Record Details
page 4-147
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 4-147 Final environmental impact statement on the Provo River Restoration Project, page 4-147 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 4-147 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; 20.47 2047 this comment dealt with a number of suggested changes to the description of the proposed aati acti action 1 on which was presented in the draft EIS attached to the comments was a marked up copy of map A 5 from the draft EIS this map is not reproduced here as part of the comments but may be inspected at the mitigation commissions office As detailed in the draft EIS 11 the PRRP plans were based on a feasibility level design see chapter 1 section 1.1 11 ll li paragraph 6 of the draft EIS As stated in many places in the draft EIS changes from the feasibility level design may occur in the final design phase in many cases the suggestions presented by the comment suggest changes that could be considered in the final design phase of the project changes to project design would be based on sound engineering principles and the latest in river restoration practices available at the time the portrayal of the proposed action and alternatives in the draft EIS was intended to cover the range of impacts that could occur from implementation of the proposed action and its alternatives based on the comments received the commission believes that the impact analysis was sound and major changes in the proposed action and alternatives were not necessary for the final EIS based on the comments and some additional field work some minor changes in the proposed action and impact analysis has been made in the final EIS however it was not felt necessary to make major changes in the EIS based on the changes suggested in this comment this response attempts to provide a detailed response to each of the points raised in the comment the comment was subdivided into a number of sections with sub comments under each section in many cases the comments were duplicates of ones presented for a previous reach or covered the same general concept the response deals with each subdivision in a summary fashion instead of each individual comment in the subsection in order to avoid duplication responses dealing with a duplicated or similar comment raised in a previous subsection of comment 47 were not repeated as the response would only be a reference back to a previous subsection discussion several comments prior to this one dealt with changes to various tables figures and text necessary to show what the commentor commenter com mentor referred to as the new proposed alignment As stated above major changes were not made to the draft EIS as a result of this comment therefore changes to tables figures and text as suggested in those prior comments were not made general comments reach I 1 1 is not displayed because there are no proposed activities there there is no reach 10 in the plan but assuming this is the reach upstream of old US 40 it is out of the PRRP study area however please refer to the PRRP technical report section 7.2 72 72 CUWCD 1994 for a brief discussion of this reach and a recommendation that stream enhancement options be considered in final design criteria for siting proposed open water ponds included utilizing the abandoned channel six of the eight proposed ponds are in the abandoned channel having an easily manageable way to get water into and out of the pond integration with proposed or existing side channels and being within the corridor necessary for the main channel and side channels core area to avoid the need for additional property acquisition there are innumerable locations for additional ponds or adjustments to the proposed ponds the existing proposed action shows these features at a conceptual level only final number locations footprints etc will be determined in final design taking into account local topographic features and property ownership issues backwater ponds as described in the comments would provide valuable wildlife habitat and may be considered in final design at locations where the new channel crosses the existing channel most of the proposed side channels make use of existing swales ditches or the abandoned channel newly constructed side channels are often proposed to connect the realigned main channel with an existing side channel or pond feature in addition most of the existing ditches and swales channel remnants have a significantly lower sinuosity than wet meadow type channels E channels in rosgens roskens Ros gens stream classification system the constructed side channels would provide this very high sinuosity channel type which is not currently prevalent in the valley due to confinement of the river and agricultural practices 4147 4 147 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/8713 |
