Record Details
page 88
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 88 Final supplement to the final environmental impact statement : Diamond Fork System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project, page 88 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 88 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 111 III lii AFFECTED environment AND environmental consequences environmental impacts the fish and wildlife services HEP were used to describe project impacts of the system alternatives and to develop mitigation options for terrestrial wildlife species this analysis shown in table 37 was based on the habitat lost or gained table 38 also shows a comparison of habitat unit losses and gains for each alternative including average annual habitat units with and without the onsite ansite mitigation option for each indicator species net impacts impuacts losses or gains to each key species are assumed to be similar in magnitude for both the onsite ansite and offsite mitigation plans table 38 since both options provide compensation for similar habitats and wildlife populations recommended plan pian blan bian As shown in table 38 the recommended plan would reduce beaver habitat by 14 percent about 20 percent of the total loss would be offset by the preferred mitigation option A mule deer habitat loss of 1.8 18 18 percent would occur but 91 percent of this loss would be offset by habitat protection improvements and management of winter ranges impacts on golden eagles would be next in magnitude with 0.6 06 06 og percent of the AAHUs lost however mitigation measures would more than compensate for all of the losses losses of bobcat AAHUs would be about 0.5 05 05 percent which would be overcompensated compensated over while losses to coopers hawk would be about 0.8 08 08 percent which would be undercompensated under compensated with the exception of the beaver and coopers hawk impacts on wildlife species under the recommended plan would be less than under the 1984 FES EES plan alternative A impacts of alternative A would be generally greater than for the recommended plan because of additional surface disturbance from the fifth water aqueduct and access roads the greatest impact would be to beaver with a net AAHU loss of 7 percent losses of beaver habitat would be considerably less than with the reconunended recon ended unended ti plan with the preferred mitigation plan AAHUs for mule deer and coopers hawk would be reduced by less than 1 percent bobcat and golden eagle would be overcompensated compensated over alternative C impacts of alternative C would be significantly less than with the recommended plan the 1984 FES plan because of the elimination of monks hollow reservoir with the preferred mitigation plan beaver AAHUs would be reduced about 3 percent and mule deer and coopers hawk AAHUs would be reduced less than I 1 1 percent bobcat and golden eagle would be overcompensated overcomppnsated compensated over 88 qa q1 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/13005 |
