Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Environmental Consequences
webs and other ecological functions. The implementation of the measures described in Section
5.4.2.1 would also minimize the effects of spray drift and disturbance on landbirds.
Public Use
As no new public use opportunities are proposed under Alternative B, the effects to landbirds
would be the same as those described for Alternative A.
5.4.2.3 Effects to Fish and Other Marine Organisms
Wildlife and Habitat Management
Under this alternative, all of the actions described in Alternative A would also be implemented.
Therefore, the effects to fish and other organisms of implementing these specific actions would be
the same as those described above for Alternative A.
In addition to the actions described in Alternative A, Alternative B would also involve the
restoration of approximately 36 acres of disturbed upland to tidal wetland and wetland/upland
transition habitat; the replacement of the existing culverts in the Bolsa Cell levee with a water
control structure; the removal of concrete debris from the marsh; and the implementation of an
IPM program for the Refuge. Restoration, installation of a water control structure, and removal of
concrete debris would all have the potential for adverse impacts to fish and other marine
organisms if BMPs are not implemented as part of project implementation. To avoid any short or
long term adverse effects to these species, BMPs, as described in Section 5.2.1.6, would be
implemented to minimize the introduction of sediment into the Refuge’s wetland areas, reduce the
potential for increased turbidity within the water column, prevent general degradation of water
quality, reduce the potential loss of fish during construction, and avoid impacts to eelgrass habitat.
Pest Management
The pest management actions described under Alternative A would likely continue as part of the
proposed IPM Plan to be implementation under Alternative B. Therefore, the potential effects of
continuing to use the pesticides described under Alternative A would also occur under this
alternative. In addition, under the IPM Plan any new pesticide products proposed for use on the
Refuge would be evaluated using scientific information and analyses documented in “Chemical
Profiles.” Following this procedure would ensure that potential impacts to biological resources,
including fish and other marine organisms, would be minor, temporary, or localized in nature.
Additionally, this evaluation would ensure that appropriate BMPs can be implemented to further
control the potential effects of the proposed product. Thus, potential impacts to fish and other
marine organisms from implementing the proposed IPM Plan would be less than significant.
The proposal to expand control of invasive plant species to beyond the boundaries of the Refuge
through a cooperative effort with the Navy, would be implemented in accordance with the IPM
Plan and would therefore be unlikely to have any effect on fish or marine organisms.
Implementation of the Mosquito Management Plan, which presents a phased approach to mosquito
control on the Refuge, could result in the use of additional pesticides on the Refuge. Expanding
the types of mosquito control used on the Refuge per the OCVCD’s request (which require
approval through the PUP review process) would result in potential impacts to fish and marine
organisms as described below.
Natular is considered toxic to aquatic organisms and non-target aquatic invertebrates may be
killed in waters where this pesticide is applied. The liquid form of spinosad, the active ingredient
in Natular, is highly toxic to marine mollusks on an acute basis. Spinosad is also identified as
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5-47