ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Clause Samples

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The proposed project would implement the provisions of the CVPIA to provide firm Level 2 water supplies and up to the full Level 4 increment to ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ NWRs. The impacts of providing this water have been evaluated programmatically in the CVPIA PEIS, as described in Section 3 of this EA. However, additional site-specific analysis on the effects of using the water on the refuges is warranted. This section focuses on the site-specific effects that may occur to biological resources within these areas.

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 ▇▇▇▇ 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. 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 Alaska Native communities who are dependent on subsistence resources. There are no apparent consequences of either of the alternatives on the physical environment of CI, or on activities other than hunting, that are ongoing in CI. Co-management of Alaska’s marine mammals has generally proven to be very successful in allowing self- determination among Alaska Natives 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 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Under that agreement, the bowhead whale 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. 4.1 Biological Model of Effects of Harvest on the Recovery Time of CI Beluga Whales 4.2 Evaluation of Alternative 1 - Status Quo or No Action

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Due to a lack of species-specific surveys in recent years, it is unknown if NHGS is present in the analysis area; therefore, this analysis will primarily focus on changes to available habitat as a surrogate to analyze potential environmental consequences. Construction of the proposed fish barrier would also occur between mid-October to mid-March which falls within the NHGS brumation or dormant season (November to March; ▇▇▇▇▇ 2006), and, if present, NHGS movement would be minimal during the proposed project timeline. However, implementation of BMPs (see Table 2) would further reduce the magnitude of potential effects. The concrete barrier would permanently impact approximately 0.10 acres (of the 0.31-acre construction footprint) and temporary impacts would be expected on approximately 2.09 acres, designated as contractor use areas for material storage and equipment staging. As mentioned above, USFWS defined a NHGS home range as 5.5 acres under the CBA. Given the size and locations of the project activities (see Figure 4), habitat within one estimated NHGS home range would be permanently affected (fish barrier footprint) and temporary adverse effects would occur within one to two home ranges located within the contractor use area. Since the area of effect is small, construction would be of short-term, and aquatic and riparian habitat would remain upstream and downstream of the proposed construction, operation, and maintenance area, effects to NHGS from habitat loss would be negligible. Conversely, the proposed action is anticipated to protect a maximum of 124 gartersnake home ranges above the proposed fish barrier on both Freeport and non-Freeport lands. Effects from changes to the Eagle Creek flow regime as described in Section 3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences are anticipated to be negligible for NHGS. The proposed action could result in temporary adverse effects to the prey base for NHGS when salvaging and translocating native fish above or below the fish barrier site during construction. However, fish would be moved short distances and for the short duration of the proposed project. Any effects to prey base for NHGS would be short-term and negligible. Although the status of NHGS within the proposed fish barrier site is uncertain, it is anticipated that prey and habitat conditions for the species may improve at and immediately upstream of the fish barrier following its construction as the area will be protected from nonnative fish movement. This change ...

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. All utilities construction will be coordinated to confirm proper connections and capacities will be met. The wastewater discharge will consist of both general building sanitary sewer discharge as well as infrequent tank water discharge. The facility will use a sand-oil interceptor for the capture and removal of any tank water sediment. Utilities that service the building proposed for construction will be connected in compliance with all local and state regulations. Coordination with the City of Tuscaloosa will occur related to approved discharge levels and any required permitting regarding wastewater discharge.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Proposed Action will not impact any wetlands. No mitigation is required.

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. No mitigation is anticipated.