Direct and Indirect Effects Sample Clauses

Direct and Indirect Effects i) Alternative 1 – Original Proposal:

Direct and Indirect Effects. Roads The ground-disturbing activity associated with road construction may flush individuals within the vicinity and temporarily expose them to increased risk of predation. Additionally, ground disturbance introduces the potential for weed establishment. With respect to direct effects of the new road, it is not known if there are direct mortalities from road traffic, but with max speeds of 35 mph and the need to travel even slower on most roads within the action area, road traffic is not expected to cause significant or measurable direct mortality. With respect to indirect effects of the new road, roads can reduce the quality of proximal habitat via increased invasive plant species abundance and increased predation. Roads may facilitate increased predation by providing predators with linear routes through sage- grouse habitat. When birds choose to nest in close proximity to roads, nest success and chick survival may be reduced due to increased susceptibility to predation. Furthermore, roads can reduce the function of proximal habitat via documented behavioral avoidance. Birds may change behavior in order to avoid noise and disturbance of motorized travel or increased predator travel. This may be particularly true in the case of lekking and nesting habitat. At the patch-scale within the Gunnison Basin, Xxxxxxxx’x 2011 study of nesting habitat found that the most predictive variable for nest site selection was the Euclidean distance to the nearest road class 1 or 2, or paved, high-volume roads. This is compounded by prior avoidance at the landscape-scale of areas with a high-density of roads class 1-4.

Direct and Indirect Effects. The operation of diesel marine engines on the survey vessel, R/V Thunder would cause emissions of regulated air pollutants. A thorough examination of emission sources is included in Appendix C, Air Quality, and includes the inventory of projected emissions. The emissions would occur primarily from operation of the main engines, propulsion engines, and generator sets aboard the ship. The survey would use equipment that is mobile, non-stationary, and is not expected to be used in one specific area for a long period of time. The engines and all equipment would be operated according to the manufacturer’s recommended specifications. The emissions analysis shows that the combination of emissions from the main engines, propulsion engines, and the generator sets would not cause emissions of any of the regulated pollutants to exceed 100 tons (90.72 metric tons) per year, indicating a negligible effect on air quality. Persistent moderate winds, and episodes of strong winds, which are typically found over the open waters of the Beaufort Sea, have a tendency to disperse and mix air pollutants within the surrounding air. The stronger winds cause greater turbulence in the air and greater dilution of pollutants which decreases pollutant concentrations and reduces the environmental impact (Xxxxxx, 2013). Likewise, due to the transitory and mobile nature of the emission sources expected for the Noticed Activities, pollutants emitted from the Noticed Activities would likely disperse rapidly. As such, they would be unlikely to build up in high concentrations. In light of the wind conditions over the Noticed Activities Area, the relative lack of onshore sources, together with the relatively low emissions caused by the Noticed Activities, the quality of the air over the affected area would remain better than required by Federal standards (ADEC, 2010). As such, the potential impacts on air quality would be negligible.

Direct and Indirect Effects. The Noticed Activities would occur in Foggy Island Bay and adjacent coastal area, at the West Dock, Endicott, East Dock, and road accessible gravel pads. The Noticed Activities could affect water quality in the area through:  Vessel discharges (permitted by USEPA under vessel permit);  Wastewater discharge at camps (under State permit); and  Staging activities on the shoreline. The potential direct and indirect effects from these Noticed Activities on water quality include:  Vessel Discharge: Temporary water quality degradation at localized sites due to non-fuel contaminants from seismic vessel discharge and deck runoff.  Non-point Runoff: Temporary water quality degradation at localized sites due to physical disturbance and sediment runoff from activities (at docks, field camp, access roads, gravel pads). The level of effects of the Noticed Activities during July through October, 2014, on water quality would be temporary and negligible. Depending on the specific activity, the effects would be localized (e.g. vessel discharge according to permit limitations) or dispersed (e.g. non-point runoff from gravel pads and access roads).

Direct and Indirect Effects. The Noticed Activities would occur in Foggy Island Bay and adjacent coastal area, at the West Dock, Endicott, East Dock, and road accessible gravel pads. The Noticed Activities listed below during the open water season of 2014, (approximately July 15 through October 31, 2014), could affect fish in the Noticed Activities Area:  Noise from survey methods (airgun discharge, multibeam echosounder, sidescan sonar, subbottom profiler, magnetometer);  Vessel traffic throughout the Noticed Activities Area;  Vessel discharges (permitted by USEPA under vessel permit);  Wastewater discharge at camps (under state permit); and  Staging activities at road-accessible gravel pads along the coast. Noise: The potential direct and indirect effects from these Noticed Activities on fish species include Airgun Discharge, Sonar and Vessel Noise. Noise from ships, airgun shots, and sound from other survey methods could affect fish through interference with sensory orientation and navigation, decreased feeding efficiency, scattering of fish away from a food source and redistribution of fish schools and shoals (Xxx, 2009; Xxxxxxx et al., 2010; Xxxxxxx et al., 2010; Xxxxxxxxxxx, et al., 2010; Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx, 2011). Pelagic species, such as capelin, Arctic cod, adult salmon, and similar species could startle and scatter as noise continues and, in theory, escape to a distance that receives reduced levels of sound. Adult Arctic cisco, least cisco, broad whitefish, and Xxxxx Xxxxxx, that are more obligated to migrate and feed along the coast in the seasonal band of water may not be as able to move from the area of seismic airguns. Similarly, Arctic flounder that are in shallow waters in the summer and other nearshore benthic- obligated fish (such as sculpin species) may not be capable of escaping seismic exposure. Foraging and reproduction behaviors of benthic-obligate fish could be affected negatively by noise from the Noticed Activities. Fish eggs and fish larvae (such as Arctic cod young-of-year in summer) in the immediate area of airgun operations would have greater seismic exposure due to their limited swimming behaviors, and behavioral traits; morbidity or mortality of fish eggs and larvae in the Noticed Activities Area are expected to occur. Vessel Discharge: Vessel discharges and deck runoff (limited by permit specifications) would cause temporary water quality degradation at localized sites and which could reduce visibility for visual- feeders and could expose fish in ...

Direct and Indirect Effects. Potential effects of the Propose Action on coastal and marine birds are summarized in categories of:  Disturbance from the physical presence of vessels.  Disturbance from noise by vessels or seismic airguns.  Birds encountering vessels. Vessel activity could disturb birds. Flocks of migrating or flightless birds would generally move away from vessel activity. There is an energetic cost to repeatedly moving away from vessel disturbances as well as a cost in terms of lost foraging opportunities or displacement to an area of lower prey availability. Seismic survey activity is expected to have localized disturbance effects on certain marine bird species that are distributed across the Noticed Activities Area. The more abundant species (long-tailed ducks, common and king eiders) would be affected more than ESA-listed species that are less common in the action area. Migrating birds would likely experience temporary impacts as they moved through the Noticed Activities Area. Molting birds could be disturbed repeatedly if they were unable to relocate (i.e., flightless) to another area when seismic operations were occurring. During the course of normal feeding or escape behavior, some birds could conceivably be near enough to an airgun to be injured by a pulse. The reactions of birds to airgun noise suggest that a bird would have to be very close to the airgun to receive a pulse strong enough to cause injury, if that were possible at all. Injury to birds in offshore waters is expected to result in a negligible level of effect because birds are most likely to move away from slow-moving seismic vessels well in advance of the towed seismic-airgun array. Flightless birds at sea remain capable of slowly moving away from disturbances. Mitigation measures 1and 2 of Section 2.2.3 could minimize adverse effects to marine and coastal birds. Seabirds, attracted to lights and vessels in nearshore waters, could collide with a vessel and be injured or killed. Marine and coastal birds could be disoriented by storms or collide with vessels during inclement weather (e.g., fog, rain) or darkness. Vessels operating in marine environments often encounter passerines and shorebirds species during when the birds are migrating. In 2012, Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. and Shell Offshore, Inc. (collectively referred to as Shell) conducted an exploration drilling program in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Shell reported that at least 131 birds were observed on their drilling units and support v...

Direct and Indirect Effects. The potential effects from geophysical and geologic surveys on marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea have been evaluated in the 2006 Seismic PEA (USDOI, MMS, 2006a), Beaufort Sea Multiple-Sale EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2003), the National Marine Fisheries Service Incidental Harassment Authorization application (BPXA, 2014c) , the Programmatic Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2013) and are evaluated by BPXA in their Ancillary Activity Notice. Potential effects of the noticed ancillary-survey activities on marine mammals are summarized in categories of:  Disturbance from the physical presence of vessels;  Disturbance from vessel noise;  Disturbance from Airguns, Multibeam Echosounder. Sub-bottom Profiler. And Sidescan Sonar noise; and  Vessels striking marine mammals. Presence of Vessels Generally, walruses and seals enter the water if approached too closely. PSOs and vessel crew would be on the constant look-out for marine mammals on ice or in the water and would avoid disturbing them with close approaches. Careful monitoring and avoidance procedures will minimize impacts to marine mammals from vessel disturbance. Vessel Noise Vessels have a transitory and short-term presence in any specific location. Marine mammals often avoid vessels operating in open water, including survey vessels (Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 1995a; Xxxxxxxxxx et al., 1995b). Vessels produce continuous low frequency noise at around 160 dB which is detectable by marine mammals at distances sufficient to allow a marine mammal to avoid operations. In the case of whales or seals that do not avoid survey vessels the associated noise, operations procedures provided in the incidental harassment authorization application (BPXA, 2014c) would reduce or eliminate any potential effect on marine mammals in the area. BPXA requested an IHA from NMFS for these activities on February 11, 2014. Mitigation measures included in this application include reducing vessel speeds when in the presence of marine mammals and the use of PSOs to monitor a safety zone out to 180 and 190 dB during seismic operations. The IHA application details seismic array ramp up and power down procedures, protocol for PSO’s during poor visibility conditions, and reporting requirements. Airguns, Multibeam Echosounder, Sub-bottom Profiler, and Sidescan Sonar noise Firing airgun arrays produce pulses of noise, typically in 8–14 second intervals, with most energy releasing within a narrow frequency range. PSOs would be on duty during periods of airgun operat...

Direct and Indirect Effects. Subsistence Activities Vessel mobilization will occur at West Dock or Endicott and 20 individuals will be involved in the operation. Individuals will be housed at BPXAs existing camps and on the survey vessel. The Noticed Activities have the potential to affect marine and terrestrial subsistence harvests due to the location and time of the project. The Noticed Activities will take place between July and September with seismic data acquisition occurring in July and August in the Foggy Island Bay area of The Beaufort Sea. Mobilization is scheduled to begin prior to July 1st from existing facilities in Deadhorse. BPXA’s plan of operation (BPXA, 2014b) commits to mitigation measures described in their Environmental Impact Assessment (BPXA, 2014d). BPXA is currently negotiating a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) and Plan of Cooperation (POC) with the Alaska Eskimot Whaling Commission (AEWC), and also plans to hold meetings in the village of Nuiqsut and with the AEWC. The Noticed Activities will have negligible to minor effects on subsistence resources due to the timing and location of the project. Marine and terrestrial subsistence hunts undertaken by Nuiqsut and Kaktovik hunters will be able to continue. The largest source of conflict will be from noise associated with the number of vessels working in the area and use of airguns in the Noticed Activities Area. Based on the timing (July-October) and spatial location (Foggy Island Bay area of the Beaufort Sea) of the Noticed Activities, subsistence hunting for marine mammals, birds, fish and terrestrial animals falls within the noticed schedule. Subsistence hunting which overlaps the Noticed Activities Area will be for Bowhead whales, ringed and bearded seal, fish, geese, eider and caribou. Cross Island, located approximately 14 miles (22 km) from the Noticed Activities Area, is the primary location for bowhead whaling hunting by Nuiqsut hunters and occurs north of the Noticed Activities in water depths of 50ft. The Noticed Activities are located inside the barrier islands and have potential effects to marine and terrestrial subsistence hunts of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik due to increased human activity, vessel traffic, and airguns. Mitigation described in the IHA application, if issued, would protect subsistence harvests. Effects from the project in the Beaufort Sea should not be long-term, but limited to the season in which the seismic work is conducted: July-October 2014. There will be negligible to minor effects...