Laserfiche WebLink
<br />032871 <br /> <br />CHAPTER 4 . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES <br />fW~~;':X::;:;::::::W::;:;'-},<::"?~';:;$;'>,$~~-lli:=@$;:::::::m;r:~$AA:.~:::S:=~N&;{.-::~0;:;..W.&-r:::~::;j:3S<&:;.K~:X.~~<<:::W...,.>>:;':i:*:~?:~~-B~~::W..>>::'~;::::;';':;:'~:;'~::?;:.~:>>'~""$:.:::::::::;-;': <br /> <br />construction process, the impacts to soils are limited to a brief period of reduced productivity until <br />the trench disturbance is revegetated. <br /> <br />4.6.2.4 Ahernative C . Smaller Rnervoir Expansion <br /> <br />A tOtal of approximately 29.6 acres of soils would be affected under Alternative C as opposed to the <br />51.4 acres under the Alternative B. Discounting the 25.9 acres of borrow source soils discussed <br />below under subsection 4.6.2.5, a net total of 3.7 acres of soils would be lost to inundation as <br />compared to a net of 15.2 acres of soils under Alternative B. The type and duration of this impact, <br />as well as the positive aspects of 8.8 acres of wetland soil salvage, is considered to be the same as for <br />Alternative B with the exception that fewer acres of soils would be affected. <br /> <br />4.6.2.5 Borrow Area Options <br /> <br />Borrow Area A-I, under Alternative C, would affect approximately 25.9 acres of soils as compared <br />to the 36.2 acres under Alternative B. These soils, with the exception of 6.6 acres of wetland surface <br />soil materials, would be salvaged from the borrow site and used as fill during construction. The area <br />from which the soils were removed would then be inundated. The productivity of the soils to be <br />affected would be permanently lost. The small volume of salvaged wetland soil material would be <br />used to aid in mitigating the loss of wetlands. As such, the productivity potential of this material <br />would be retained. Borrow Area A-2 encompasses approximately 3.0 acres, of which the majority <br />is rock outcrop. Borrow Area B consiSlS of approximately 23.4 acres. A ponion of this acreage was <br />previously disturbed for fill materials at an earlier date and consists of a borrow pit undergoing <br />natural revegetation. The Applicant has not submitted a revegetation plan, including a soil salvage <br />and handling plan, for these borrow areas. Therefore, a discussion of the impactS to soil <br />productivity and soil erosion potential, or an assessment of the potential for successful reclamation, <br />is not possible at this time. The Applicants do indicate that these disturbances would be resoiled <br />and seeded, but there is no information, especially in terms of soil volumetrics, to indicate that <br />sufficient soil would be salvaged and reapplied to disturbed areas to support a stable, productive, <br />post-disturbance vegetation community. Therefore, it is assumed that the majority of the <br />productivity of the endemic soils overlying the borrow areas (excluding rock outcrop areas) would <br />be lost and that erosion would increase to an undefined degree over that occurring naturally. <br /> <br />4.6.2.6 Campground ReloCltion Site Options <br /> <br />Construction of Campground Relocation Site 2 would impact a maximum of 5.3 acres of soils as <br />compared to the 7.0 acres under Campground Relocation Site 1 (see Figure 2-5). The impacts to <br />Campground Relocation Site 1 would be limited to surface and subsurface soil disturbances resulting <br />in a loss of soil vegetation production and a potential for limited erosion. The primary soil (Map <br />Unit 74) to be affected under Campground Relocation Site 2 has a somewhat higher water erosion <br />hazard and lower revegetation potential than the primary soils (map units 75 and 6UC) to be <br />affected under Campground Relocation Site 1 indicating a potential for greater (though very limited) <br />soil losses due to erosion until surface stabilization is achieved. <br /> <br />4.6.2.1 Road Corridor Options <br /> <br />Soil acreage to be affected by Road Options 1, 2, and 3 are 1.4, 1.6, and 1.6 acres, respectively. Soil <br />erosion hazards are somewhat higher, and revegetation potentials slightly lower, for Option 1 as <br />compared to Options 2 and 3, due to the relative acreage of Map Unit 74 being affected among the <br />road corridor options (see Table 4-4). Conversely, the predominance of the low productivity soils <br /> <br />;.,....,7".,'7r,/m:::.1m::'"=o1Sl~"W0im';:;~m-my,:';Sj>~&.->>7.W."(.(".\o'."@"W..:W~.~~:.:-;~~.w.<<~~="l':::.:;:::-:::;:::~N$:-;~>>'~;.::~-$'~:..':(,;<<->>~:$.-.->:::~w.....-:;:::$:-m<mw. <br /> <br />Septembrr 1993 <br /> <br />Page 4.21 <br />