Laserfiche WebLink
4. Alternatives <br />No Action Alternative <br />The No Action Alternative assumes that the Marina would be abandoned in place and therefore <br />might not entail any permitting or regulatory authorizations. As such, it is not discussed in detail in <br />this section. However, as a custodial action, demolition and decommissioning may be required and <br />these actions may require permits. As such, it is not discussed in detail in this section, nor is any <br />permit action considered in Table 4-4, above. <br />Marina Park Alternative <br />This alternative would require authorizations for both construction and operation. Construction <br />includes backfilling of the riprap currently located along the western shoreline of the basin and <br />construction of a beach along the northwestern shoreline and construction of a high marsh within <br />the western Marina. Placement of fill within the riprap areas and construction of the beach will <br />require permits for the placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the U.S. If the riprap is <br />removed and replaced with more natural features it's possible the agencies may view this as a <br />restoration depending upon the final use. The reduced Marina would include removal of some piers <br />and pilings and would require authorizations from all resource agencies. If upgrades to the Marina <br />include new piers, these activities would require permits as well. Dredging would be required <br />during construction and it is assumed that maintenance dredging would continue with deposition at <br />the South Basin or at the City's Dredged Materials Management Site (DMMS) site. Construction of <br />this Marina Park Alternative would require authorizations from California Department of Fish and <br />Game (CDFG), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <br />(USFWS) for protection of state and federal listed species during construction. It is assumed that <br />operation of this Alternative would also require authorizations from these agencies through <br />programmatic agreements through the Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for dredging <br />projects within the San Francisco Bay. <br />Aquatic Park Alternative <br />This alternative would require authorizations for construction only for removal of piers and pilings, <br />placement of backfill within the riprap areas, and construction of the beach and high marsh islands. <br />Construction of the pedestrian boardwalks and vista point would require fill permits from BCDC for <br />fill within bay waters most likely under a Coastal Development Permit. As with the Marina Park <br />Alternative, construction of the beach and marsh habitat would require authorizations from USACE, <br />BCDC, and RWQCB for fill within bay waters and within the 100 foot shoreline band. Removal of <br />the piers and piles would be subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and require a <br />permit from the USACE. USFWS, NMFS and CDFG would require authorization for construction <br />for the protection of state and federal listed species. Dredging would be required for construction of <br />this alternative but it is assumed that no maintenance dredging would be required as the system <br />would be designed to be self-sustaining. The resource agencies may require long-term monitoring14 <br />14 Such monitoring could involve a simple tidal gauge which would measure changes in MHW relative to the height <br />of the sediment at several locations. <br />San Leandro Marina Harbor Basin 4-15 ESA / 210461 <br />Alternatives Study March 2011 <br />