnic area.Management Plan implementation would not conflict with established educational or scientificuses, nor would development of the education center be expected to affect the existing land usecharacter in the Watershed vicinity.NurseriesExisting nursery operations would be allowed to continue under the proposed Management Plan,and the feasibility of developing agricultural uses adjacent to Alameda Creek along Niles CanyonRoad would be explored (Action sun16). Implementation of the Management Plan would notdisrupt or divide the physical arrangement of established surrounding uses, nor would continuednursery operation introduce any new land use compatibility problems with nearby urban uses.However, water quality concerns associated with the use of fertilizers and pesticides by thesenurseries are of concern to both SFPUC and ACWD. Under the Management Plan,NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan III.B-13 ESA / 930385January 2001
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTSB. LAND USEnurseries would be required to establish greater setbacks from Alameda Creek in order to betterbuffer the Creek from any pollutants that could be inadvertently discharged.REFERENCES – Land Use_________________________Except where indicated, references are on file at the San Francisco Planning Department.Alameda County Planning Department, SMP-17 Apperson Ridge Quarry Environmental ImpactReport, 1984. (Available at Alameda County Community Development Agency PlanningDepartment, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Mission Rock Company SMP-24 Initial Study, 1985.(Available at Alameda County Community Development Agency Planning Department,Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Resolution R-86-62 conditionally approving SMP-24,1986. (Available at Alameda County Community Development Agency PlanningDepartment, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Resolution R-86-62 incorporating, revising, andconditionally approving SMP-24, 1991. (Available at Alameda County CommunityDevelopment Agency Planning Department, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Santa Clara Sand & Gravel SMP-30 Expanded InitialStudy and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, 1992a. (Available at AlamedaCounty Community Development Agency Planning Department, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Resolution 93-32 conditionally approving Santa ClaraSand & Gravel SMP-30, 1992b. (Available at Alameda County Community DevelopmentAgency Planning Department, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Mission Valley Rock Company Surface Mining Permitand Reclamation Plan, SMP-32, Draft Environmental Impact Report, 1994a. (Available atAlameda County Community Development Agency Planning Department, Hayward,California)Alameda County Planning Department, Mission Valley Rock Company Surface Mining Permitand Reclamation Plan, SMP-32, Final Environmental Impact Report and Appendices,1994b. (Available at Alameda County Community Development Agency PlanningDepartment, Hayward, California)Alameda County Planning Department, Resolution R-94-461 certifying and adopting the EIR,adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and conditionallyapproving Surface Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan, SMP-32, 1994c. (Available atAlameda County Community Development Agency Planning Department, Hayward,California)NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan III.B-14 ESA / 930385January 2001
Page 1:
San Francisco Planning DepartmentAL
Page 4 and 5:
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageIV.MITIGATION
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageLIST OF TABLES
Page 8 and 9:
I. SUMMARYcomprehensive set of goal
Page 10 and 11:
I. SUMMARYconstruction of facilitie
Page 12 and 13:
I. SUMMARYOperations and maintenanc
Page 14 and 15:
I. SUMMARYmanagement actions. Addit
Page 16 and 17:
I. SUMMARYlimits and mitigations se
Page 18 and 19:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION! to provide
Page 20 and 21:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION• southern
Page 23 and 24:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION4.0 MANAGEME
Page 25 and 26:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPolicies WQ3
Page 27 and 28:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION! walking of
Page 29 and 30:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONdecisions re
Page 31 and 32:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONraw, untreat
Page 33 and 34:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION6.0 PHASING
Page 35 and 36:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONApproximatel
Page 37 and 38:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONC. RELATED P
Page 39 and 40:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONE. ENVIRONME
Page 41 and 42:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAfter the Ma
Page 43 and 44:
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONTABLE II-1 (
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52: II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONTABLE II-1 (
Page 65 and 66: CHAPTER IIIENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AN
Page 67 and 68: III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPA
Page 97 and 98: WaterStoragePitWaterStoragePitWater
Page 101: III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPA
Page 121 and 122: AlamedaCreekNiles Sunol WaterReserv
Page 153 and 154:
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPA
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
0 6000FeetSOURCE: EDAW, 1998.Alamed
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
IV. MITIGATION MEASURESC. GEOLOGY A
Page 321 and 322:
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES3. In implem
Page 323 and 324:
IV. MITIGATION MEASURESF. AIR QUALI
Page 325 and 326:
IV. MITIGATION MEASURESI. AESTHETIC
Page 327 and 328:
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES2.0 MITIGATI
Page 329 and 330:
V. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONM
Page 331 and 332:
CHAPTER VIIALTERNATIVESA. METHODOLO
Page 333 and 334:
VII. ALTERNATIVESTABLE VII-1COMPARA
Page 335 and 336:
VII. ALTERNATIVESTABLE VII-1 (Conti
Page 337 and 338:
VII. ALTERNATIVESWatershed patrols,
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
VII. ALTERNATIVESemphasizes ecologi
Page 347 and 348:
VII. ALTERNATIVESunder the preferre
Page 349 and 350:
VII. ALTERNATIVESSan Antonio Creek
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
VII. ALTERNATIVESstorage under this
Page 355 and 356:
VII. ALTERNATIVESGeology and Soils.
Page 357 and 358:
VII. ALTERNATIVESthat Alameda Count
Page 359 and 360:
VII. ALTERNATIVESand F propose. Min
Page 361 and 362:
CHAPTER VIIIDRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION
Page 363 and 364:
IX. APPENDICESAPPENDIX IX.ANOTICE O
Page 365 and 366:
IX. APPENDICESB. SPECIAL-STATUS SPE
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
CHAPTER XLIST OF ACRONYMSACWDACWRSA
Page 375 and 376:
X. LIST OF ACRONYMSSRUEBUSFWSUSTsWH
Page 377 and 378:
XI. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS; OR
Page 379 and 380:
CHAPTER XIISUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND
Page 381 and 382:
XII. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPON
Page 383 and 384:
XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPO
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 485 and 486:
Page 487 and 488:
Page 489 and 490:
Page 491 and 492:
Page 493 and 494:
Page 495 and 496:
Page 497 and 498:
show all

SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?