SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

I. SUMMARYlimits and mitigations set forth in Alameda County’s conditions of approval for SMP-32, and thatmining under SMP-32 would be consistent with their General Plan. In 1997, the findings wereupheld in Superior Court and on appeal by the Court of Appeal, after being challenged by a Sunolcitizens group. Upon re-examination in light of modifications to the timing and sequence ofmining and mining reclamation, and changed circumstances with respect to listed sensitivespecies, this EIR finds that, with additional mitigation measures identified in this EIR, therewould be no unavoidable significant impacts associated with mining north of I-680 beyond thatfound by Alameda County in the certified SMP-32 EIR and CEQA Findings (loss of 140 acres ofprime agricultural land). Many Sunol residents are expected to disagree.Another area of controversy involves the appropriate level of public access and use of theWatershed for recreational activities. Increased public access and use increases the risk of fire,water quality degradation, natural resource, and other impacts. The Management Plan attempts tobalance protection of the water supply with some increase in public access and use of theWatershed. Some persons will likely feel that the proposed amount of public access should beincreased. Other persons may feel that the proposed amount of public access is too great toensure maximum protection of the water supply and natural resources. This EIR analyzes theimpacts and suggests mitigation measures for the proposed level of public access and use, andanalyzes the impacts of alternatives calling for lesser and greater amounts of public access anduse.This is a program EIR that analyzes, at a general level, the potential environmental impacts of abroad range of policies and management actions proposed by the Alameda WatershedManagement Plan. For implementation of many proposed policies and management actions,their environmental effects are analyzed in sufficient detail to allow this EIR to fully satisfyCEQA. For example, the impacts of day-to-day management activities that implement theManagement Plan are analyzed in this EIR and would generally not be subject to furtherenvironmental review. However, implementation of certain management actions could requirefurther environmental review at the time more specific projects are proposed. The San FranciscoPlanning Department would require examination of many specific management actions proposedin the Management Plan at the time they are proposed for implementation to determine if furtherenvironmental review at a more detailed project-specific and site-specific level were necessary.Generally, further environmental review would be necessary if new significant environmentaleffects beyond those identified in this EIR would occur as a result of changes in the project ornew circumstances or information, or if new mitigation measures or alternatives that wouldreduce one or more significant effects of the project are found to be feasible but SFPUC declinesto adopt the measure or alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). Table II-1 in the ProjectDescription chapter identifies the specific management actions that are likely to require furtherenvironmental review.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan I-10 ESA / 930385January 2001