Record Details
page 1-14
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 1-14 Final environmental impact statement on the Provo River Restoration Project, page 1-14 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 1-14 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; 13.5 135 no action alternative under this alternative the mitigation commission would not meet its obligations to mitigate impacts of the CUP see section 1.2 12 the mitigation commission would still be required to do so there have been no other projects capable of meeting these obligations identified that are different from the alternatives analyzed in this EIS all baseline environmental commitments described in section 1.3 13 13 would be implemented by the mitigation commission even if the no action Altema alternative tive is selected 1351 1351 l351 1351 135.1 1355 acquisition no additional land would be needed to implement this alternative 1352 135.2 1352 1353 1355 1352 channel and floodplain Flood plain features the no action alternative is the alternative of not stabilizing the river bed and banks not restoring the riverine habitat and not improving instream instrearn in stream fish habitat the commitments for public access instream instrearn in stream flow and related purposes included in the bonneville unit municipal and industrial mal mai m&i m&1 system final EIS would be implemented see section 14.1 141 for a detailed description of the baseline 135.3 1353 1353 1355 1353 land management dike and river diversion maintenance for flood control and irrigation would continue in and near the provo river channel baseline uses along the river corridor would be largely unaffected by this alternative 13.6 136 136 major differences between the proposed action and alternatives table 12 1 2 summarizes the key characteristics of the proposed action and PRRP alternatives both the proposed action and existing channel modification alternative would make major changes to the existing channel in order to develop a self sustaining functional river system A primary difference between the two is that the existing channel modification alternative would work almost entirely within the present levee area or present channel alignment whereas the proposed 1 action would not be constrained to the present alignment the proposed action would construct a meanderriffie meanderriffle pool pooi C type channel and increase the length of the river by almost 2 miles the existing channel modification alternative would construct a step pool B type channel and not increase the length of the river channel types band C types are according to the rosgen stream channel classification system and are described in section 1.5 15 15 and section 1.6 16 lg ig of this EIS and in the PRRP technical report CUWCD 1994 another primary difference is that the proposed action would provide for the development of a diverse multiple story riparian zone with cottonwood trees and other riparian vegetation sustained by periodic flooding of the constructed and connected reconnected re floodplain flood plain the existing channel modification Altema alternative tive sive would have a narrow riparian zone along the river channel it also would use setback dikes more extensively to establish future 100 year flood limits as opposed to allowing these limits to be set by natural topographic features as in the proposed action table 13 1 3 summarizes land acquisition requirements of the PRRP proposed action and alternatives the instream In stream structures alternative is different from the proposed action and existing channel modification alternative because it would not make major changes to the existing channel this alternative would make minor changes within the existing provo river channel through installation of fish habitat structures these structures would be relatively short term in comparison and require more frequent maintenance and replacement than features constructed under the other alternatives the proposed action and alternatives were formulated with the same assumed hydrology based on proposed water releases from jordanelle Jor danelle dam USBR USER 1987 this includes the 125 cfs cs minimum streamflow strearnflow stream flow requirement as mandated in section 303c2 of CUPCA PRRP design hydrology is summarized in the PRRP technical report CUWCD 1994 hydrologic characteristics and public access to the entire existing river corridor are assumed to be part of baseline conditions 14 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/8101 |
