Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Environmental Consequences
5.2.3.3 Effects to Mineral Resources
As described under Alternative B, adding anti-perching features to the tops of the existing power
poles used by the ongoing oil extraction operations at Oil Island would not adversely affect the
ability of the operator to continue extract oil from beneath the site. Additionally, none of the
expanded public use proposals included under Alternative C would affect current oil extraction
operations. Therefore, no adverse effects relate to mineral resources are anticipated under this
Alternative.
5.2.3.4 Effects to Agricultural Resources
Wildlife and Habitat Management
The effects to adjacent agricultural resources of implementing the wildlife and habitat
management actions proposed under Alternative C would be the same as those described under
Alternative B.
Public Use
Expanding public use opportunities on the Refuge, as proposed under this alternative, would have
no effects on the adjacent farming activities on NWSSB.
5.2.3.5 Effects to Hydrology
Wildlife and Habitat Management
The effects to hydrology under Alternative C would be essentially the same as those described for
Alternative B. Therefore, no adverse effects related to hydrology are expected from any of the
wildlife and habitat management activities proposed under Alternative C. For additional details,
refer to Section 5.2.2.5 above.
Public Use
Expanding public use opportunities on the Refuge, as proposed under Alternative C, would not
result in adverse effects to hydrology on the Refuge or in Anaheim Bay.
5.2.3.6 Effects to Water Quality
Wildlife and Habitat Management
Proposals under Alternative C that could have an effect on water quality within Anaheim Bay
include grading activity associated with the restoration of approximately 36 acres within the
Refuge, as well as activities associated with replacing existing culverts. As described under
Alternative B (Section 5.2.2.6), to avoid water quality impacts as a result of construction and
restoration projects, the construction specifications for each individual project would include the
requirement to implement appropriate BMPs to prevent the introduction of exposed soils into
adjacent wetland areas. In addition, these projects would be required to implement the actions
included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project prior to
construction. With the implementation of these measures, no adverse effects to water quality
within the Refuge or Anaheim Bay would be anticipated from the implementation of the wildlife
and habitat management actions associated with Alternative C. The implementation of a water
quality monitoring program, as described for Alternative B, would also be implemented under
Alternative C.
Pest Management
The analysis of potential effects to water quality from the implementation of the IPM Plan and
Mosquito Management Plan under Alternative C would be generally the same as those described
under Alternative B. The effects, if any, to water quality as a result of the use of Natular on the
Refuge would be avoided because the use of this product is not proposed under Alternative C.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-27