Record Details
page 276
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 276 Central Utah Project, Bonneville Unit : Diamond Fork Power System : final Environmental Impact Statement, page 276 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 276 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; CONSULT consultation AA aa 1a T 70 I 1 N AND coordination IV continued response with the recommended plan daily fluctuations would create up to 8 acres of mudflats mud flats at syar reservoir and about an acre at sixth water reser voir seasonal fluctuations would result in up to 25 acres of mudflats mud flats at monks hollow reservoir at the end of the irrigation season the existing diamond fork roadand roaland road and a new 3.3 33 33 mile long road to the day use area on the north side of monks hollow reservoir would provide vehicle access to the reservoir for recreation small boats could be launched at the day use area and a trail would provide access by foot around the south side of the reservoir since no recreation facilities would be available at syar and sixth water reservoirs no public access would be permitted roads would provide access to these reservoirs for maintenance and service purposes only reservoir fluctuation would have no impact on high quality wetlands because none occur in the project area impacts to wetlands are described in chapter IV of the FEIS because of their small size and fluctuating water levels syar and sixth water reservoirs would not sup port viable fisheries monks hollow reservoir would support a marginal fishery which would not be adversely affected by drawdown since the reservoir would not fluctuate greatly on a daily basis but would be drawn down gradually during the year the problem of fish in the power system is addressed in the response to comment no 38 algal growth in project reservoirs would be similar to that which occurs in other reservoirs with similar size and operation the recreation and fish analyses including projected recreation and fishing benefits were based on this factor as well as projected conditions of fluctuation stratification water quality etc 108 comment another issue that made reviewing the document difficult was the absence of cost figures for the project and alternatives Is this project part of the central utah project system therefore part of the questionable benefitcost benefit cost ratio of 3.2 32 32 to 1 project data sheets list the bc as 1.6 16 ig lg to 1 or does the system stand alone response the total estimated construction cost of each alternative for the dia mond fork power system is given in summary table I 1 1 also table 19 the diamond fork power system is part of the bonneville unit of the central utah project the benefit cost ratio for the bonneville unit with the recommended sixth water flow through alternative is 1.88 188 to 1 the 1.6 16 lg ig to 1 benefit cost ratio is for the bonneville unit with the 1964 DPR alternative for the power system see also the response to comment no 119 276 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/4039 |
