Record Details
page 4-79
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 4-79 Finding of No Significant Impact Lake Fork Section 203 Alternative : Proposed Action, page 4-79 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 4-79 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; 7.9 79 79 the objective of the NEPA document is to evaluate analyze compare and inform the public of the potential effects of a proposed action its alternatives and a no action alternative the draft EA included a socioeconomic analysis that provides a relative comparison among the alternatives of potential project effects on duchesne county and the ute tribe for various socioeconomic and agricultural factorsthe factors the level of detail presented is consistent with NEPA guidelines although the NEPA document may comment on which alternative best meets the purpose and need for the proposed project there is no requirement nor is it appropriate for the socioeconomic analysis in the NEPA document regardless of whether it is an EA or EIS to justify the proposed action or one of its alternatives this information is appropriately presented in chapter 5 of the draft and final feasibility studies which does provide an economic justification project justification and financial feasibility analysis for the proposed action the ute indian tribe has copies of the draft and final feasibility studies the joint lead agencies do not agree with the tribes comment that the primary beneficiaries of the proposed action will be the non indian farming community with the proposed project providing less than 2000 acre feet of additional irrigation water the non indian farming community is not the primary beneficiary A careful analysis of the purpose and need statement and the proposed action and its action alternatives indicates that the wilderness values the mai m&i water supply fish wildlife and the riparian ecosystem are the overriding over riding needs that are met by the proposed project therefore the public which indirectly includes the ute indian tribe are the true primary beneficiaries of the proposed project 7.10 710 710 please see the responses to comments 3.5 35 35 and 3.6 36 36 from the EPA regarding the need and commitment by roosevelt city for the 2000 ac ft of project mai mal water and 1000 ac ft of project mai m&i water for existing and future development in surrounding communities please see response 1.1 11 ll li for further discussion on the correct depletion from mai mal water development 7.11 711 711 please see comment letter no 16 from roosevelt city regarding the uses the city has for 2000 acre feet of mai mal water and the responses to comments 3.5 35 35 and 3.6 36 36 from the EPA regarding the need and commitment by roosevelt city for the 2000 acre feet of project mai mal water also please see sections 22323.3 223233 223233 and 24.3 243 243 distribution of project ofproject water and section 3.10 310 310 socioeconomics and agriculture of this final EA for expanded discussions of M & I 1 water use and needs by roosevelt city 479 4 79 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/11783 |
