ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water supplies to the Xxxx and Xxxxxx NWRs. At a broad scale, the economic impacts of implementing the CVPIA have been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3. However, additional site-specific analysis is warranted. This section focuses on potential economic impacts resulting from changes in water deliveries to the Xxxx and Xxxxxx NWRs, and is focused primarily on trip-related expenses captured by local
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The environmental consequences sections analyze the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives in Chapter 2 on the resources described in Chapter 3. The alternatives differ from each other with respect to timber harvest operations and, specifically, with respect to land set aside for conservation purposes. The direct and indirect effects of each alternative (if applicable - some impacts are the same under multiple alternatives) are described in a separate section below for each resource. Direct effects are those effects that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are those effects caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed geographically but are still reasonably foreseeable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. In this chapter, the EA describes how the environmental topic areas listed in the chapter above will be affected by all the reasonable alternatives. The discussion should be limited to information and issues that have a bearing on potential important impacts, including the mitigation. Impacts may be adverse or beneficial, and the data and analyses should be commensurate with the importance of the impacts. Cumulative and secondary impacts need to be summarized for each alternative. In this chapter of the EA, the text must show how all applicable executive orders and environmental laws and regulations were met (some are listed in the text on CEs). Photographs, illustrations, tables, figures, and other graphics should be used with the text.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. This chapter evaluates the probable environmental, biological, cultural, economic, and social consequences of the presented alternatives. Generally, the direct biological consequences of the alternatives concern the impacts of harvest on the recovery of the CI beluga whales. Cultural and social impacts or consequences would be realized within local Alaskan Native communities who are dependent on subsistence resources. There are no apparent consequences of either of the alternatives on the physical environment of Cook Inlet, or on activities other than hunting, that are ongoing in Cook Inlet. Alternative 2 provides for a strike which would require a co- management agreement to be signed between NMFS and an ANO. NMFS has drafted such an agreement with CIMMC. In the process of negotiating the agreement, both parties believe that beneficial results to the efficiency of the harvest have been achieved through the development and adoption of guidelines or requirements intended to reduce struck and loss rate, avoid wasteful practices, and minimize interference with other uses of the Inlet. Co-management of Alaska’s marine mammals has generally proven to be very successful in allowing self-determination among Native Alaskans in their subsistence harvest practices while allowing for the necessary conservation of important stocks. The endangered bowhead whale is harvested under such an agreement between the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) and NOAA. Under that agreement, the bowhead whale harvest has been successfully harvested under the direction of the AEWC, and the bowhead stock has increased steadily. The AEWC is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the harvest, as well as enforcing certain actions within their membership, while Federal authority is retained.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Vallecito Reservoir fishery can be affected by variations in the amount of water in the reservoir and associated changes in water quality, available habitat, and productivity. To a greater extent, the Pine River fishery can be affected by flow levels. The Contract would allow for the use of up to 3,000 af of irrigation water for miscellaneous uses. Current use of this water for irrigation results in an estimated depletion to the San Xxxx Basin of 1,140 af (38 percent depletion rate for irrigation water) annually. Once fully used for M&I purposes, the depletion is estimated at 595 af7. While it is contemplated that a reduced depletion would occur if water was converted from irrigation to M&I uses, this assessment assumes that the historic depletion of 1,140 af would continue because the Contract simply allows for the use but does not implement it. There is no guarantee that any water would be used for miscellaneous uses. Changes under the Contract represent an insignificant amount of change in Pine River flows (see Table 4), water distribution in the service area, and reservoir operations. For example, annual Pine River flows immediately downstream from Vallecito Reservoir varied from 116,400 af in 2002 to over 416,000 af in 1987 and therefore changing the use of 3,000 af of this water is relatively minor. In the long term, summer releases from Vallecito could increase by 10 cfs while winter flows could be reduced by an average of 16 cfs in November and 9 cfs in December to “restore” the water released under the Contract. January through May releases would be reduced by 1 to 4 cfs, and January and February would continue to have the lowest flows of the year. Winter flow levels will continue to periodically fall below recommended levels; however, historic minimum flows (pre-2002) would not have to be reduced as a result of the Contract. Reservoir levels would be slightly lower in the late summer and fall but should not have significant effects on reservoir productivity. Overall, implementation of the Proposed Alternative is not projected to significantly change Vallecito Reservoir operations or Pine River flows; therefore, there should be no impacts expected to the respective fisheries under the Proposed Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, significant changes in the fisheries are not projected, although if development of new water sources occurred this could affect fisheries and river depletions, depending on which sources are developed.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Disturbance of the vegetation, the soils, and the slope of the site during construction will impact the area and will be closely managed during construction to maintain site stability and structure. No significant impacts to the soils at the site are anticipated. Fill dirt is estimated to be required for the project and the contractor will confirm that the fill dirt is clean and a soil type that is not easily erodible. Current fill volume estimate is 13,480 cubic yards. Stormwater best management practices will be put in place and maintained during construction of the project to control sediment erosion. Practices including silt fence, inlet protection and a stabilized construction entrance will be implemented as part of the pollution prevention plan and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction. The permit and plan will require detailed site inspections by qualified professionals noting conditions of the best management practices and any need for additional controls.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxx is the dominating surface hydrological feature closest to the site. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in short-term or long- term impact to surface water or groundwater resources because of construction or normal operating conditions. During construction, there is the potential for surface water impacts from sediment-laden runoff or from hazardous materials spills (e.g., oil, gas, and hydraulic fluids). The projectspecifications will require methods to minimize these potentials to include secondary containment systems and implementation of erosion and sediment runoff controls. The contractor will be responsible for any potential National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, or development and implementation of a construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Proposed Action will not impact floodplains or floodways. Mitigation No mitigation is required. Wetlands
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Proposed Action will not impact any wetlands. Mitigation No mitigation is required. Groundwater
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction of this project. However, localized zones of “trapped” water may be encountered and should be expected to develop within the soil overburden, especially after extended wet weather. If the general excavation is performed during the winter or spring, groundwater seeps should be anticipated, especially following periods of precipitation. After building subgrade preparation is completed, it is not expected for groundwater to significantly affect construction, and dewatering of any shallow excavations, if necessary, shall be accomplished with conventional sumps and pumps. Mitigation No mitigation is anticipated.
