SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

VII. ALTERNATIVESRevenue-generating actions compatible with Alternative C include grazing (emphasizing theprotection of water bodies and ecological resources while controlling fire hazard), and miningexpansion south and north of I-680 coupled with accelerated reclamation of abandoned miningpits and restoration for water supply and recreation activities, including fishing and swimming.2.0 IMPACTS AND REASONS FOR REJECTIONTable VII-2 provides a comparison between the impacts of the preferred alternative and those ofAlternative C. Because Alternative C would provide the highest level of public use and access,resulting in the greatest number of new facilities and improvements, Alternative C would havethe greatest impact on water quality and Watershed resources. Alternative C would require thegreatest level of management activities, fuel reduction, and staffing to reduce the effects of publicuse on the Watershed. Grazing would not be reduced, and adverse effects on water quality andwatershed resources in grazing areas would continue. Construction and operation of additionalWatershed facilities under Alternative C could result in impacts, such as natural resource impactsduring construction and increased sedimentation and water quality degradation associated withrunoff from construction areas and impervious surfaces. Increased public use of the Watershedunder this alternative could result in an increase in unauthorized use that would in turn increase therisk and hazards associated with wildfires, habitat degradation, and water quality degradation.Alternative C would include management actions and mitigation measures similar to those underthe preferred alternative that would reduce potential impacts. However, given the extensive level ofpublic use and grazing under this alternative, potential water quality, fire hazard, and naturalresources impacts could be unavoidable. Alternative C would not avoid the unavoidable significanteffect associated with loss of prime agricultural land due to mining north of I-680. Mining northand south of I-680 could be expanded beyond leased acreage, resulting in a greater loss of primeagricultural land than under the preferred alternative.The preferred alternative provides substantial opportunities for public recreation and educationbut would result in lower levels of impact on water quality, Watershed resources, andinfrastructure (staffing) than under Alternative C. Alternative C would have only a moderateresponse to the primary goal of the Management Plan and a low to moderate response to most ofthe secondary goals. Therefore, Alternative C was rejected.F. SUNOL VALLEY RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ELEMENTOPTIONS (FOR MINING)1.0 DESCRIPTIONIn developing the alternatives for the Sunol Valley Resources Management Element, three initialconceptual alternatives (mining Alternatives A, B, and C, as described later) emphasizedexploration of the range of water storage, recreation, and revenue-generation possibilities in theSunol Valley. Public sentiment generally favored Alternative B, which does not allow miningnorth of I-680 and includes recreational, agricultural, and other revenue-generating actions in thisarea to partially offset the loss of mining revenue. However, Alternative B calls for removal ofNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan VII-18 ESA / 930385January 2001