Green Parcel, Ridgeline Trail - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

• Environmental Consequences C This chapter is the scientific and analytic basis for ap ya the comparison of the alternatives. This chapter describes the probable consequences (Le., effects) of each alternative on the selected environmental resources. The chapter is arranged by alternatives, with a discussion of issues (in the same order they were presented in Chapter 3) under each alternative. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Watershed drainage function Alternative 1 would not affect watershed drainage functions. Current conditions including the acreage of protected riparian area and the length of protected waterways would remain unaltered. Wildlife Habitat Alternative 1 would not impact wildlife habitat. Current habitat including the acreage of habitat vegetated with native forest and the contiguity with adjacent wildlife habitat would remain unaltered. Native Plant Populations Alternative 1 would not impact native plant populations. Current habitat including the acreage of native dominated plant communities, and acres of the site vulnerable to invasion would remain unaltered. Currently there are 5.5 acres of the property that are within 50' of Dillard Road. This acreage would not change. Soil Resources Alternative 1 would not impact soil resources. Current soil resources including the acreage of disturbed soil would remain unaltered and in its current stable condition. Alternative 2 (No Action) Watershed drainage function Alternative 2 would lead to degradation of watershed drainage functions. Development of home sites, roads, and utility infrastructure would leave waterways and riparian buffers unprotected. There would likely be several road crossings installed with culverts and it is possible that backyard fences would abut the waterway leaving it vulnerable to dumping and other degradation. Impervious surface would be increased significantly. Using the lower end estimate of 77 homes at an average roof area of 1,800 ft and a driveway of 900 ft produces 4.8 acres of impervious surface. In addition, estimating approximately 15,000 feet of new roads (a double loop road across the site) and sidewalks at a width of 38' produces another 13 acres of impervious surface. Thus, the development would increase impervious surface by at least 17.8 acres. Using the higher figure of 115 homes results in a total impervious surface increase of over 20 acres. The increase in impervious surface, reduction in riparian buffer and reduction in forest cover would result in an increase in both the rate and quantity of flow in the waterways during storm events. This increase would lead to erosion of the channel bottom and sides destabilizing the channel and leading to downcutting. Wildlife Habitat Alternative 2 would significantly reduce wildlife habitat. Using the minimum number of home sites (77) and multiplying by the minimum lot size in a low density R -1 development (4,500 ft results in a reduction of 8 acres of habitat vegetated with native forest. In addition, native forest habitat is further reduced 13 acres by roads, assuming 15,000 linear feet of roads at a width of 38'. Thus, at a minimum the site would have 21 acres of habitat loss. Using the higher figure of 115 home sites to calculate habitat loss results in 25 acres. In addition, the site will be fragmented by roads and home sites." Remaining habitat will be in small patches and will not likely be contiguous to adjacent wildlife habitat areas.