Laserfiche WebLink
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - WEP <br /> <br />hectares <br /> <br />% of Approved <br />FEIS High value <br /> <br />Total wetlands, in <br />hectares <br /> <br />T&E Plants <br /> <br />Nearby T&E plants <br /> <br />F' <br /> ender s Blue <br />BUtterfly (Fed <br />proposed <br />endangered) <br /> <br />'Western Pond <br />Tudte (Fed specie <br />of concern; state <br />sensitiVe-critical) <br /> <br />100% <br /> <br />t3.33 <br /> <br />Willamette Daisy, <br />22 plants <br /> <br />White-topped Aster, <br />17 clumps <br /> <br />Willamette Daisy, <br />32 w/in 15m <br /> <br />White-topped Aster, <br />8 w/in 15 m <br /> <br />None directly; <br />hectoring sources <br />would be reduced <br /> <br />Eliminates habitat <br /> <br />56.7% <br /> <br />14.40 <br /> <br />White-topped Aster, <br />3 clumps <br /> <br />Bradshaw's <br />Iomatium, 1plant <br />wfin 15m <br /> <br />Willamette Daisy, 5 <br />w/in 15m <br /> <br />V~ite-topped Aster, <br />8 w/in 15m <br /> <br />None directly; <br />hectoring sources <br />would be reduced <br /> <br />Temporary <br />construction <br />impacts <br /> <br />41.7% <br /> <br />9.08 <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Willamette Daisy, <br />>60 w/in 15m <br /> <br />Kincaid's Lupine, <br />>235 w/in 50m <br /> <br />None directly; <br />Larvae and larval <br />plant 18m south of <br />impact area <br /> <br />Temporary <br />construction <br />impacts <br /> <br />47.0% <br /> <br />9.95 <br /> <br />Willamette Daisy, <br />19 plants <br /> <br />White-topped Aster, <br />12 clumps <br /> <br />Willamette Daisy, <br />>60 w/in 15m <br /> <br />W~ite-topped Aster, <br />I w/~n 15m <br /> <br />None directly; <br />Larvae and larval <br />plant 50m south of <br />impact area <br /> <br />Temporary <br />construction <br />impacts <br /> <br />For the following additional reasons, both options of the Southern Alternative are deemed <br />unreasonable: <br /> <br />Natural Disastem and Hazards -~ch of the alternatives will be designed to utilize measures <br />that avoid or minimize damage or loss of lifb. These measures will include the installation of <br />barriers for protection from steep slopes and large objects and use of temporary and permanent <br />traffic control features (e,g. signs, striping, temporary concrete barrier, raised pavement markers, <br />etc.). However, for ~e Southern Alternative options, the flooding and Amazon Channel <br />characteristics require spanning the entire len~h of the floodway~ The floodplain is likely to be <br />raised from 1 to 2 feet as a result of implementation of the WEWP. The topography is flat and <br />uncertainty of floodway boundary ~s high. The structure costs contribute s~gnificantty to the <br />overall costs. <br /> <br />Land Use - The Southern Alternative is inconsistent with the transportation concept identified in <br />the WEWP where the tr~sportation corridor parallels the railroad tracks. The Southern <br />Alternative bisects remaining developable industrial lands within the WEWP area without <br />providing access to remnant parcels making unavailable a substantial amount of the land <br />designated for development in the plan_ <br /> <br />E~IBIT C-2 - FINDINGS <br /> <br />2O <br /> <br /> <br />