Record Details

page 157

Digital Collections at BYU

Field Value
Title page 157 Final supplement to the final environmental impact statement : Diamond Fork System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project, page 157
Coverage Electronic reproduction;
Format 157 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; CHAPTER IV consultation AND coordination since this water would normally flow into utah lake it belongs to the utah lake water users therefore 2800 acre feet will be purchased from utah lake water users WRITTZN WRITTEN COMMENT 79 pages 20 24 28 it would be helpful if these project operation descriptions could be expanded beyond the average annual diversion with an additional description of the operations in maximum wet and dry periods and at various ranges of flows and water demand scenarios including the effects on streamflows stream flows under these varying conditions RZSPONSZ RESPONSE 79 we have included the maximum and minimum annual flows for key stream reaches in the final supplement more detailed information regarding the project operation can be found in the monthly operation studies see the response to written comment 73 the future iad i&d system EIS will contain more detailed information regarding project operation IRITTZN MRITTKK COCEHT COMMENT 80 page 27 why is the capacity of the upper diamond fork pipeline rated at 350 cfs cs could this pipeline carry more water than that RZSPONSE RZSPOUSZ SO 80 the capacity of the upper diamond fork pipeline as reduced under alternative C because water deliveries would not be required to the irrigation and drainage system this reduction in capacity was to be accomplished by reducing the diameter of the pipeline see comparison of feature sizes in summary table 1 this would precluoa produce putting more than 350 3500 ft3s ftvs through the pipeline MUTTZN NRITTKN COMMENT 81 page 27 it should probably be pointed out that the reason for the lower energy value is because of the necessity of diverting less water to meet the 1980 instream in stream flow agreement commitment which was ignored in alternative A RESPONSE IRZSICMSZ 81 the text of the final supplement has been modified to clarify that alternative C actually increases energy production over the recommended plan because of increased transbasin trans basin diversions NSRITTBH coftaobit COftA nure OBiT nule wn WT 82 pages 31 32 2 why are aie the pipeline and tunnel sizes in options 1 and 2 8 feet and 8.5 85 85 feet respectively isnt this considerably larger than necessary what would be the smallest diameter pipe or tunnel necessary to pass the proposed water diversion through the fifth water reach RESPONSE RZSPOUSZ 82 the diameter of long tunnels is generally governed by practicality of construction in order to provide for adequate tunnel ventilation excavated material removal and personnel working space the tunnel must be initially excavated a minimum diameter of 10 to 12 feet after the excavation is completed the tunnel is then lined with concrete to a specified 157 if 0
Identifier http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/12857

© Western Waters Digital Library - GWLA member projects - Designed by the J. Willard Marriott Library - Hosted by Oregon State University Libraries and Press