Printable Versions of Report Card and Scores
Summary Explanations of Salton Sea Restoration Grades
Saline Habitat Complex 1 (Alt. 1) received a B- because it, along with Saline Habitat Complex II, does more to addresss impacts to air quality, water quality and fish and wildlife than the other alternatives. However, this alternative will not provide enough habitat to maintain historic numbers and diversity of fish and birds nor will it provide for a diversity of recreation with little to no fishery or boating. Unlike other more complicated alternatives, the design is simplier to implement, more flexible and reduces risk of failure.
Saline Habitat Complex II (Alt. 2) received a B- for reasons similar to SHC I. SHC II will provide more habitat for birds, including fish-eating birds, than SHC I. However, due to the more extensive shallow saline wetlands, this proposal has more impacts to air quality and is more complicated to implement.
Concentric Rings (Alt. 3) received a D because it will have extensive impacts on air quality due to the need to excavate and transport 85.2 million cubic yards (mcy) of rock and gravel for the berms, could have significant problems with Selenium and temperature control, and will provide much less of the critical shallow water habitat for birds. Further, the extensive berms are untested and thus the proposal scores lower in dependability.
Concentric Lakes (Alt. 4) received a C+ because it will provide greater diversity of habitats for fish and birds, greater recreational opportunities than the shallow saline habitat proposals, and has less impacts to air quality from construction because, unlike Alt. 3, it relies on geotubes rather than rock for the creation of berms. This proposal received a lower grade due to the failure to incorporate mitigation for air quality impacts from exposed playa.
North Sea (Alt. 5) received a C because despite that the proposal provides a diversity of habitats for fish and birds with the combination of shallow water and deep sea habitats and greater recreation opportunties, the need to excavate and transport 53.7 mcy of rock and gravel creates a massive air quality problem for local communities. In addition, the deep sea may also suffer recurrent hydrogen sulfide eruptions that will cause massive fish kills and poor water quality.
North Sea Combined (Alt. 6) received a C for reasons similar to the North Sea proposal. While the N. Sea Combine proposal will provide greater fish and wildlife habitat and recreation than Alt. 5, the need to excavate 93.7 mcy of rock and gravel for the dam creates greater problems with air quality, flexibility and dependability.
North & South Sea Combined (Alt 7) received a D for the same reasons noted under Alternatives 5 and 6. However, the N & S Sea Combined plan has an additional problem because the current proposal does not mitigate for the impacts to air quality caused by the exposed playa. Also, the N & S Sea Combined plan requries a larger dam structure that is less dependable and will take longer to complete the project.
South Sea Combined (Alt. 8) received a C for reasons similiar to all of the deep sea proposals above. However, while the South Sea Combined proposal creates a greater abundance of fish and wildlife habitat with a southern lake, the need to excavate and transport 100 mcy of rock and graval creates enormous impacts to local air quality.
No Action -- QSA and No Action -- Variability proposals both received failing grades (F) because they provide very poor quality and limited fish and wildlife habitat, eliminate most existing recreational opportunities, require extensive air quality management infrastructure to deal with a shrinking lake and the exposure of more than 130 square miles of playa, and provide no water quality management.
