Chapter 5 Sharon Lindsay Stream habitat restoration at Nulhegan Basin Division Environmental Consequences ■■ Introduction ■■ Impact Analysis and Relationship to Scale ■■ Regional-scale Impacts ■■ Refuge-scale Impacts ■■ Cumulative Impacts ■■ Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ■■ Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ■■ Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ■■ Environmental Justice Impacts ■■ Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives Introduction Introduction This chapter summarizes and compares the potential impacts of the four management alternatives described in chapter 4 on the socioeconomic, physical, and biological environment of the refuge and larger Connecticut River watershed. The environment affected by the alternatives is described in Chapter 3–Affected Environment. This impact analysis is designed to inform the decision-making process to ensure the final CCP promotes management activities that avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts, while promoting the human environment to the fullest extent possible. As described in chapter 4, the CCP describes and analyzes four management alternatives for the refuge: ■■ Alternative A — Current Management (which serves as a baseline for comparing against the other three alternatives). ■■ Alternative B — Consolidated Stewardship. ■■ Alternative C — Enhanced Conservation Connections and Partnerships (the Service-preferred alternative). ■■ Alternative D — Expanded Ecosystem Restoration. In this chapter, we estimate the beneficial and adverse impacts of implementing the management objectives and strategies for each of the alternatives. We attempt to describe the direct, indirect, short-term, and cumulative impacts likely to occur over the 15-year life span of this CCP. Beyond the 15-year planning horizon—which we define as long-term impacts—our estimates of environmental impacts contain greater uncertainty due to the difficulty in projecting impacts beyond the 15-year horizon. Where detailed information is available, we present an educated comparison of the alternatives and their anticipated impacts on the environment. When detailed information is not available, we base comparisons on professional judgment and experience. At the end of this chapter, we summarize the impacts predicted for each alternative in tabular format, providing a side-by- side comparison. To meet our obligations under NEPA and to comply with Service policies, we assess the significance of impacts of all alternatives based on their context, magnitude, duration, and intensity. The context of our impact analysis ranges from site-specific to regional and landscape-scale, and is dependent on how widely the impact of an action can be observed over the affected environment (see chapter 3). Certain actions may have direct impacts in a very local context (e.g., removal of invasive plants), while others may have impacts in a broader context (e.g., participation in regional partnerships) (see table 4.1 in chapter 4). It is important to note that local ‘minor’ actions implemented by the refuge may have cumulative impacts when incrementally combined with other similar actions over time on a local or regional landscape. For example, invasive plant control on a local scale, when combined with other non-Service control efforts across the landscape could result in cumulative beneficial impacts. Although the refuge land base is a small portion of the Connecticut River watershed and larger ecoregion, our three action alternatives B, C, and D were developed in part to contribute toward regional conservation goals. Our proposed conservation objectives and strategies for species and habitats are generally consistent with regional, state, and Service landscape-level plans identified in Chapter 1, including the Wildlife Action Plans for the four watershed states and the Bird Conservation Region plans for the Northern Forest (BCR 14) and the New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast (BCR 30). Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences 5-1 Introduction Table 5.1 provides context for the analysis, including the size of the refuge area, major habitat types and their acreages, lengths of existing and proposed ADA- compliant trails, length of existing roads, and amount of area that is predicted to be disturbed during any new construction. Table 5.1. Context for Impacts Analysis at Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Geographic Context Size BCRs: Atlantic Northern Forest (14) and New England/Mid-Atlantic (30) 111 million acres Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut 20.6 million acres Connecticut River Watershed 7.2 million acres Existing Refuge Lands 37,216acres Existing Refuge Divisions (9) 36,627 acres Existing Refuge Units (8) 589 acres Forested Uplands and Wetlands in Entire Watershed 5.6 million acres Forested Uplands on Existing Refuge Lands 35,214acres Non-forested Uplands and Wetlands in Entire Watershed 367,685 acres Non-forested Uplands and Wetlands on Existing Refuge Lands 1,534 acres Inland Aquatic Habitats in Entire Watershed 162,487 acres Inland Aquatic Habitats on Existing Refuge Lands 179 acres Coastal Non-forested Uplands in Entire Watershed 111acres Coastal Non-forested Uplands on Existing Refuge Lands 0 acres Coastal Wetlands and Aquatic Habitat in Entire Watershed 2,627 acres Coastal Wetlands and Aquatic Habitat on Existing Refuge Lands 2 acres Conserved Lands in Entire Watershed 1,924,620acres Length of Existing Refuge Trails 51.3 miles Length of Existing Refuge Roads 134 miles Many impacts are not considered significant, but are described as negligible, minor, or moderate. The magnitude of such changes is defined as follows: ■■ Negligible—Management actions would result in impacts that would not be detectable or if detected, would have impacts that would be considered localized, and short-term. ■■ Minor—Management actions would result in a detectable change, but the change would be slight and have only a local impact on the biotic community, the resource, or ecological processes. The change would be discountable, insignificant, and of little consequence and short-term in nature. ■■ Moderate—Management actions would result in a clearly detectable change. This could include changes to a local biotic population or habitat sufficient to cause a change in the abundance, distribution, or composition, but not changes that would affect the viability of populations or habitats. Changes to local ecological processes would be of a limited extent. 5-2 Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Introduction ■■ Significant—Management actions would result in a clearly detectable change. The impacts would be substantial and highly noticeable and could result in widespread change. This could include changes in the abundance, distribution, or composition of local or regional populations or habitats to the extent that it would not likely continue in its previous condition or size. Significant ecological processes would be altered, and changes throughout the ecosystem would be expected. Thus, the impact would be long-term if not permanent. Impact significance is defined in terms of intensity, the type, quality, and sensitivity of the resource involved, the location of a proposed projects, the duration of its effect (short- or long-term), and other considerations of context. It is not a value judgment, as some impacts can be beneficial for one species and adverse for another, or have a positive impact on visitor use but a negative impact on migratory birds. In addition to the magnitude of impact (negligible, minor, moderate, or significant), the impacts of the management action on environmental attributes are described as beneficial, adverse, or no impact. Generally, an impact will be described as beneficial if we estimate it helps to improve the quality or quantity of native habitat, increase or enhance native species populations, or enhances the sustainability of biological diversity, integrity, or environmental health. Refuge actions can also be beneficial or adverse to physical and socioeconomic environments. An adverse impact arises from an action that we estimate would be detrimental to any aspect of the physical, socioeconomic, or biological environment, and that potentially could impede the intent of the CCP and its goals. When we say that there is no impact we mean there is no recognized or discernible beneficial or adverse impact. Often the impacts of a proposed action have trade-offs, and it can be difficult to describe them as either solely beneficial or adverse. For example, refuge habitat management may benefit certain suite of species (forest-interior dwelling migratory birds), but may have adverse impacts to other species (grassland- nesting migratory birds). Factors that reduce the population of a predator may be adverse for the predator and positive for the prey. Therefore, sometimes our impact analysis does not describe impacts as either beneficial or adverse. The duration of identified impacts and their consequences varies from those occurring for a brief period in the 15-year life of this plan (e.g., direct impacts of new construction), to those occurring more frequently during the year like mowing or invasive plant control. The duration of identified impacts and their consequences varies from short-term—lasting a matter of days or weeks (e.g., construction noise)—to permanent such as the presence of new infrastructure. Estimates of impacts—whether beneficial or adverse—were based upon the following