Record Details
page 14
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 14 Diamond Fork System Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page 14 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 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; comment letter no 13 page 14 of 36 emergency use described on the top of page 135 1 35 would result in removal of any riparian vegetation that reestablishes especially in the upper reaches where 125 cfs cs in well above natural flood flow levels page 3.429 3429 34 3429 29 34651.2 346512 operation impacts lower sixth water creek below syar tunnel the first two sentences of this paragraph are unclear the first states that flows in lower sixth water would increase over baseli basell baseil baselinethe baseline nethe the second says that flows would be similar to those that occur under baseline conditions it is then concluded that no additional riparian habitat would be lost the situation and the resultant impacts are confusing page 3.437 3437 34 3437 37 34692.4 346924 346924 operation impacts lower sixth water creek same comment as above see comment for page 3.429 3429 34 3429 29 page 3.438 3438 34 3438 38 346.10 34610 34610 summary of impacts in table 3.416 3416 34 3416 16 mitigation for the diamond fork tunnel concludes no mitigation will be required because the riparian shrub area impacted 02 0.2 02 acres of riparian shrub would be re vegetated will there be any restriction on reestablishing woody species above the pipeline unless the same community can be established mitigation would be necessary table 3.416 3416 34 3416 16 concludes mitigation for the main conveyance aqueduct construction impacts on aquatic bedopen bed open water would be implemented to achieve no net loss of wetlands resulting in no significance there is no mitigation plan or even a description of how and where this mitigation work would be accomplished we recommend a wetland mitigation plan be drafted and evaluated in order to make this determination also it seems unlikely that avoidance of impacts to riparian vegetation can be accomplished for the 2300 feet in which the siphon parallels the creek page 3.440 3440 34 3440 40 0 346.10 34610 summary of impacts for monks hollow dam operation in the MCAP alternative table 3.416 3416 34 3416 16 notes mitigation would be implemented to achieve no net loss of wetlands however in this case the impacts remain significant za z1 after miti mitigation 9 atlon other permanent losses of wetland acres with a similar entry in the mitigation column were then listed as NOT significant za z1 in the significance after mitigation Z column why the difference under the MCAP alternative main conveyance aqueduct operation table 3.416 3416 34 3416 16 indicates 2.6 26 26 acres of wetland will have permanent impacts this impact is considered not significant and no mitigation is listed why is this page 3.438 3438 34 3438 38 through 3.442 3442 34 3442 42 13 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/9016 |
