SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

VII. ALTERNATIVESpermits for mining south if I-680. It may be reasonably assumed that Alameda County wouldapply conditions 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.California Department of Fish and Game noted during scoping for the Management Plan thatsignificant impacts could result from the mining of San Antonio Creek under Alternative B.Construction and operation of the public recreation and educational facilities proposed under allalternatives could result in significant impacts on natural resources associated with spread ofinvasive plant species and disturbance of vegetation and wildlife, as described in Section III.E.Implementation of actions presented in Section III.E could reduce the potential impacts to a lessthan significant level. In addition, Alternative D includes a conservation easement that wouldfurther reduce potential impacts on natural resources.Air Quality. The SMP-32 EIR addresses the potential air quality impacts associated with miningactivities north of I-680. However, in approving SMP-32 and establishing mitigative conditionsof approval, Alameda County found no significant air quality impacts. Therefore, no significantair quality impacts would be expected from mining north of I-680 in substantial conformancewith SMP-32, as Alternatives A, C, D, E and F propose. Mining south of I-680 would be acontinuation of an existing use and would not be expected to result in additional air qualityimpacts. Alternatives B, C, D, F and S would require modification of existing permits for miningsouth of I-680. It may be reasonably assumed that Alameda County would apply conditions ofapproval to the permit modifications consistent with those applied to SMP-24, SMP-30, and morerecent permits such as SMP-32 that mitigate significant effects of mining.Construction of public recreation and educational facilities proposed under all alternatives couldresult in significant air quality impacts associated with construction-related emissions, asdescribed in Section III.F. Implementation of management actions presented in Section III.Fcould reduce the potential air quality impacts under all alternatives to a less than significant level.Operation of public facilities would not result in significant air quality impacts.Fire Management. Implementation of mining activities would not be expected to result insignificant fire hazard or fire risk impacts. Increased public use of Watershed facilities followingcompletion of mining could result in potentially significant increases in fire risk (i.e., increasedincidences of unauthorized uses, trampling of vegetation) under all alternatives. However,implementation of management actions described in Section III.G would reduce potential impactsto a less than significant level.Cultural Resources. The SMP-32 EIR addressed the potential impacts on cultural resourcesassociated with mining activities north of I-680. However, in approving SMP-32 and establishingmitigative conditions of approval, Alameda County found no significant cultural resourcesimpacts. Therefore, no significant cultural resources impacts would be expected from miningnorth of I-680 in substantial conformance with SMP-32, as Alternatives A, C, D, E and Fpropose. Mining south of I-680 would be a continuation of an existing use and would not beexpected to result in additional cultural resources impacts. Alternatives B, C, D, F and S wouldrequire modification of existing permits for mining south of I-680. It may be reasonably assumedNOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan VII-26 ESA / 930385January 2001