WSP01267 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l\:> ~ Ul ~/'" . ,-,-. Losses of wetland vegetation would resu1 t In long-term wildU fe popula- tion changes in the unit area. Wild- life developments to offset these losses would provide long-term ,bene- fits to wildlife. . An irreversible commitment of- a resource is one th'at cannot be changed occurs; an irretrievable commitment means that the resource cannot be re- OI' reused. : Resource Cultutal resources En.lrgy Est:het'ics Grazing Soias Veg~tation Water Wi14life (aquatic) Wil4Ufe trial) (terres- . 1/ once; T t cove~red SUMMARY (Continued) '" Summary Table 1 Short- and long-term impacts resultiny from implementing alternatives A and B-1 Irre- Irre-.::------.-Relat:lonship of--shoit-=i:-erm--'-- versible trievable use of environmental and impact impact long-term productivity .c______ No No Canal systems and their record'ad his- tory would remain. Existing ea-rth systems would be changed permaner(tly to pipe and lined systems. Yes Yes Construction-of the alternatives would consume energy which 'would be a per- manent, irreversible commitment of energy resources. Alternative B would use electrical energy during opera- tion. No Yes Seepage reduction wo~ld _lead to fewer cottonwood trees and,' wetland areas that now add diversity to the land- scape. No No Impacts to grazing a~e not antici- pated. No No Short-term erosion problems would be controlled during cons'traction. Long- term reduction in sait-damaged soils would occur. No Yes Areas cleared during., _the short-term construction period' would be revege- tated. Seepage red-uction would re- duce wetland vegetation in the long term. .~. ~f C~ :t{ g r,~ ~: ~ I ~ : pJ, I :~ , No No Water supplies would not be affected. Long-term reduction in 'the salt load of the Colorado River would occur. No No Significant. impacts. to fis-hery -- would not 'occur. No Yes S-12 ~ _ .-l>O_J:,._........,,___ j, ~i.i>.i~J...;