Laserfiche WebLink
<br />water .nnu.lly would be the minimum development th.t could re.ch <br /> <br /> <br />the optimu~ potenti.l productivity per unit .re. of development. <br /> <br /> <br />Habit.t development would be distributed throughout the WHA, <br /> <br /> <br />though. much higher density of development could still be reached. <br /> <br />H.bitat throughout the entire WHA would be within the maximum <br /> <br />distance from water for nesting, .nd some nesting would be expected <br /> <br /> <br />in all habitat types in .11 locations including dry uplands. <br /> <br /> <br />However, the wet meadows, marsh edges and islands in the impound- <br /> <br /> <br />ments would support the greatest concentrations of nesting. often <br /> <br /> <br />in excess of one nest per acre. Alternative II would be expected <br /> <br /> <br />to produce 4000 ducks and 200 geese annually under optimum con- <br /> <br /> <br />ditions. <br /> <br />~) <br /> <br />Alternative III would be similar to Alternative II except that an <br /> <br /> <br />additional 1000 acre-feet of water would be provided annually from <br /> <br /> <br />the Closed Basin Project. The total water availability of 3,700 <br /> <br /> <br />acre-feet per year would provide for a higher density of develop- <br /> <br /> <br />ment than in Alternative II. but productivity per unit area of <br /> <br /> <br />wetlands would be similar. This slternative would be expected <br /> <br /> <br />to produce 5,000 ducks and 250 geese annually under optimum <br /> <br /> <br />conditions. <br /> <br />Alternative IV, to obtain and develop 3,700 acre-feet of water per <br /> <br /> <br />year as in Alternative III plus an additional 3,300 acre-feet from <br /> <br /> <br />the Closed Basin Project, is considered full development for the <br /> <br /> <br />WHA .t this time. However. the likelihood of receiving this volume <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />-39- <br /> <br />0(27J6 <br /> <br />10122 <br />