Record Details
page 4-232
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 4-232 Final environmental impact statement on the Provo River Restoration Project, page 4-232 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 4-232 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; core area requirements eminent domain would be used to acquire the core area but only as a last resort for more detail please refer to chapter 1 section 132.1 1321 1321 and section 133.1 1331 1331 in the final EIS conce concerning acquisition of land procedures for the core and expanded restoration areas comment 3 my question I 1 guess is is who will have liability for any flood damage problems I 1 assume that the provo river water users would not want that liability if their dikes are removed so I 1 think that issue needs to be addressed response jordanelle Jor danelle dam significantly reduces peak flood flows as described in the PRRP technical report CUWCD 1994 section 3.4 34 34 the PRRP either includes acquisition for all areas affected by the post jordanelle 100 year flood or construction of setback dikes removing any flooding liability on those lands please refer to map A 3 in the final EIS which shows the 100 year flood line and area proposed for acquisition by the project comment 4 also I 1 think you need to clarify whether or not the government plans on acquisition of additional flood easements beyond the boundaries on map A 5 my understanding is that map A 5 shows land acquisition and I 1 also understand from the document thafthere that there might be additional flood easements beyond that boundary and so that needs some clarification I 1 think response the areas to be acquired have been modified please see chapter 1 sections 13.2 132 132 and 14.1 141 141 and map A 3 in the final EIS there will be no additional flood easements purchased for the PRRP proposed action or any alternative comment 5 finally tinally I 1 think there is a small paragraph in a couple places about baseline condition but I 1 think theres a general misunderstanding among county officials and perhaps the public as to what exactly youre counting as baseline my understanding is that the baseline is not as it exists today but includes the new access points includes fencing and fisherman access up and down the river and I 1 think that needs to be clarified response baseline conditions for some res ies resources ources burces are not the same as they exist today ie june 1996 the difference between existing conditions and the baseline is explained in several different places in the draft EIS the second paragraph under section 1.3 13 13 page P 12 1 2 of the PRRP EIS states that certain commitments made in the final supplement to the final environmental statement for the municipal and industrial system EIS will be implemented regardless of a decision to implement the PRRP proposed action or any of its alternatives section 31.2 312 312 existing conditions versus baseline which is found on page P 33 3 3 of the draft PRRP EIS goes into more detail about the differences between conditions which exist today 1996 and the conditions that are expected to exist and were used as baseline table 31 3 1 in this section clearly shows the quantified differences between existing conditions and baseline conditions that are expected to occur regardless of implementation of the PRRP proposed action or any of its alternatives each resource topic eg water resources which follows section 31.2 312 312 also provides a brief description of the baseline conditions which were used in determining impacts of the proposed action and alternatives in addition the draft EIS has been modified to further clarify baseline conditions please refer to chapter 1 section 14.1 141 141 implementation of baseline conditions for the provo river corridor in the final EIS comment 6 one last thing and that is well two last things one is you have eliminated from further flir ther consideration the human waste problem and I 1 think thats a mistake if you go to the lower provo theres a real problem there response please see comment response 9.20 920 4232 4 232 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/7185 |
