Comparison of Alternatives Table 17 summarizes the actions contemplated for each of the three evaluated alternatives grouped into 10 main activities or milestones of the PCTC, as described in detail in Chapter 4 of this report, plus a series of actions to enhance positive impacts, added as an eleventh category. Table 17. Main differences and similarities of the three evaluated alternatives. Mile- stones No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Modified Proposed Action Al- ternative Main Issues 1. Renovation of Trails, Benches and other Related Facilities New energy- efficient lamps have already been installed by the Munici- pality. No other ac- tions are fore- seen. Install new energy-efficient lamps. Improve the ground of exist- ing paths (without changing their position, size or form), using gravel, paving stones and permeable concrete. Place “cages” of gravel that contain the trees at regular intervals. Install different types of metal and concrete benches, as well as trash receptacles and drinking water fountains. Same actions listed for the “Pro- posed Action Alternative”, plus: Installation of environmental and socio-cultural interpretation signs and exhibits, including signs for people with disabilities; Guarantee access to people with disabilities or reduced mobility (ramps and open passages be- tween zones); and Upgrade existing Tin-Marín park- ing as a general parking area for both the Museum and the Park. Potential impacts to existing vegetation and associated benefits. Potential impacts to fauna populations and associated benefits. Aesthetic and visual improvement of the area. Increase of opportunities for public education and awareness. Increased options for relaxation and leisure. Increase in security and its perception. Increase visitation to the Park and thus required services. Sales of local “comedores” could be affected due to relocation and changes in visitor numbers and profile. Sales of itinerant vendors may increase, due to increased visitation. Lack of parking space might affect traffic in nearby areas. Risk of infrastructure failure due to lack of financial resources and technical capacity for maintenance and replacement. Access for people with disabilities and/or reduced mobility. Risk of damage to cultural goods and patrimony.
Table 19. Potential positive environmental impacts of the “No-Action Alternative”. POSITIVE IMPACTS Intensity (I) Extension (E) Duration (Du) Development (De) Reversibility (Re) Risk of Occurrence (Ro) Qualification (EQ) Construction Phase Total: As said before, the Municipality already placed new lamps, and underground wiring in the Park. But benefits derived from that action would first be evident during the operation. 0 Average: 0 Potential increase in number and diversity of existing vegetation and associated environmental benefits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potential increase in number and diversity of fauna populations and their associated environmental benefits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Operation & Maintenance Phase Total: The day-to-day life in the Park would remain almost the same as it is now, except for a slight improvement in security and its perception by users, due to the new lighting system. 4.7 Average: 0.7 Aesthetic and visual improvement of the whole area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Increase of opportunities for public education and awareness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Increase of options for relaxation and leisure, which improves individual and public mental health, and thus supports violence prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Sales of local “comedores” may increase, due to relocation and changes in the number and profile of potential clients 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Sales of itinerant vendors may increase, due to the increase in the number of visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Increase in security and its perception 0.5 0.3 0.5 1 0.3 9 4.7 Improved access for people with disabilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O T A L : 4.7 A V E R A G E : 0.5
Environmental Monitoring Plan Tables 30 and 31 list all mitigation and enhancement measures, their corresponding estimated cost of implementation, responsible party, and main monitoring parameters. Considerations used to establish estimated costs can be found in Annex 12. Table 30. Environmental Monitoring Plan (Table 3 of the USAID Guidelines for Implementing Partners, 2015): Mitigation Measures. Monitoring Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Indicators Methods Frequency Estimated Costs Results Recommended Adjustments Dates Problems Mitigation Monitored Encountered Effectiveness 1. Implement an environmental supervision. Project Implementer Contract Direct review Once $3,000 /month 2. Minimize vegetation removal, or replace with recommended species. Constructor/ Supervision Plants removed & planted Inventory / supervision Weekly See Nº 1 Table 31 3. Establish a trust fund, and engage spon- sors for specific interventions, and/or oper- ational costs. Project Implementer % of costs covered Accounting report Monthly No direct costs 4. Establish a Maintenance and Improve- ment Program. Project Implementer Program indicators Monthly re- ports Quarterly ≈$8,000 /month 5. Habilitate Tin-Marín’s parking area to serve both the Museum and the Park. Project Implementer Agreement signed Direct review Once $5,000 6. Avoid potential damages to relevant cul- tural patrimony elements. Constructor/ Supervision Reported damages Supervision Daily None 7. Get MINSAL’s approval for the exten- sion of the National Art Gallery compo- nent. Project Implementer Permission granted Direct review Once None 8. Maintain an open dialog with all key stakeholders. Project Implementer Frequency of meetings Review of meet- ing reports Monthly $100 /month 1 Triple of current costs (Table 4), including maintenance personnel, and expendable materials 2 Including signage and Access ramp to the Park 3 For meeting costs