Record Details
page 2
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 2 Diamond Fork System Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page 2 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 2 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; comment letter no 24 page 2 of 3 2 fork are interdependent if possible please clarify the relationship and provide a clearer definition of no action 2 page S 5 it is noted that nonstructural non structural alternatives were evaluated in the 1973 bonneville unit EIS it might prove useful to include a summary of the outcome of that EIS record of decision and how that relates to these structural options being considered under the SFN SF N 3 page slo sio S 10 there is no mention of benefits or adverse impacts to the duchesne river basin were those addressed in the 1973 bonneville EIS or the 1990 diamond fork EIS some mention should be made regarding that 4 page 146 1 46 table 112 1 12 why is colorado river storage project capacity needed for the spanish fork powerplants powerplanfs Power plants replacement power if there is a net increase in energy also why is the amount of replacement capacity 1800 kw in table 112 1 12 different from the 2300 kw stated in the definite plan report 5 page 1143 1 143 table 153 1 53 project reserve power agreements what is CUP power there is no existing power development on the CUP and there are no power facilities contemplated in this DEIS 6 page 1144 1 144 the list shows consultations under section 7 of the endangered species act and fish and wildlife coordination act being required discussion could not be found in the DEIS of the status outcome and effect of those consultations on the proposed action or alternatives we recommend that discussion be included in the EIS as to whether those consultations are ongoing or complete and whether they will be summarized enclosed as appendices or just be maintained as information on file 7 page 1146 1 146 cumulative impacts were defined here as the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions the DEIS then states that impacts from past projects have been included in the baseline and were not separated from the analysis As such past project impacts are not included in the cumulative impact analyses in chapter 3 acknowledging that doing a complete and accurate cumulative impacts analysis is difficult at best simply stating that impacts to date are part of the baseline for comparison without some attempt to at least qualitatively discuss how the resources have fared as a result does not seem to be in the best spirit of cumulative impact assessment it is understood that impacts from the SFN SF N will have certain impacts to the existing environment and a commendable job has been done of assessing those impacts but cumulative impact assessments are intended to include a look at how the resources got to be in the condition that they are it could work if the environmental baseline is first explained in such a wayas way as to show the effects of other actions on resources if there is any information on resource impacts from followup follow up monitoring or original national environmental policy act documents for the fingerhut distribution center syar tunnel sixth water aqueduct highway 6 improvements and the provo airport work that can be summarized and included in the discussion on cumulative |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/8852 |
