Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES• Restoration of certain areas would improve currently degraded habitat values in these areas.• Stormwater system improvements would reduce flooding and overland flows and associated sedimentationand transport of pollutants from developed areas into fish-bearing stream channels.• Improvements to fish passage barriers along Parish Creek would potentially increase the amount of suitablehabitat for salmon and other fish that are found within this stream.These proposed amendments would provide beneficial impacts to wildlife and their habitats at the watershedlevel. In addition to addressing future development and potential impacts from a landscape-scale perspective,planned restoration actions could potentially improve existing degraded habitats.Alternative 3Under this alternative, approximately 69 acres, or 1 percent of the total area of the Gorst watershed, would bedeveloped in the future; additionally, existing or future rights of way and lands for public purposes would bedisturbed. Therefore, the amount of existing wildlife habitat that would be impacted by development activities inthe UGA would be nearly the same as that under Alternative 2, and nearly double that under Alternative 1. Thetotal impacted acreage would remain very small, however.Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 includes 16 acres of land zoned as Open Space/Recreation within the UGA.Additionally, the area surrounding this open space would be zoned as Low Intensity Waterfront, rather than thecommercial zoning under Alternative 2; while it would allow commercial uses, the pattern would have smalleramounts of impervious area and there would be incentives for shoreline reclamation. Therefore, out of the threealternatives, this zoning would potentially result in the highest quality wildlife habitat within the southeast portionof the UGA. However, it is expected that urban wildlife and common species would still predominate.Like under Alternative 2, the Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization & Framework Plan and Gorst Subarea Planwould be implemented under Alternative 3. In addition stormwater improvement projects would be identified andimplemented. Draft policies promote compatible shoreline regulations and minimization of impervious surfaces,sedimentation, and stormwater runoff associated with future development in order to minimize associatedimpacts to habitats and species in Gorst Creek, including listed salmonids. Additionally, the final Subarea Planaddressing a preferred alternative could incorporate one of the shoreline buffer options in this Draft EIS AppendixD Shoreline Buffer Comparison & Options or another similar option to provide for compatibility of standards.As the Shoreline Master Program, Watershed Characterization & Framework Plan, Gorst Subarea Plan andimprovements to stormwater facilities would be implemented under this alternative, effects to fish and wildlifeassociated with implementing the plan would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. At a landscape scale,protection of fish and wildlife habitats and populations within the watershed would be greater than underAlternative 1. Additionally, some of the proposed policies and plans would have the potential to improve existingdegraded habitats. Aquatic species, including listed salmon and steelhead, would receive the greatest amount ofbenefit from actions under the proposed plans.Mitigation MeasuresIncorporated Plan FeaturesNew plans that would be implemented under Alternatives 2 and 3 include features that would serve as mitigationfor impacts to plants and animals within the study area. Regulation amendments would incorporate the suggestedmanagement measures shown in Table 2-8 Integrated Watershed Processes and Habitat Results and ManagementMeasures.Possible plan features that would serve as mitigation for potential impacts to plants and animals include thepolicies and BMPs that address:• Minimizing new development and maintaining forest cover in areas that have high wildlife habitat value.Draft | June 2013 3-68