Record Details
page 216
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 216 Final supplement to the final environmental impact statement : Diamond Fork System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project, page 216 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 216 text/PDF |
| Rights | Brigham Young University; http://lib.byu.edu/about/copyright/generic.php Public Domain Public |
| Language | English; eng; en |
| Relation | Central Utah Project; Western Waters Digital Library; resources of strawberry reservoir utah lake the jordan river and utah valley streams be addressed in an environmental impact statement on that project if plans for that system proceed alternative C corresponds to a no action alternative for the I 1 & D system an environmental comparison of alternative C with plans addressed in the 1984 environmental statement is possible however the net effects of alternatives A and B are not addressed in the subject document consequently comparisons of the total impacts of these latter two alternatives can not be made at this time pages 22 23 the following statement needs to be clarified with alternative A and the 1984 FES plan only 6.500 6500 acre feet would be collected from the uinta basin tributaries tributa ries therefore with alternative B 37900 acre feet of additional water would remain in the uinta basin the 6500 acre feet of water specified in an april 12 1965 resolution by the state of utah plus an additional 17900 37900 acre feet that would be provided with the reduced transbasin trans basin diversion if Altern alternatives tives B or C are selected would equal the 44400 acre foot amount specified in the streamflow Stream flow agreement the minimum amount of water that would be available for the uinta basin under terms of the streamflow Stream flow agreement is 22300 acre feet this is the minimum that should be assured with plans considered in 1984 pages 33 35 comparative analysis of impacts As previously stated an analysis of the impacts of alternatives A and B on strawberry reservoir utah lake the jordan river and utah valley streams is not included in the subject document consequently a comparison of the overall advantages or disadvantages is absent also it would be appropriate to compare the effects of alternative A to alternatives B and C on the uinta basin streams addressed in the 1980 streamflow silreamflow Stream flow agreement pages 45 47 utah lake and jordan river no impacts on utah lake or the jordan river are anticipated with alternative C the impacts to these resources with alternatives A and B are to be addressed in a future environmental impact statement on the I 1 & D system A potential future without or with hith the project condition that is not described in the subject document is a wildlife refuge on utah lake one proposal refuge would encompass about 50700 acres of lands and waters in vicinity of provo and goshen bays and benjaman slough the purchase of up to 54000 acre feet of water for annual operations of this facility is also part of the proposed plans page 53 again it is mentioned that impacts of alternative B on strawberry reservoir utah lake utah valley streams and the jordan river will be discussed in the draft environmental statement on the I 1 & D system comments made previously on the ne need ed for this evaluation to compare the alternatives are applicable 216 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/3205 |
