Record Details
page 4-184
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 4-184 Finding of No Significant Impact Lake Fork Section 203 Alternative : Proposed Action, page 4-184 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 4-184 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 29 harold sei ser seljand sersland dand jand envirodflientalpcograin manager central utah water conservancy district 355 west university parkway paay orem utah 84058 re section 203a ma ltinudrasimr ttwfl stagin ttagin emplacement ppytfpmftnt eplacement epla cement project mr sersland I 1 1 avery ana very SW glad blad that thaiaproposaus a proposwmbeing being made to ta tastabilize stabilize reservoiisin wit tha the high mgwintas liatas lfatas wilderness in the lake fork and yellowstone drainages I 1 support the twin pots alternative because it is the only alternative to infeft infwft indlirle stabilizing yhflmpg the wlklernessnsevoirs wildns wild wilans ns rifrvoirs in both drainages which should be considered a priority for this project I 1 donot do not understand however why this thit alternative does nat not also allow for instream in stream flows dign fign from fram the C canal diversion to the big sand wash feeder pipeline divet diversion sion slon in lake fork in fact facty pabe page 1 3xstates 32 states that diversion tothe to the rig sand washxeeder wash feeder pipelineunder pipeline under the tha twin win 29.1 291 pots alternative would be 13 13481 481 acre wre acro wro fayr ftyr ftlyr this is mome more momm dilan titan than ddlan the 10767m 10767 acro acre acde fayr ftyr fiyrfbr fbr abr the tha propos proposed eti eci etl action p 214 2.14 214 2l4y a and nd the draft badics badocs E A does not explain why with more water flowing to the lower diversion fimtmaow mstream astream flow cv cannot be met it tt seemstbatinst seems that mstreani ms treani PMLI gail LLUWS brows flows couhlbe could be metunder metander met me tunder under all 4 ali ail alternatives becan bec an the water kreles krelea i g rplpqsmt A from mdonlakebut mcw tlrphi stored in m the enlarged big sand wash Re reservoir savoir sevoir also less water could be diver divet diverted ted into ca C c7 canal an&tnore and more diverted riivpttft into bigan sand wash wesh FM feeder emd rod ems pi plino toincseins tt infrfta igtrctm cam eam flow these items need to be examined and clad clarified bied fied in the final EA the draft EA also doe&nat dofis not nat hin explain bin the tha connection between bemmm beamm rebuilding twin pots pats reservoir and stabilizing the reservoirs in the yellowstone drainage it appears re rebuilding bOding twin pots rots is proposed mainly for recreation reatiampurposes purposes the water storedfiltuin stoned stored in twin plott pots will not replace the water stored in the wilder wilderness new reservoirs in the yellowstone dral drai drainage anage A 1 as it appears twin pots and an&thewildemes& thewildernfim reserva reservoirs ids irs inthe intha inthe yellowstone drainage raitgp drginage ae are not 29.2 292 292 related the final EA should consider these options separately for instance not aie pim ale nta ining sining twin turin pots would allow theusch theusc the use of about ism 1&m l8dq acre fayr ftyr of atwater water to be used for irrigation or for instream in stream flows for fisheries or water quality considerations twin pots reservoir should be considered separately oron fron firomthje uhe ahe stabilizatimof stahuizauqilofthe the wildenhus wudernfiss wildenus reservoirs the final EA JKA lka should cla cia clarify and reiterate reitmatellv reitcrate that the sod yed erfarged sed big sand wash reservoir camstone camstore can cam store all water predously ptwipy stored in nwimerwsa vdiderness neser reser reservoirs voul I 1 1 am also confused why 11900 acre fayr ftyr will be diverted from lake fork to 29.3 293 293 yellawstonariver yellowstone river to replace replact 2yoqq 2wq acre azre flyn flyr of otstorage storage losthy lostay stabilizing the W wilderness reservoirs in m the yellowstone drainage again abah abam is this related or are they really two separate ts issues ma m7 1unclea 1 ad unclear whyall chyall why atlthrpift thafternati flltftmflfivftg es redi redl rfthiiff icc ice instrurn wrfflm qitnrrm minmer munmer flava im in reachell reache&l reh I 1 ka k3 F through lf8 lff on lake fork the stabilization of wilderness reservoirs would increase early euly 29.4 294 294 summer flaws flows flowsbecause because the thi snowmelt smwmek snowbelt would pass pal paa through to t the reverand riverand slightly decrease cont late summer flows but not by the amount discussed in section 32421.3 324213 324213 Is some ofthe odthe of the reduction inflow in flow the resukof result resuit of decrease&irrigation dftcreasfri irrigation rebern rebirn retumflow caused by more mora mone rner rnnr efficient page 1 of 2 4184 4 184 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/11829 |
