WSP04151 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r- r-- o o ~.::) SUMMARY (Continued) ., ~ Summary Table 1 Short- and long-term impacts resultiny from implementing alternatives A and B_1 Irre- Irre-- ---Relat-ionship o~{-sho-rt':t-erm----' versible trievable use of environmental and impact impact long-term productivity No No Canal sys-terns and their record-e-d.--hYi': tory would remain. Existing earth systems would be changed permanently to pipe and lined systems. Losses of wetland vegetation would result in long-term wildlife 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 that cannot be changed occurs; an irretrievable commitment means that the resource cannot be re- or reused. Resource Cultural resources En e rgy Yes Yes Esthetics No Yes Grazing No No Soils No No Vegetation No Yes Water No No Wildlife (aquatic) No No Wildlife (terres- trial) No Yes l! once it covered 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. Seepage reduction would lead to fewer cottonwood trees and wetland areas that now add diversity to the land- scape. Impacts to grazing are not antici- pated. Short-term erosion problems would be controlled during construction. Long- term reduction in salt-damaged salls would occur. Areas cleared during the short-term construction period would be revege- tated. Seepage reduction would re- duce wetland vegetation in the long term. Water supplies would not be affected. Long-term reduction in the salt load of the Colorado River would occur. Significant impacts to fishery would not occur. S-12