Record Details
page 7
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 7 Diamond Fork System Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page 7 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 7 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 coinme cointe i letter no 22 page 7 of 17 spanish fork canyon nephi irrigation system 7 DEIS but the information is presented in the wildlife resources technical report the UDWR anticipates future discussion of this issue with the CUWCD and URMCC to determine acceptable mitigation 3.514 3514 35 3514 14 mammalian predators 2nd and paragraph As written this paragraph emphasizes bear habitat A more critical issue during construction is the effect on behavior and activity we suggest the first two sentences be replaced with the following sentence construction activities associated with the red mountain tunnel outlet in the red hollow area could disrupt black bear foraging activity and denning behavior and cause displacement into neighboring territory 3.514 3514 35 3514 14 35631.3 356313 356313 big game we appreciate the districts willingness to respect the travel and in this case construction closure in the red hollow area and big game wintering areas from decl dec deci I 1 through mid late april for protection of wintering wildlife however we suggest that only approximate dates be shown in the EIS or a phrase added that actual dates of shutdown could or may be adjusted in consultation with UDWR depending on location weather and type of construction activity 3.516 3516 35 3516 16 35632.2 356322 356322 general wildlife third paragraph first sentence we disagree with the conclusion that impacts to wildlife as a result of recreation trail use would not likely be significant it cannot be concluded that the recreational trail will be an insignificant impact to wildlife other similar recreational trails along the wasatch front have shown increased disturbance to big game caused by free roaming domestic pets we believe this trail will likely have such an unquantifiable negative impact to wildlife 3.516 3516 35 3516 16 35632.3 356323 356323 big game second and third paragraphs the claim thatfilling that filling the canal would benefit big game by eliminating a potential drowning hazard and reducing a barrier to movement is partially correct although a barrier would be removed the land uses below the present canal are agriculture or residential big game in such areas depredate on commercial crops and residential landscape plants and pose traffic hazards aquatic resources impact analysis 3.65 365 36 365 5 table 3.63 363 36 363 3 plains killifish should be in the non sport fish column also we failed to notice in the DEIS that rainwater killifish lucaniaparva lucania parva found in lower currant creek was left off of the list of non sport fish species 3.69 369 36 369 9 3656.2 36562 36562 fish species composition of lower spanish fork river the second sentence should be reworded something like the first 6 2.7 27 27 miles of the streamas stream as class 36 fishery habitat the next 8.7 87 87 miles from ffrom effrom the springs to the lake shore canal diversion near 6500 south are classified as class 3 fishery habitat and the lowermost 14 miles trales arales reach are we is classified as class 6 fish habitat |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/9258 |
