Record Details
page 4-143
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 4-143 Finding of No Significant Impact Lake Fork Section 203 Alternative : Proposed Action, page 4-143 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 4-143 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; 21.6 216 216 water would be conserved under the proposed project by conveying it through several new pipelines rather than through existing canals that have some water loss because of seepage please see response to comment 3.4 34 34 for details the combining of canals to conserve water as discussed in the planning documents prepared for the uintah unit draft EIS required the approval and participation of the ute indian tribe the tribes opposition to the uintah unit plan the combining of these uintah unit canals and these section 203 alternatives is already documented and eliminates any opportunity under the section 203 authorization to conserve water by combining canals as suggested in this comment 21.7 217 A detailed roosevelt city municipal water source analysis was prepared by horrocks engineers in 1996 that showed the municipal water source needs for roosevelt city would continue to increase estimated additional needs varied from approximately 2200 to 7300 ac ft of water per year depending on the assumptions used the analysis reported that well production was nearing capacity to maintain peak month flow in july of 1994 all municipal wells were in production and were barely able to meet demands the analysis identified three potential water sources to meet these peak flow demands all of which would require water treatment water and piping to the existing storage and distribution system water sources that were identified at that time included the uinta river sand wash and browns draw browns draw was considered undesirable because of excessive seepage loss that would occur in routing water through the yellowstone feeder and uintah canals the uintah river was judged the most desirable however development of the uintah unit required tribal approval and participation which was denied therefore roosevelt city has indicated that taking water from sand wash would be desirable the proposed delivery of mal mai water to roosevelt city via the enlarged big sand wash reservoir and the big sand wash roosevelt pipeline as proposed in the draft EA and this final EA represents another alternative that has evolved from those originally identified in the detailed roosevelt city municipal water source analysis 21.8 218 218 detailed information on the demand for projec project propec t irrigation water is presented in the draft and finaf finah final finai i feasibility studies and is summarized here the demand for project im irrigation i gation water throughout the project area is 22486 ac ft per year and consists of the total diversion right minus average historic diversions however the only lands within the project area that qualify to receive project irrigation water are those with a secondary water right that can be served from the big sand wash roosevelt pipeline or the moon lake canal below big sand wash reservoir there are 14634 acres of such lands that qualify and could be served of which 1400 acres could be served from the pipeline and 13234 acres from the moon lake canal the 14634 acres of project lands that can be served represent a potential demand for 43902 ac ft of irrigation water per year at a diversion water right of 3.0 30 30 ac ft per acre this exceeds the present available irrigation water supply of 38048 ac ft per year by 5854 ac ft per year which represents the demand for project irrigation water 21.9 219 substantiating information on purpose and need for additional add itional irrigation water and mai mal water discussed in the responses to comments 21.1 211 through 21.7 217 217 has been incorporated into the final EA also as noted in the final EA and described in the response to comment 1.1 11 ll li from the FWS the revised proposed action would result in a total net water depletion of 3345 ac ft in the lower lake fork river please see the responses to comments 19.10 1910 iglo and 7.7 77 77 regarding various locations in the draft EA and this final EA where flows and flow related effects in the lower lake fork river and the duchesne river are discussed specifically section 3.7 37 37 threatened and endangered species in the draft and final EAs describes and assesses potential flow effects on endangered fish species in the duchesne river and concludes there would be no significant impacts 4143 4 143 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/11941 |
