New Search
Environmental Consequences <br />This chapter is the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of the alternatives. This chapter <br />describes the probable consequences (i.e., effects) of each alternative on the selected <br />environmental resources. The chapter is arranged. by alternatives, with a discussion of issues (in <br />the same order they were presented in Chapter 3) under each alternative. <br />Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) <br />Watershed drainage function <br />Alternative 1 would not affect watershed drainage functions. Current conditions including the <br />.acreage of protected riparian area and the length of protected waterways would remain unaltered. <br />Wildlife Habitat <br />Alternative 1 would not impact wildlife habitat. Current habitat including the acreage of habitat <br />vegetated with native forest and the contiguity with adjacent wildlife habitat would remain <br />unaltered. <br />Native Plant Populations <br />Alternative ?would not impact native plant populations. Current habitat including the acreage of <br />native dominated plant communities, and acres of the site vulnerable to invasion would remain <br />unaltered. Currently there are 5.5 acres of the property that are within 50' of Dillard Road. This <br />acreage would -not change. <br />Soil Resources . <br />Alternative 1 would not impact soil resources. Current soil resources including the acreage of <br />disturbed soil would remain unaltered and in its current stable condition. <br />Alternative 2 (No Action) <br />Watershed drainage function <br />Alternative 2 would lead to degradation of watershed drainage functions. Development of home <br />sites, roads, and utility infrastructure would leave waterways and riparian buffers unprotected. <br />There would likely be several road crossings installed with culverts and it is possible that backyard <br />fences would abut the waterway leaving it vulnerable to dumping and other degradation. <br />Impervious surface would be increased significantly. Using the lower end estimate of 77 homes at <br />an average roof area of 1,800 ft2 and a driveway of 900 ft2 produces 4.8 acres of impervious <br />surface. In addition, estimating approximately 15,000 feet of new roads (a double loop road across <br />the site) and sidewalks at a width of 38' produces another 13 acres of impervious surface. Thus, <br />the development would increase impervious surface by at least 17.8 acres. Using the higher figure <br />of 115 homes results in a total impervious surface increase of over 20 acres. <br />The increase in impervious surface, reduction in riparian buffer and reduction in forest cover would <br />result in an increase in both the rate and quantity of flow in the waterways during storm events. <br />This increase would lead to erosion of the channel bottom and sides destabilizing the channel and <br />leading to downcutting. <br />Wildlife Habitat <br />Alternative 2 would significantly reduce wildlife habitat. Using the minimum number of home sites <br />(77) and multiplying by the minimum lot size in a low density R-1 development (4,500 ft2) results in <br />a reduction of 8 acres of habitat vegetated with native forest. In addition, native forest habitat is <br />further reduced 13 acres by roads, assuming 15,000 linear feet of roads at a width of 38'. Thus, at <br />a minimum the site would have 21 acres of habitat loss. Using the higher figure of 115 home sites <br />o calculate habitat loss results in 25 acres. <br />