WSP11669 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OGG~ DESCRIPTION AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS Three approaches to treatment were considered and various alternatives were developed incorporating tnese various approaches. The approaches included large structural measures, only changing management, and a combination of management char.ges and enduring measures. Each of the alternatives included examining the civil rights implications of proposed agency and project actions that could negatively impact agency employees and decisions related to employment and program beneficiaries, name~y, the socially and economically disadvantaged, minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. None of the alternatives considered in detail were found to show any program action effects if implemented, that would result in denial or reduced program benefits of ar.y form related to discrimination against any clientele group or employee. The following alternatives were considered during this process: Alternative 1. Future without Project Studies of past achievements of land users in the watershed indicate that funds from the on-going programs are adequate to treat less than two percent annually of those areas with erosion, water quality and quantity problems. An analysis of available ongoing monies indicate that $40,000-50,000 is available in the watershed on an average annual basis from ACP and other programs. At this rate of funding, it would take at least 75-100 years to complete the work proposed without PL-566 cost-share program funding. Components - None - Effects - Without Irrigation system improvement, deep percolation and runoff will continue at its current unacceptable level. Poor irrigation water management wi~l continue. Irrigation induced erosion will continue to damage the upper portions of the fields resulting in topsoil and yield losses. Sedimentation of the lower end of the fields and the carrying of salts, nutrients and heavy metals on to the Arkansas River will continue. The water quality problems will continue in the surface and ground water. The municipal and rural water supply will continue to be impacted by these problems. This will continue to add to the water quality problems of the Arkansas River. Recreational opportunities related to fish and wildlife, will continue to decline. The endangered species habitat value will continue to deteriorate as selenium accumulates in the food chain. Wetland plants, fish, and wildlife will continue to take up heavy metals at the current rate. These conditions also pose a potential health threat to livestock, wildlife, and humans. The local economy is dependent on agriculture. As the soil resource is lost so is the economic base of the project area. Waterfowl hunting 27