SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDepartment representatives who assisted the planning team in Management Plan developmentand review. The goals, described in detail in Section II.A, above, were used by the teamthroughout the planning process to provide direction for development of the alternatives and thepreferred Management Plan. The goals serve as a foundation for the policies and managementactions and would also serve as a basis for ongoing evaluation of Management Planimplementation.Information was gathered regarding water quality, natural resources, cultural resources, andwildfire severity and subsequently mapped using GIS. Each resource type entered into theSFPUC GIS became a separate map (or layer). Selected layers were “sandwiched” together toprovide information-rich composite maps, and a set of resource vulnerability/sensitivity maps wascreated for the Watershed. Together, these maps are referred as the Alameda Watershed ToolKit, and they define areas of the Watershed where resources are most sensitive to disturbance.The analysis of water quality, natural resources, cultural resources, and wildfire severity data wasconsidered together, with extensive public comments and public survey results, to form threeWatershed management alternatives. The three alternatives provided varying degrees of waterquality improvement as well as a focus on ecological resource protection, increased public accessand use, and other activities. Alternative A provides the highest improvement in water qualityand emphasizes ecological resource protection and enhancement. Public access would be verylimited under Alternative A. Alternative B provides a moderate improvement in water qualityand a balance between ecological resource protection and public access and other activities.Alternative C provides only a slight improvement in water quality and greatly emphasizesincreased public access activity. The alternatives are further described in Chapter VII,Alternatives. The alternatives were also presented at public, agency, and staff workshops.• The preferred alternative was derived from an evaluation of the three alternatives and wasapproved through a SFPUC resolution in January 1995. The direction of the SFPUC on thepreferred Management Plan was general in nature and applied to both the Alameda and PeninsulaWatersheds (with the exception of several Watershed-specific issues, such as grazing andmining). This direction provided the basis for development of the details of the plans.Subsequent elements further refining the Draft Alameda Watershed Management Plan includethe Sunol Valley Resources Management Element (May 1996) and the Alameda WatershedGrazing Resources Management Element (adopted July 27, 1997).The Sunol Valley Resources Management Element clarifies future policies and actions within theSunol Valley, particularly in terms of mining activity. In early 1998, after the Element wascompleted, the preferred alternative was changed to reflect the policies and actions in theElement. Changes to the preferred alternative with regard to the Alameda Watershed GrazingResources Management Element came about as the result of SFPUC and community concern thatgrazing activities on the Alameda Watershed could cause severe public health problems,primarily through contamination of water sources by Cryptosporidium, a parasite transmitted inthe feces of infected humans or animals. During several SFPUC hearings, expert testimony andcommunity concerns helped shape a revised grazing plan (included in the Element).NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan II-20 ESA / 930385January 2001