Laserfiche WebLink
4. Alternatives <br />Another constraint for these two Alternatives would be potentially competing policies between <br />BCDC and the other resource agencies. Because of BCDC's focus on public access, habitat <br />restoration requirements from USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG can conflict with its public access <br />policy because typically restoration attempts to preclude public access. Authorizations from <br />BCDC and USFWS would likely yield the greatest constraints. BCDC's permit approval may <br />include presentation to the Design Review Board prior to authorization and as such, the timeline <br />required for approval from this agency will yield some constraints. Additionally, BCDC's policies can <br />result in internal conflicts between departments which can add additional time in securing the <br />authorization. And because BCDC requires that all other authorizations be approved prior to <br />issuing its permit, this agency typically has the greatest timeline for authorization. <br />Securing the biological opinion from USFWS may yield constraints because of staff workload <br />and depending on the goals of restoration. USFWS staff is traditionally extremely short staffed <br />and overworked which can add additional time in securing the authorization if not managed well. <br />If restoration of the high marsh habitats is expected to result in habitat suitable for listed species, <br />a conflict with BCDC's policy of increased public access could result. This potential conflict <br />doesn't appear to be insurmountable, but should be considered when determining an alternative. <br />Additionally, USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG may require post -construction monitoring of any of the <br />alternatives (although most likely only for the Aquatic Park and Nature Park Alternatives) to <br />ensure restoration goals are being met and to ensure that the ecological systems are functioning as <br />proposed. <br />Overall Ranking <br />Please see Table 4-5, below. It does not appear that any of the currently proposed alternatives are <br />unpermittable although each alternative has constraints depending upon the activity. The Marina <br />Park Alternative is the least constrained alternative from the regulatory perspective. Permits would <br />only be required for construction of this alternative and because it could be viewed as a restoration <br />project, it would likely be viewed as favorable to the state and federal resource agencies. The <br />Aquatic Park Alternative is viewed as the second least -constrained alternative. This alternative will <br />require permits for the construction and operation but it is assumed that the existing permit terms <br />and conditions for dredging of the Marina would be implemented and would not result in increased <br />costs or regulatory constraints beyond what has been previously authorized. <br />TABLE 4-5 <br />ALTERNATIVE RANKING <br />Alternative Rank Ranking Justification <br />Marina Park Alternative 1 Fewest permitting constraints. <br />Aquatic Park Alternative 2 Some permitting constraints. Development of habitat may <br />conflict with Marina use. Agencies may require long term <br />monitoring <br />Nature Park Alternative 3 Most permitting constraints. May conflict with public access. <br />However, agencies could require long term monitoring <br />San Leandro Marina Harbor Basin 4-17 ESA / 210461 <br />Alternatives Study March 2011 <br />