DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 32: Response to Comments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 32: Response to Comments Chapter 32: Response to Comments 32.1 Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action ...................................................... 32-7 32.1.1 Section 1.2 – Description of the Needs Assessment Study Area ............ 32-7 32.1.2 Section 1.4 – Summary of Purpose and Need ....................................... 32-12 32.2 Chapter 2 – Alternatives ..................................................................................... 32-29 32.2.1 Section 2.1 – Alternatives Development Process (Screening) .............. 32-29 32.2.2 Section 2.2 – Description of Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study ....................................................................................... 32-46 32.2.3 Section 2.2.1 – No-Action Alternative .................................................. 32-51 32.2.4 Section 2.2.2 – Alternative A1 .............................................................. 32-51 32.2.5 Section 2.2.3 – Alternative A2 .............................................................. 32-53 32.2.6 Section 2.2.4 – Alternative A3 .............................................................. 32-53 32.2.7 Section 2.2.5 – Alternative A4 .............................................................. 32-55 32.2.8 Section 2.2.6 – Alternative B1 .............................................................. 32-55 32.2.9 Section 2.2.7 – Alternative B2 .............................................................. 32-59 32.2.10 Section 2.2.8 – Alternative B3 .............................................................. 32-59 32.2.11 Section 2.2.9 – Alternative B4 .............................................................. 32-60 32.2.12 Section 2.3 – Summary Comparison of Alternatives (Cost, Daily Delay, Travel Time, and Environmental Impacts) ................................ 32-60 32.2.13 Section 2.4 – Identification of UDOT’s Locally Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................. 32-60 32.3 Chapter 3 – Land Use ......................................................................................... 32-79 32.4 Chapter 4 – Farmland ......................................................................................... 32-84 32.5 Chapter 5 – Community Impacts ....................................................................... 32-87 32.5.1 Section 5.4.1 – Community Cohesion and Quality of Life ................... 32-87 32.5.2 Section 5.4.3 – Recreation Resources ................................................... 32-89 32.5.3 Section 5.4.4 – Community Facilities ................................................... 32-90 32.5.4 Section 5.4.5 – Public Health and Safety .............................................. 32-91 32.5.5 Section 5.4.6 – Public Services and Utilities ........................................ 32-91 32.5.6 Section 5.4.7 – Housing and Relocations.............................................. 32-93 32.6 Chapter 6 – Environmental Justice ................................................................... 32-97 32.7 Chapter 7 – Transportation................................................................................ 32-97 32.8 Chapter 8 – Economics ..................................................................................... 32-101 32.9 Chapter 9 – Joint Development ........................................................................ 32-102 32.10 Chapter 10 – Considerations Related to Pedestrians and Bicyclists............. 32-103 Chapter 32: Response to Comments 32-1 32.11 Chapter 11 – Air Quality .................................................................................. 32-108 32.11.1 Section 11.4.2 – Effects on Regional Air Quality ............................... 32-108 32.11.2 Section 11.4.2.2 – Mobile-Source Air Toxics (MSATs) .................... 32-114 32.11.3 Section 11.4.2.3 – Greenhouse Gases ................................................. 32-119 32.11.4 Section 11.4.3 – Effects on Local Air Quality .................................... 32-120 32.12 Chapter 12 – Noise ............................................................................................ 32-127 32.13 Chapter 13 – Water Quality ............................................................................. 32-128 32.14 Chapter 14 – Ecosystem Resources ................................................................. 32-134 32.14.1 Section 14.1 – General Ecosystems .................................................... 32-134 32.14.2 Section 14.3.3 – Wildlife, Sensitive Species, and Migratory Birds .... 32-136 32.14.3 Section 14.3.4 – Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ............................. 32-164 32.15 Chapter 15 – Floodplains .................................................................................. 32-177 32.16 Chapter 16 – Historic, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources ....... 32-179 32.17 Chapter 17 – Hazardous Waste Sites .............................................................. 32-180 32.18 Chapter 18 – Visual Resources ......................................................................... 32-180 32.19 Chapter 29 – Energy Impacts ........................................................................... 32-181 32.20 Chapter 20 – Construction Impacts ................................................................. 32-181 32.21 Chapter 21 – Short-Term Uses versus Long-Term Productivity .................. 32-183 32.22 Chapter 22 – Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..... 32-183 32.23 Chapter 23 – Indirect Effects ........................................................................... 32-184 32.24 Chapter 24 – Cumulative Impacts ................................................................... 32-191 32.25 Chapter 25 – Permits, Reviews, and Approvals ............................................. 32-199 32.26 Chapter 26 – Mitigation Summary .................................................................. 32-200 32.27 Chapter 27 – Section 4(f) Evaluation ............................................................... 32-200 32.28 Chapter 28 – List of Preparers ......................................................................... 32-210 32.29 Chapter 29 – Distribution ................................................................................. 32-210 32.30 Chapter 30 – Public and Agency Consultation and Coordination ................ 32-211 32.31 Other Comments ............................................................................................... 32-214 32.32 References .......................................................................................................... 32-220 32-2 Final Environmental Impact Statement This chapter contains the responses to comments, both oral and written, that were received on the West Davis Corridor (WDC) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from members of the public, government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations during the 106-day public comment period from May 24, 2013, to September 6, 2013. Individuals and agencies who commented on the Draft EIS are listed alphabetically in Appendix 32A, Commenter and Response Matrix, along with their associated comment number. To find the response to your comment, first find your name in Appendix 32A, then find the associated response section numbers, which indicate the sections of this chapter that address your comment. Appendix 32B, Reproductions of Comments on the Draft EIS, presents reproductions of written comments and transcriptions of comments that were submitted orally. Each comment document is identified in Appendix 32B by its comment number, and each statement or question regarding a separate environmental issue is labeled with an associated response section in this chapter. The sections below present the responses to comments that were received on the Draft EIS. The section numbers in this chapter correspond to the chapters and sections in the Draft EIS (for example, Section 32.12 in this chapter corresponds to Chapter 12 in the Draft EIS). Summary of Comments About 1,618 comment submissions were received on the Draft EIS from individuals, organizations, and government agencies, which resulted in about 5,000 specific comments. The comment submissions took the form of letters, e-mails, phone messages, website submissions, and public hearing testimonies. The number of comments shows a strong interest by the public in the WDC Project. It is important to note that the process established by the National Environmental Policy Act is not based on vote-counting. The public involvement efforts of the National Environmental Policy Act are intended to gather information and ideas from the public on the proposed action and alternatives, and on the impact assessment and other information in the Draft EIS, in order to ensure that the Final EIS is as accurate, informative, and useful as possible. Analysis of public comments and, as appropriate, modification of the EIS results in a better document and helps the decision-maker make better decisions, not simply count up pros and cons. It is tempting for a proponent or opponent of a particular alternative to “stuff the ballot box” in support of their view. However, even though the decision-maker gathers quantitative information that is important in assessing attitudes and concerns about particular issues, this is only part of the information that the decision-maker analyzes. The reasons for people’s concerns, preferences, and criticisms are also sought in this process. Therefore, this chapter does not usually
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prepared for the Utah Department of Transportation and the Wasatch Front Regional Council
    NORTH LEGACY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY Prepared for the Utah Department of Transportation and the Wasatch Front Regional Council October 2009 North Legacy Transportation Corridor Supplemental Study Prepared for the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Prepared by InterPlan Co. In cooperation with Wilkinson Ferrari & Company and HDR Engineering, Inc. Vern Keeslar InterPlan Thomas McMurtry InterPlan Matt Riffkin InterPlan Dana Holmes HDR Susan Lee HDR Mimi Charles Wilkinson Ferrari & Company Bethany Matsumori Wilkinson Ferrari & Company Amy Steinbrech Wilkinson Ferrari & Company October 2009 Table of Contents Executive Summary .....................................................................................1 Summary of Study Purpose.................................................................................. 1 North Legacy Draft Purpose and Need................................................................. 1 North Legacy Alignment to be Preserved ............................................................. 2 Chapter 1 Introduction..................................................................................5 Study Overview .................................................................................................... 5 Benefits and Principles of Corridor Preservation .................................................. 6 Benefits......................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Surveys on the Uinta & Wasatch-Cache National
    FISH SURVEYS ON THE UINTA & WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FORESTS 1995 By Paul K Cowley Forest Fish Biologist Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forest January 22, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... i LIST OF FIGURES ....................... iii LIST OF TABLES ....................... v INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 METHODS ........................... 1 RESULTS ........................... 4 Weber River Drainage ................. 5 Ogden River ................... 5 Slate Creek ................... 8 Yellow Pine Creek ................ 10 Coop Creek .................... 10 Shingle Creek .................. 13 Great Salt Lake Drainage ............... 16 Indian Hickman Creek ............... 16 American Fork River .................. 16 American Fork River ............... 16 Provo River Drainage ................. 20 Provo Deer Creek ................. 20 Right Fork Little Hobble Creek .......... 20 Rileys Canyon .................. 22 Shingle Creek .................. 22 North Fork Provo River .............. 22 Boulder Creek .................. 22 Rock Creek .................... 24 Soapstone Creek ................. 24 Spring Canyon .................. 27 Cobble Creek ................... 27 Hobble Creek Drainage ................. 29 Right Fork Hobble Creek ............. 29 Spanish Fork River Drainage .............. 29 Bennie Creek ................... 29 Nebo Creek ................... 29 Tie Fork ..................... 32 Salt Creek Drainage .................. 32 Salt Creek .................... 32 Price River Drainage ................
    [Show full text]
  • Comments and Responses for the Final EIS
    Comments and Responses for the Final EIS in support of the Environmental Impact Statement West Davis Corridor Project Federal Highway Administration Utah Department of Transportation in cooperation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Reclamation, Mitigation, and Conservation Commission Project No. F-0067(14)0 Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 2825 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84121-7077 September 29, 2017 This page is intentionally blank. Contents 1.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................. 3 1.1.1 Section 1.2 – Description of the Needs Assessment Study Area ................................. 3 1.1.2 Section 1.4 – Summary of Purpose and Need.............................................................. 5 1.2 Chapter 2 – Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 7 1.2.1 Section 2.1 – Background of the Alternatives-Development Process ......................... 7 1.2.2 Section 2.2 – Alternatives-Development Process for the Final EIS ............................ 7 1.2.3 Section 2.3 – WDC Roadway Design Elements ........................................................ 20 1.2.4 Section 2.4 – Description of Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003
    Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office Contact Person W. Russ Findlay Provo Area Office 302 East 1860 South Provo, Utah 84606 801-379-1084 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Contents Page Chapter 1 – Need for Proposed Action and Background.................................. 1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Dam Safety Program Overview............................................................ 1 1.2.1 Safety of Dams NEPA Compliance Requirements..................... 2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action...................................... 2 1.4 Description of Echo Dam and Reservior .............................................. 2 1.4.1 Echo Dam.................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Echo Reservoir............................................................................ 5 1.4.3 Normal Operations.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Connection to I-15 and Legacy Parkway Section 404(B)(1) Practicability Analysis
    Technical Memorandum 30: Southern Connection to I-15 and Legacy Parkway Section 404(b)(1) Practicability Analysis in support of the Environmental Impact Statement and Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit West Davis Corridor Project Federal Highway Administration Utah Department of Transportation UDOT Project No. S-0067(14)0 Prepared by HDR, Inc. 2825 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84121 April 25, 2017 ii April 25, 2017 Executive Summary Introduction The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing a project (the West Davis Corridor) to improve regional mobility in Davis and Weber Counties, Utah. These lead agencies, together called the West Davis Corridor (WDC) team, are preparing the West Davis Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will evaluate different alternatives for meeting the purpose of the project. All of the WDC action alternatives advanced in the EIS that propose a new roadway facility have a southern interchange with Interstate 15 (I-15) and Legacy Parkway. Since the start of the EIS process, the WDC Team has received numerous comments regarding potential alternative connections in Farmington and Kaysville (referred to in this document as southern alignment options). The WDC Team considered these various southern alignment options as part of the alternatives-evaluation process for the Draft EIS. At that time, the WDC Team concluded that only the Shepard Lane and Glovers Lane Options were reasonable and practicable. After the Draft EIS was published in May 2013, the WDC Team updated the EIS traffic analysis according to the Wasatch Front Regional Council’s (WFRC) 2015–2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the associated 2016 travel demand model (version 8.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Volume V Contents
    Volume V Chapters and Chapter Appendices Chapter 32: Response to Comments Appendix 32A: Commenter and Response Matrix Appendix 32B: Reproductions of Comments on the Draft EIS List of Tables Chapter 32: Response to Comments Table 32.1-1. Locations of Projected Delay and Congestion in Davis and Weber Counties in 2040 .................... 32-10 Table 32.1-2. Projected Benefits in the WDC Study Area from Transportation Improvements West and East of I-15 in 2040 ......................................................................................................................................... 32-11 Table 32.1-3. Building Permits in the WDC Study Area ....................................................................................... 32-17 Table 32.1-4. Comparison of Elasticities from Travel Demand Model Versions 7.0 and 8.1 and the Cambridge Report ................................................................................................................................... 32-25 Table 32.1-5. Farmington City Comments on Specific Transportation Projects ................................................... 32-27 Table 32.7-1. Daily Traffic Volumes on I-15 and Legacy Parkway ...................................................................... 32-98 Contents of Volume V i List of Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AADT annual average daily traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ac acres ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADR antidegradation reviews ADT
    [Show full text]
  • Shepard Lane Interchange Section 404(B)(1) Practicability and NEPA Reasonable Alternative Analysis
    Technical Memorandum 29: Shepard Lane Interchange Section 404(b)(1) Practicability and NEPA Reasonable Alternative Analysis in support of the Environmental Impact Statement and Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit West Davis Corridor Project Federal Highway Administration Utah Department of Transportation UDOT Project No. S-0067(14)0 Prepared by HDR, Inc. 2825 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84121 February 20, 2017 ii February 20, 2017 Executive Summary Introduction The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the What is the purpose of this Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing practicability analysis? a project (the West Davis Corridor) to improve regional mobility in Davis and Weber Counties, Utah. These lead The purpose of this analysis is to ensure that the least environmentally agencies, together called the West Davis Corridor (WDC) damaging practicable alternative— team, are preparing the West Davis Corridor Final the only project alternative that can Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will be permitted by the Corps of evaluate different alternatives for meeting the purpose of Engineers—is evaluated in detail in the Environmental Impact Statement the project. At the end of the EIS process, FHWA and for the West Davis Corridor Project. UDOT will select a preferred WDC alternative As part of the EIS process, the WDC team is preparing this practicability and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reasonable alternative analysis for the Shepard Lane interchange option to provide information to FHWA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). For FHWA, this analysis will help FHWA determine whether the Shepard Lane interchange option is a reasonable option to be carried forward for detailed study in the Final EIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Plan Monitoringmonitoring Wasatch-Cache National Forest First Year Report: March 2003 - March 2004
    Forest Plan MonitoringMonitoring Wasatch-Cache National Forest First Year Report: March 2003 - March 2004 1 Education and Information 2 Recreation Opportunity 3 Vegetation Management 4 Fuels Reduction 5 Rangeland Management 6 Recreation Concentrated Use Areas 7 Major Trail Development 8 Management Indicators 9 Endangered Species Act 10 Resource Protection 11 User Density Thresholds 12 NFMA Compliance United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region 13 National Historic Preservation Act Wasatch-Cache National Forest A Note from the Forest Supervisor ANote from the Forest Supervisor The Revised Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest was approved March 19, 2003. An important part of keeping the Plan current and adapting it as conditions change or as we learn from experience is monitoring. The Revised Plan Monitoring and Evalu- ation section (Chapter 4, pg. 4-105) outlines the program for follow- ing up on important decisions made in the Plan. Last September we shared with you further steps or “protocols” for moving forward with this program. We have now been implementing this new Plan for more than a year and would like to share some of the results of the first year. In some cases it is too early to actually report on what we have accomplished in each area because the monitoring protocol requires more than a year. In other areas information has been collected as a baseline to track future trends. In the coming years, a collective review of several years of information will be evaluated to determine if our management is actually moving the forest toward desired conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Morgan County, Utah Centennial County History Series
    610 square miles, more than 90 percent of which is privately owned. Situated within the Wasatch Mountains, its boundaries defined by mountain ridges, Morgan Countyhas been celebrated for its alpine setting. Weber Can- yon and the Weber River traverse the fertile Morgan Valley; and it was the lush vegetation of the pristine valley that prompted the first white settlers in 1855 to carve a road to it through Devils Gate in lower Weber Canyon. Morgan has a rich historical legacy. It has served as a corridor in the West, used by both Native Americans and early trappers. Indian tribes often camped in the valley, even long after it was settled by Mormon pioneers. The southern part of the county was part of the famed Hastings Cutoff, made notorious by the Donner party but also used by Mormon pioneers, Johnston's Army, California gold seekers, and other early travelers. Morgan is still part of main routes of traffic, including the railroad and utility lines that provide service throughout the West. Long known as an agricultural county, the area now also serves residents who commute to employment in Wasatch Front cities. Two state parks-Lost Creek Reservoir and East A HISTORY OF Morgan COUY~Y Linda M. Smith 1999 Utah State Historical Society Morgan County Commission Copyright O 1999 by Morgan County Commission All rights reserved ISBN 0-913738-36-0 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 98-61320 Map by Automated Geographic Reference Center-State of Utah Printed in the United States of America Utah State Historical Society 300 Rio Grande Salt Lake City, Utah 84 101 - 1182 Dedicated to Joseph H.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Weber Marion Kamas Francis Woodland Uinta Mountains Peoa
    Kamas Driving Guide 2008 3/17/08 9:34 AM Page 1 10 19. Duchesne Tunnel. Built 1940 - 1952. 32 Upper Weber This 6 mile tunnel brings water from the 7. Smith and Morehouse Reservoir. Campground, Duchesne River to the Provo River. Milepost 18, Hwy 150. Closed in winter. 300 North boat ramp, picnic area, mountain access. 12 miles from Oakley. Hwy 213. 20. Uinta Falls. Milepost 12.6, Hwy 150. Closed in winter. 200 North Kamas 8. Holiday Park. The Headwaters of the 21. Trial Lake High Mountain Dams, & John est 100 North Weber River. Grix Cabin. Lakes built with pack animals W and 2-wheeled carts between 1910 & 1940. 200 Center St. Cabin built 1922 - 1925 during 11 The valley’s elevation made 32 100 South expansion of Trial Lake. Closed in winter. 12 Marion farming difficult, but the 31 22. Bald Mountain Pass. High point (10,678 ft). 200 South 150 248 To Uintas 9. Original LDS Church. towns soon found a cash crop Blazzard Lumber in Kamas 30 Views into the Uinta Wilderness and of Bald est 300 South Built 1910-1914. Now Mt. (11,947) Hayden Peak (12,473), Mt in timber. Great forest of pine covered the mountains Cover photo: Janet Thimmes “Traffic on Main Street in Kamas” W 24 Kamas Valley Co-op. Agassiz (12,429). Milepost 29•B, Hwy 150. and canyons above the towns. Timber camps were 100 400 South Note the arched windows. Closed in winter. erected near the headwaters of Beaver Creek, the Provo Milepost 15.9, Hwy 32.
    [Show full text]
  • Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Is Where Civilization Meets the “Wild.” Metropolitan Areas and Get to Know Us
    inta-Wasatch-Cache NATIONAL FOREST U VISITOR GUIDE The Forest Next Door Logan River (© Mike Norton) Nebo Loop Road (© Willie Holdman) What’s Inside he Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest is where civilization meets the “wild.” Metropolitan areas and Get»to»Know»Us»......................... 2 Tcommunities bordering the forest make up some of the Special»Places»...........................3 fastest growing areas in the Intermountain West. Quick, Scenic»Byways»&»Backways»......4 convenient access is available to forest visitors year-round, Wilderness».................................6 Activities».................................... 8 making the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache an intensely used Hiking».......................................»10 destination spanning backyard to backcountry. Roads and Winter»Recreation....................»12 trails lead visitors to natural settings and spectacular vistas Flora»&»Fauna»..........................»14 with fresh water and clean air. Know»Before»You»Go.................16 Campgrounds»&»Picnic»Areas...18 In winter, the “Greatest Snow on Fast Forest Facts Maps»........................................»24 Earth” draws people from around Contact»Information»................»28 »» Size:»2.1»million»acres,»from» the world. desert»to»high»mountain»peaks.» »» The»oldest»exposed»rocks»in»Utah» can»be»seen»in»outcrops»near»the» mouth»of»Farmington»Canyon.» orest lands have sustained local communities »» The»Jardine»Juniper»tree»is»over» for thousands of years. We recognize our role in 1,500»years»old»and»is»one»of»the» F finding balance and maintaining relevance, while oldest»living»trees»in»the»Rocky» Mountains. providing sustainable recreation for a diverse and growing population. This Visitor Guide provides the information you need to make the most of your Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest experience. G et to Know Us History s “The Forest Next Door,” the Uinta-Wasatch- y the1890s many of the range and timber resources of ACache National Forest has long been sought after for its Bthe Uinta and Wasatch Mountains were seriously depleted.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Utah Fishing Guidebook
    Utah Fishing • Utah Fishing CONTACT US CONTENTS HOW TO USE THIS GUIDEBOOK 2019 1. Review the general rules, starting on page 8. These rules explain the licenses you Turn in a poacher 3 How to use this guidebook need, the fishing methods you may use, and when you can transport and possess fish. Phone: 1-800-662-3337 4 Know the laws 2. Check general season dates, daily limits and possession limits, starting on page 19. Email: [email protected] 5 Keep your license on your Online: wildlife.utah.gov/utip phone or tablet 3. Look up a specific water in the section that starts on page 25. (If the water you’re look- ing for is not listed there, it is subject to the general rules.) Division offices 7 License and permit fees 2019 8 General rules: Licenses and Offices are open 8 a.m.–5 p.m., permits Monday • Utah Fishing through Friday. 8 Free Fishing Day WHAT’S NEW? 8 License exemptions for youth Salt Lake City Free Fishing Day: Free Fishing Day will be quagga mussels on and in boats that have 1594 W North Temple groups and organizations held on June 8, 2019. This annual event is a only been in Lake Powell for a day or two. For Box 146301 9 Discounted licenses for great opportunity to share fishing fun with a details on what’s changed at Lake Powell and Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301 disabled veterans friend or family member. For more informa- how you can help protect your boat, please see 801-538-4700 10 Help conserve native tion, see page 8.
    [Show full text]