SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

VII. ALTERNATIVESTABLE VII-2 (Continued)COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALAMEDA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVESPreferred Alternative No Action Alternative Management PlanAlternative AManagement PlanAlternative BManagement PlanAlternative CAesthetics! New facilities andimprovements would resultin visual change.Management actions includerequire design requirementsfor structures andlandscaping.! Increased access could resultin increased litter andfacilities damage.Implementation ofmanagement actions (Safetyand Security and VisitorEducation) would reduceimpacts to less thansignificant.! If new facilities andimprovements areconstructed, visual changewould result. Actionssimilar to those included inthe Management Plan couldbe implemented. However,implementation would notoccur as part of acomprehensive plan.! Allows the least amount ofnew facilities and wouldresult in the lowest visualchange. Designrequirements would likelybe included in managementactions.! Restricted access wouldresult in lower potential forlitter and damage than underpreferred alternative.! Visual change related tonew facilities andimprovements would be thesame as preferredalternative. Designrequirements would likelybe included in managementactions.! Greater access would resultin higher potential for litterand damage than underpreferred alternative.Implementation of Safetyand Security actions wouldbe required to reducepotential impacts.! Allows the greatest increasein new facilities andimprovements and wouldresult in greater visualchange than preferredalternative. Designrequirements would likelybe included in managementactions.! Increased access wouldresult in higher potential forlitter and damage than underpreferred alternative.Implementation of Safetyand Security actions wouldbe required to reducepotential impacts.! Increased access wouldresult in a greater increase intraffic than under preferredalternative and would bepotentially significant,depending on the level ofincrease in public use.Mitigation measures, such asalternative transportationprograms, could be proposed.! Increased access could resultin traffic safety hazardsgreater than the preferredalternative. Implementationof similar mitigationmeasures as under thepreferred alternative wouldbe required.Transportationand Access! Increased access wouldresult in only a minimalincrease in vehicular trafficfor the region.! Increased access could resultin traffic safety hazards.Implementation ofmitigation measures wouldbe required.! Restricted access wouldincrease traffic in proportionto local population anddemand for recreation.! Some increase in trafficsafety hazards could occur,implementation of similarmitigation measures asunder the preferredalternative would reducepotential impacts.! Restricted access wouldincrease traffic in proportionto local population anddemand for recreation.! Some increase in trafficsafety hazards could occur,implementation of similarmitigation measures asunder the preferredalternative would reducepotential impacts.! Greater access would resultin a greater increase intraffic than under preferredalternative.! Increased access could resultin traffic safety hazardssimilar to the preferred plan.Implementation of similarmitigation measures asunder the preferredalternative would berequired.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan VII-12 ESA / 930385January 2001