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 Xxxx and Xxxxxx 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. Xxxx NWR
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. 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. 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 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 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. Overall, reservoir operations and streamflows should not be significantly different under the No Action and Proposed Alternatives. Under the Proposed Alternative, it is anticipated that 3,000 af of irrigation water would gradually (over a period of many years) be used for miscellaneous uses. Hydrological impacts are determined by overlaying the Proposed Alternative onto historical reservoir operations and ditch diversions (i.e., water demands) to determine impacts. Three primary assumptions were used in the hydrology analysis: • The entire 3,000 af would be required to be released for M&I purposes each year; • The entire 3,000 af would be required to be “restored” each year prior to the beginning of the next year’s irrigation season; • The 3,000 af would be released only during a call on the river (i.e., during portions of the irrigation season); similar to how the 400 af is currently released; and • The 3,000 af would not come from the Southern Ute Indian Tribe's 1/6 allotment of Project water. It should be noted that the assumption of fully using the 3,000 af each year is a maximum case; releases would actually vary from zero to 3,000 af depending on water conditions each year. Based on these assumptions, an operation study was developed and is shown in Appendix F.6 The water used for miscellaneous uses would be released to the Pine River generally during the period of the irrigation season if there was a call on the river. This would be over a period ranging from an estimated 48 days to 141 days, depending on river flow conditions. When the additional 3,000 af is fully developed, the M&I daily water releases could vary between approximately 10.7 and 31.5 cfs during the irrigation season, once again depending on river flow conditions. These releases would increase streamflows slightly in the water critical area (from the dam to the Pine River Canal diversion located approximately 4 miles downstream from Bayfield). Below this point, irrigation season streamflows should not change. Vallecito Reservoir content at the end of the irrigation season under the Proposed Alternative could be up to 3,000 af less than under the No Action alternative. This would normally represent a 1 to 2-foot reduction in reservoir depth in the fall but up to 4 feet in extremely dry years such as 1977. As stated above, this analysis assumes that any reduction in storage as a result of M&I releases would need to be “restored” each year. The approach for restoring this water is to ke...
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water supplies to the Xxxx and Xxxxxx NWRs. The impacts of providing this water have been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as described in Section 3 of this EA, but additional site- specific analysis is warranted. This section focuses on the site-specific land use conflicts that may occur with surrounding agricultural land uses. Key issues of concern to farm owners surrounding the Xxxx and Xxxxxx NWRs include economic impacts (primarily as a result of crop depredation by waterfowl and spread of avian diseases) and refuge expansion. Other land use and nuisance issues are considered minor (such as weed control, and beaver and muskrat damage) and would not change under the proposed project. The quality of refuge runoff water was addressed in Section 5.3, and mosquito control was addressed in Section 4. In order to understand how changing water supplies on the refuges may impact adjacent agricultural lands, the individual refuge management plans were reviewed. The purpose of this reconnaissance was to understand current refuge management practices and how these practices affect surrounding land uses. A similar process was undertaken to evaluate how the Proposed Action may affect these current practices.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Entering into the proposed long-term refuge water supply agreements may affect recreation uses in several ways. This section focuses on the on-refuge habitat changes that may contribute to changes in recreation use. Other potential recreation effects have been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3. Policies affecting on-refuge recreation uses are not expected to change, so any changes to habitats on the refuges are expected to directly correspond to changes in recreation use. The conclusions of Section 5.2 (Biological Resources) have been carried forward to this section SECTION 5: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (for example, benefits to waterfowl habitat will improve recreation opportunities for hunters and bird watchers).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water supplies to the Xxxx and Pixley NWRs. At a broad scale, changes in social conditions resulting from implementation of the CVPIA have been evaluated in the CVPIA PEIS, as summarized in Section 3. This section focuses on potential impacts to the indicators of social well-being for refuge-dependent recreation users and local business owners resulting from changes in water deliveries to the Tulare Lake basin refuges. Potential benefits to recreation users and local communities are closely related to waterfowl populations and recreation use. Therefore, in order to assess impacts to social conditions, Sections 5.2 (Biological Resources) and 5.5 (Recreation) were reviewed to determine how changes in refuge habitats might affect waterfowl populations and recreation use. Potential impacts to surrounding farmlands were evaluated in Section 5.4 (Agricultural Land Use). Xxxx NWR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The proposed project would implement the CVPIA provisions to deliver up to Level 4 water supplies to the Xxxx and Pixley NWRs. At a broad scale, the visual resource impacts of implementing the CVPIA have been evaluated in the Programmatic EIS, as summarized in Section 3; however, additional site-specific analysis is warranted. This section focuses on potential site-specific visual resource impacts. Xxxx NWR Complex As mentioned above, scenic quality of the refuges is related to the visual contrast between the refuge lands and surrounding farmlands, and waterfowl populations. In order to assess visual resource impacts, Sections 5.2 (Biological Resources) was reviewed to determine how changes in refuge habitats may affect scenic quality.
