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 CUtilities andPublic Services! Calls for infrastructureimprovement and relocation,but would not result inpotential utilities and publicservices impacts! Could result in infrastructureand relocation, but wouldnot likely result in potentialutilities and public servicesimpacts due limited publicaccess.! Could result in infrastructureand relocation, but wouldnot likely result in potentialutilities and public servicesimpacts due limited publicaccess.! Could result in infrastructureand relocation, similar topreferred alternative, butwould not likely result inpotential utilities and publicservices impacts.! Could require greaterinfrastructure improvementsthan under the preferredalternative. If improvementsare extensive, potentiallysignificant impacts couldresult from construction andoperation of theimprovements. Mitigationwould include standardconstruction and operationmeasures, as described inSection III of this EIR.! Increased facilities andimprovement would result ingreater construction noisethan preferred alternative.Implementation of similarmitigation measures asunder the preferredalternative would reducepotential impacts.! Increased access wouldresult in greater traffic andrecreation noise thanpreferred alternative.Implementation of similarmitigation measures asunder the preferredalternative would reducepotential impacts.! Increased mining expansionwould result in greater noiseimpacts than preferredalternative, but would stillbe less than significant withmitigation.Noise! Construction of newfacilities would result innoise increases. Mitigationmeasures would reducepotential impacts to a lessthan significant level.! Increased public use wouldresult in increased noiserelated to traffic andrecreation use. Mitigationmeasures would reduceimpacts to a less thansignificant level.! Expansion of mining wouldnot result in significantnoise impacts.! If new facilities andimprovements areconstructed, noise increaseswould result.Implementation of similarmitigation measures asunder the preferredalternative would reducepotential impacts.! Restricted access wouldresult in lower potential forincreased noise than underpreferred alternative.Implementation of similarmitigation measures asunder the preferredalternative would reducepotential impacts.! Expansion of mining andnoise impacts would be lessthan or the same as underthe preferred alternative.! Allows the least amount ofnew facilities and wouldresult in the lowestconstruction noise increaseand would be less thansignificant.! Restricted access wouldresult in lower potential forincreased noise than underpreferred alternative andwould be less thansignificant.! No expansion of mining,associated noise impactswould be lowest.! Construction of facilitiesand improvements wouldresult in similar noiseincreases as preferredalternative. Implementationof similar mitigationmeasures as under thepreferred alternative wouldreduce potential impacts.! Increased access wouldresult in greater traffic andrecreation noise thanpreferred alternative.Implementation of similarmitigation measures asunder the preferredalternative would reducepotential impacts.! Expansion of mining andnoise impacts would be thesame as the preferredalternative.NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan VII-13 ESA / 930385January 2001