techniques to achieve effective pest control with minimal environmental impacts. There are no other alternatives considered in this EA that would meet this objective. Anticipated Environmental Effects As required by NEPA, this EA presents a comprehensive evaluation of the existing conditions and environmental consequences of implementing the Preferred Alternative and No Action Alternative. The EA evaluated three categories of potential environmental impacts: direct, indirect, and cumulative. Table 1 below summarizes the assessment of the alternatives and their impact on environmental resources. Table 1 Comparison of the Potential Effects on the Evaluated Alternatives Resource Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Environmental Consequences Land Use No Impact No Impact Air Quality Potential for negligible short-term from release No Impact of pesticides to the air. Noise Potential for minor, short-term noise impacts No Impact site-specific increases in noise levels if powered equipment or bird control noise devises are used for outside pest management practices. Geologic and No Impact No Impact Topographic Conditions Soils Potential for Short-term, Minor adverse effects Long Term, Moderate impacts from mechanical weed removal and chemical due to repeated uses of contamination of soils. Mechanical removal of pesticides. vegetation would be controlled by reseeding. Chemical contamination would be minimized by using least-toxic pesticides. Floodplains Minor impacts to floodplains, such as erosion This alternative will have a and soil and water contamination, could occur if negative impact on water chemical and non-chemical pest control resources because it is not an techniques are improperly applied. To minimize integrated method and would be potential impacts, buffer zones around anticipated to use more pesticides. floodplains would be implemented and no Repeated outdoor applications of activities, such as the mechanical removal of pesticides can cause residues to pests or the application of aquatic herbicides, build up, leading to potential water would occur in floodplains unless specifically contamination. approved by the agency with legal jurisdiction.
techniques to achieve effective pest control with minimal environmental impacts. There are no other alternatives considered in this EA that would meet this objective. Anticipated Environmental Effects As required by NEPA, this EA presents a comprehensive evaluation of the existing conditions and environmental consequences of implementing the Preferred Alternative and No Action Alternative. The EA evaluated three categories of potential environmental impacts: direct, indirect, and cumulative. Table 1 below summarizes the assessment of the alternatives and their impact on environmental resources. Table 1 Comparison of the Potential Effects on the Evaluated Alternatives Resource Preferred Alternative Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Land Use No Impact No Impact Air Quality Potential for negligible short-term from release of pesticides to the air. No Impact Noise Potential for minor, short-term noise impacts site-specific increases in noise levels if powered equipment or bird control noise devises are used for outside pest management practices. No Impact Geologic and Topographic Conditions No Impact No Impact Soils Potential for Short-term, Minor adverse effects from mechanical weed removal and chemical contamination of soils. Mechanical removal of vegetation would be controlled by reseeding. Chemical contamination would be minimized by using least-toxic pesticides. Long Term, Moderate impacts due to repeated uses of pesticides. Floodplains Minor impacts to floodplains, such as erosion and soil and water contamination, could occur if chemical and non-chemical pest control techniques are improperly applied. To minimize potential impacts, buffer zones around floodplains would be implemented and no activities, such as the mechanical removal of pests or the application of aquatic herbicides, would occur in floodplains unless specifically approved by the agency with legal jurisdiction. This alternative will have a negative impact on water resources because it is not an integrated method and would be anticipated to use more pesticides. Repeated outdoor applications of pesticides can cause residues to build up, leading to potential water contamination.