Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment

PREPARED BY: U.S. Department of the Interior Central Utah Water Central Utah Project Completion Conservancy District Act Office

March 2017

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir

In accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, the Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500‐1508), and the U.S. Department of the Interior regulations for implementation of NEPA (43 CFR Part 46), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA Office) and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), as Joint Lead Agencies, find that the Proposed Action analyzed in the Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) for this project would not significantly affect the quality of the natural or human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would allow for specific non‐project water to be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir on a space available basis in accordance with the established and in place storage tier levels:

Tier 1 – Provo City 10,000 AF allotment Tier 2 – Upper Lakes Contract Water Tier 3 – CUP Project Water Tier 4 – Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project Conserved Water Tier 5 – Upper Lakes Holdover (up to one full year's water right) Tier 6 – Jordanelle Wetlands Water Tier 7 – Warren Act Contracts (Proposed Action)

Non‐project water is a water supply that has not been acquired by the U.S. Department of the Interior to be used for the Central Utah Project (CUP) or other federal water development projects. This definition includes but is not limited to water rights held or acquired1 in the future by the CUWCD and Provo River Water Users Company (PRWUC), or other entities providing that NEPA documentation is completed and contracts have been executed (see discussion on Other Non‐Project Waters in Section 2.2 of the Final EA). CUWCD and PRWUC have specifically identified 11,700 AF of non‐project water from three different sources that could be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir pending approval of the Warren Act contracts and other state water right requirements. These are shown in table below:

Non‐Project Water Proposed to be Stored in Jordanelle Reservoir Per Year

Water Name CUWCD PRWUC Comments (acre feet) (acre feet) 2,120 CUWCD currently owns 2,120 AF Ontario Drain Tunnel ‐ 2,880 CUWCD does not currently own this water 2,000 ‐ CUWCD does not currently own this water Upper Lakes Holdover ‐ 4,200 PRWUC currently owns 4,200 AF

1 These waters could be leased, purchased, or obtained without interfering with the CUP.

FONSI 1 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Finding of No Significant Impact March 2017

Non‐Project Water Proposed to be Stored in Jordanelle Reservoir Per Year

Water Name CUWCD PRWUC Comments (acre feet) (acre feet) Daniel Replacement 500 ‐ CUWCD does not currently own this water TOTAL 11,700 AF

All non‐project water listed in the table above would need to be covered under a Warren Act contract with the United States Department of the Interior. Currently, CUWCD has obtained approximately 2,120 AF per year of the Ontario Drain Tunnel Water. In addition, PRWUC has acquired 4,200 AF of the Upper Lakes Holdover water. The other non‐project water listed in the table above – 2,880 AF of Ontario Drain Tunnel, 2,000 AF of Upper Lakes Holdover, and the 500 AF of Daniel Replacement – have not been acquired by the CUWCD. However, the Final EA and NEPA process evaluates the potential for these waters to be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir pending the approval of appropriate Warren Act contracts.

Currently, these non‐project waters either pass through Jordanelle Reservoir without being stored or are stored in the reservoir under a water rights replacement contract. These waters are already being transported in the Provo River system. If the Proposed Action was implemented, these waters would be released as part of the normal operation of the Jordanelle Reservoir and within established flow rates of the Provo River. There would be no change to the overall Provo River flow rates by storing these non‐project waters in Jordanelle Reservoir (see discussion in Section 3.3 – Provo River Hydrology in the Final EA). It is proposed that these non‐project waters could be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir for multiple years on a space available basis. The timing of the releases of the stored water would vary based on the amount of moisture received in the Provo River basin, maintenance situations, and water user demand.

Findings The Proposed Action does not violate Federal, state, or local laws or requirements imposed for protection of the environment. The CUPCA Office and CUWCD have analyzed the environmental effects, public comments, and the alternatives in detail and find that the Proposed Action meets the purpose and need described in the Final EA with no significant impacts to the human environment.

Indian Trust Assets The CUPCA Office sent letters requesting consultation on potential properties of religious or cultural importance to the Paiute Indian Tribe, the Ute Tribe, the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah, the Shoshone‐Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho, the Southern Paiute Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Uintah and Ouray Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Fort Hall Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs. No tribal representatives responded to the invitations and no Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) were identified. There are no impacts to ITAs resulting from the Proposed Action.

Decision The Joint Lead Agencies have decided to implement the Proposed Action as described in the Final EA.

FONSI 2 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Finding of No Significant Impact March 2017

Environmental Commitments The Proposed Action would have no effect on the environment. It would not require any construction or ground disturbing activities. As discussed in the Final EA, the volume and timing of water released to the Provo River from Jordanelle Reservoir would be minor and within the historical flow rates. The Proposed Action Alternative would not result in any change in function of the existing reservoir and aquatic or riverine habitat along the Provo River. Therefore, no environmental commitments are needed for the Proposed Action.

Review of Public Comments and Revisions to the Final EA To announce the review and comment period for the Draft EA (January 2017), an ad was placed in the statewide newspapers (Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune) on two consecutive Sundays (January 8th and 15th), and an ad was placed in the Wasatch Wave newspaper on Wednesday January 11th. A letter announcing the review and comment period was sent to agencies and other interested parties. The Draft EA (January 2017) was available for review beginning January 6, 2017, and comments were due by February 10, 2017. The Draft EA was posted on the project website at warrenact.cuwcd.com. A comment form was also available via the project website.

A total of four agencies or groups submitted comments during the public review of the Draft EA:  Davis and Weber Canal Company  PacifiCorp  Trout Unlimited  Weber Basin Water Conservancy District

All public comments received on the Draft EA during the public comment period were carefully considered and reviewed together with the information contained in the Final EA in determining whether to issue a FONSI. A copy of each comment received, responses to those comments, and references to any related revisions is found in Appendix B of the Final EA. Table B‐1 provides a summary of each comment with the Joint Lead Agency response. A subsection under Section 4.2 titled “The Draft EA dated January 2017 supersedes the EA dated April 2016” was added to the Final EA to clarify that the Proposed Action had been modified to remove the Provo River Project waters which were originally part of the proposed project.

The Final EA containing the specified revisions will be posted on the internet at www.cupcao.gov and warrenact.cuwcd.com. Copies of the Final EA and FONSI are available on request by contacting:

Chris Elison Project Manager – Water Rights Telephone: (801) 226‐7166 Email: [email protected]

FONSI 3 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Finding of No Significant Impact March 2017

Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment

March 2017

Joint Lead Agencies U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office Central Utah Water Conservancy District

Cooperating Agencies Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Provo Reservoir Water Users Company Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District

Responsible Officials Reed R. Murray U.S. Department of the Interior, CUPCA Office 302 East 1860 South Provo, Utah 84606‐7317

Sarah Sutherland Central Utah Water Conservancy District 355 West University Parkway Orem, Utah 84058‐7303

For information, contact: Chris Elison Central Utah Water Conservancy District 355 West University Parkway Orem, Utah 84058‐7303 (801) 226‐7166 [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables ...... iii

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1 Project Study Area ...... 1

1.2 Project Information and Background ...... 1 Warren Act ...... 1 Provo Reservoir Water Users Company/Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District ...... 3 Central Water Project ...... 3 Central Utah Project ...... 3 Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project ...... 3 Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir ...... 4

1.3 Proposed Action ...... 6

1.4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 7 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 7 Purpose for the Proposed Action ...... 7

1.5 Permits, Contracts, and Authorizations ...... 7

1.6 Related Projects and Documents ...... 8

1.7 The Draft Environmental Assessment dated January 2017 supersedes the Environmental Assessment dated April 2016 ...... 8

Chapter 2: Alternatives ...... 9

2.1 No‐Action Alternative ...... 9

2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 9 Ontario Drain Tunnel ...... 9 Upper Lakes Holdover ...... 10 Daniel Replacement ...... 10 Other Non‐Project Water not Evaluated in this Document ...... 10

Page i Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents March 2017 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 11

3.1 Introduction ...... 11 Affected Environment ...... 11 Environmental Consequences ...... 11 Resources Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 11 Resources Evaluated Further ...... 12

3.2 Jordanelle Reservoir Hydrology ...... 12 No‐Action Alternative ...... 13 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 13 Proposed Action Would Have No Effect to the Jordanelle Reservoir ...... 13

3.3 Provo River Hydrology ...... 14 Middle Provo River ...... 14 Lower Provo River ...... 15 No‐Action Alternative ...... 15 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 15 Improved Operational Flexibility ...... 16 Proposed Action Would Have No Effect to the Provo River ...... 16

3.4 Endangered Species Act and State Listed Sensitive Species ...... 19 Endangered Species Act ...... 19 Utah Sensitive Species ...... 19 No‐Action Alternative ...... 20 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 20

3.5 Recreation ...... 20 No‐Action Alternative ...... 20 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 20

3.6 Water Quality ...... 21 No‐Action Alternative ...... 21 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 21

3.7 Environmental Justice ...... 21 No‐Action Alternative ...... 21 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 22

3.8 Indian Trust Assets ...... 22 No‐Action Alternative ...... 22 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 22

3.9 Climate Change ...... 22 No‐Action Alternative ...... 22

Page ii Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents March 2017 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 22

3.10 Cumulative Impacts ...... 23

Chapter 4: Project Coordination ...... 25

4.1 Environmental Assessment Process ...... 25 Correspondence Received on the EA (April 2016) ...... 25 Draft Environmental Assessment (January 2017) ...... 25 Correspondence Received on the Draft EA (January 2017) ...... 26 The Draft Environmental Assessment dated January 2017 supersedes the Environmental Assessment dated April 2016 ...... 26 Final Environmental Assessment (March 2017) and Finding of No Significant Impact ...... 26

Chapter 5: List of Preparers ...... 27

Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016)

Appendix B – Comments and Responses on the Draft EA (Janaury 2017)

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1‐1: Project Study Area ...... 2 Figure 1‐2: Bonneville Unit of the CUP ...... 5 Figure 3‐1: Jordanelle Reservoir – Historic Elevation, Releases, and Top of Active Storage ...... 14 Figure 3‐2: Jordanelle Reservoir Operational Releases ...... 17 Figure 3‐3: Flow Rate on Lower Provo River (below Deer Creek Dam) ...... 18 Table 1‐1: Non‐Project Water Proposed to be Stored in Jordanelle Reservoir Per Year ...... 6 Table 3‐1: Middle Provo River Water Sources ...... 15 Table 3‐2: Endangered Species List in Project Study Area ...... 19 Table 3‐3: State Sensitive and Conservation Agreement Species In Project Area ...... 19 Table A‐1: Comments and Reponses for the Environmental Assessment (April 2016) Table B‐1: Comments and Reponses for the Draft Environmental Assessment (January 2017)

Page iii Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents March 2017

Page Intentionally Left Blank

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Introduction This Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) has been prepared to analyze storage of up to 11,700 acre‐ feet (AF) of non‐project water (for definition of non‐project water see Section 1.3) from three sources that flow into Jordanelle Reservoir located in Wasatch County, Utah north of Heber City (see Figure 1‐1 – Project Study Area). The Joint Lead Agencies for this project are the U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA Office) and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission), the Provo Reservoir Water Users Company (PRWUC), and the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) are Cooperating Agencies as defined by 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1501.6. The JVWCD is the majority shareholder in the PRWUC.

This Final EA has been prepared pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended; Public Law (PL) 102‐575, Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 (CUPCA), as amended; the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) implementing regulations under NEPA (40 CFR §1500 through §1508); and the U.S. Department of the Interior NEPA Implementing Procedures (43 CFR §46). This Final EA evaluates potential impacts to the environment associated with implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, as well as providing an analysis of the No‐Action Alternative for comparison purposes.

Project Study Area The project study area includes the Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir and the shoreline area directly surrounding the reservoir. Also, the project study area includes the Provo River from the base of Jordanelle Dam to Utah Lake. The Provo River between Jordanelle and Deer Creek reservoirs is often referred to as the middle Provo River. The middle Provo River runs mostly south and west through Heber Valley from the base of Jordanelle Dam to Deer Creek Reservoir and is approximately 12 miles long. The lower Provo River begins at the outlet of Deer Creek Dam, continuing southwest through Provo Canyon, and through Utah Valley before discharging into Utah Lake. The project study area is shown in Figure 1‐1.

1.2 Project Information and Background

Warren Act The United States Congress passed the Warren Act on February 21, 1911 to allow the storage and conveyance of non‐project irrigation water in federal facilities when there is excess capacity (43 United States Code (USC) §523; February 21, 1911, Chapter 141, [36 STAT. 925]). In order to utilize the flexibility provided under the Warren Act, entities must enter into a contract and agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Warren Act was amended by PL 103‐434 on October 31, 1994, to provide for storage and conveyance of non‐ project water for “domestic, municipal, fish and wildlife, industrial, and other beneficial purposes” in Central Utah Project (CUP) facilities.

Page 1 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need March 2017

FIGURE 1‐1: PROJECT STUDY AREA

Page 2 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need March 2017 Provo Reservoir Water Users Company/Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District One of the non‐project water sources discussed in this EA is held and rights owned by the PRWUC with JVWCD as the majority shareholder in the PRWUC. JVWCD is primarily a wholesaler of water to cities and improvement districts within Salt Lake County. JVWCD is a political subdivision of the State of Utah and one of the largest municipal water districts in the state. It was created in 1951 under the Water Conservancy Act and is governed by a board of nine trustees who represent eight geographical divisions. JVWCD also has a retail service area primarily in unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County. Through their connection with PRWUC, the JVWCD is a cooperating agency for the storage of non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir associated with this NEPA document.

Central Water Project The Central Water Development Project (CWP) is a non‐federal endeavor undertaken by CUWCD. The CWP has developed new infrastructure and water sources to utilize 53,312 AF of surface and ground water rights purchased by CUWCD. The CWP was designed and is managed by CUWCD. It consists of 24 miles of large diameter pipelines, deep culinary water wells and well houses, and two 5 million gallon cells of the ultimate 40 million gallon North Shore Terminal Reservoir. The CWP supplies water to the areas of northern Utah County and southern Salt Lake County.

Central Utah Project The CUP is a United States federal water project authorized for construction under the Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956 (PL 84‐485, 70 Stat. 105), as a participating project of the Colorado River Storage Project. Constructed by Reclamation and CUWCD, the CUP is located in the central, east‐central, and northeast part of Utah and is the largest water resources development project in the State of Utah. The CUP makes use of a portion of Utah’s share of the Colorado River yield as set out in the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Water developed by the CUP is used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural supplies; hydroelectric power; fish and wildlife; and recreation. The CUP also improves flood‐control capability and helps control water quality. The CUP was originally divided into six units to facilitate planning and construction: Vernal, Bonneville, Jensen, Upalco, Uinta, and Ute Indian. The Upalco, Uinta, and Ute Indian units were subsequently deauthorized. The Vernal and Jensen units are completed.

Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project The Bonneville Unit collects and diverts water from the Uinta Basin (which is part of the Colorado River Basin) to the Bonneville Basin. The Bonneville Unit is located in central and northeastern Utah and provides water for Salt Lake, Utah, Wasatch, Duchesne counties, and a portion of Summit County. The Bonneville Unit is divided into seven systems: Starvation Collection System, Strawberry Aqueduct & Collection System, Municipal and Industrial System, Diamond Fork System, Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System, Wasatch County Water Efficiency/Daniel Replacement Project, and Uintah Basin Replacement Project. These systems contain a vast network of reservoirs, aqueducts, tunnels, canals, pipelines, pumping plants and other conveyance facilities that develop water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial use; instream flows, and hydropower production (information obtained from www.cupcao.gov).

Page 3 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need March 2017 Much of the Bonneville Unit is completed and remaining features are currently under construction. The Bonneville Unit is the largest and most complex of the CUP units (see Figure 1‐2). The inset on Figure 1‐2 shows a close‐up of the Jordanelle Reservoir and the middle Provo River (stretch of the Provo River between Jordanelle Dam and Deer Creek Reservoir).

Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir Construction of the Jordanelle Dam was completed in the spring of 1993 creating the Jordanelle Reservoir. The dam and reservoir are principle features of the Municipal and Industrial system of the Bonneville Unit. Jordanelle Reservoir is located on the Provo River north of Heber City. The reservoir collects, stores, and delivers water for multiple purposes. Jordanelle Reservoir is owned by the United States and is operated by CUWCD who administers the delivery of water stored in the reservoir to its users, which are comprised of irrigation companies as well as municipal water districts. These deliveries are critical to the water supply for much of the Wasatch Front. Jordanelle Reservoir has capacity of 314,006 AF with a surface area of 3,024 acres at the top of active storage at an elevation of 6,166.40 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The reservoir has an additional 49,348 AF of space for flood storage.

Jordanelle Dam is a zoned earthfill structure that raises 299 feet above the bed of the Provo River. The dam has a crest length of 3,700 feet and a top width of 40 feet. The dam contains 14,500,000 cubic yards of material. The spillway is an earth and concrete‐lined channel with a fuse plug embankment and has a capacity to release 5,510 cubic feet per second (cfs). The outlet works has a release capacity of 3,800 cfs to the Provo River. The 13 mega‐watt Jordanelle Hydroelectric Power Plant is located at the base of dam and operates year‐round. The hydroelectric power plant is owned and operated by CUWCD. CUWCD and Heber Light and Power have entered into a lease of power privilege arrangement with the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Page 4 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need March 2017

FIGURE 1‐2: BONNEVILLE UNIT OF THE CUP

Page 5 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need March 2017 1.3 Proposed Action The Proposed Action would allow for specific non‐project water to be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir on a space available basis in accordance with the established and in place storage tier levels:

For the purposes of this NEPA document, non‐project water is a water supply that has not been acquired by the U.S. Department of the Interior to be used for the CUP or some other federal water development project. This definition includes but is not limited to water rights held or acquired2 in the future by the CUWCD and PRWUC, or other entities providing that NEPA documentation is completed and contracts have been executed (see discussion on Other Non‐Project Waters in Section 2.2). CUWCD and PRWUC have specifically identified 11,700 AF of non‐project water from three different sources that could be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir pending approval of the Warren Act contracts and other state water right requirements. These are shown in Table 1‐1:

TABLE 1‐1: NON‐PROJECT WATER PROPOSED TO BE STORED IN JORDANELLE RESERVOIR PER YEAR

All non‐project water listed in Table 1‐1 would need to be covered under a Warren Act contract with the U.S. Department of the Interior. Currently, CUWCD has obtained approximately 2,120 AF per year of the Ontario Drain Tunnel Water. In addition, PRWUC has acquired 4,200 AF of the Upper Lakes Holdover water. The other non‐project water listed in Table 1‐1 (2,880 AF of Ontario Drain Tunnel, 2,000 AF of Upper Lakes Holdover, and the 500 AF of Daniel Replacement) have not been acquired by the CUWCD. However, this NEPA document evaluates the potential for these waters to be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir pending the approval of appropriate Warren Act contracts.

2 These waters could be leased, purchased, or obtained without interfering with the CUP.

Page 6 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need March 2017

Currently, these non‐project waters either pass through Jordanelle Reservoir without being stored or are stored in the reservoir under a water rights replacement contract. These waters are already being transported through the Provo River system. If the Proposed Action was implemented these waters would be released as part of the normal operation of the Jordanelle Reservoir and within established flow rates of the Provo River. There would be no change to the overall Provo River flow rates by storing these non‐ project waters in Jordanelle Reservoir (see discussion in Section 3.3 – Provo River Hydrology). It is proposed that these non‐project waters could be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir for multiple years on a space available basis. The timing of the releases of the stored water would vary based on the amount of moisture received in the Provo River basin, maintenance situations, and water user demand.

1.4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Need for the Proposed Action The need for the Proposed Action is to provide a mechanism to allow non‐project water to be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir on a space available basis (see above Section 1.3 – Proposed Action) to more efficiently utilize existing non‐project water sources in the Provo River drainage.

Purpose for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to utilize available capacity of Jordanelle Reservoir to assist with the needs of water users by providing storage to meet non‐project demands.

1.5 Permits, Contracts, and Authorizations Implementation of the Proposed Action would require authorization from the U.S. Department of the Interior to allow storage of non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir. The Proposed Action would require the execution of a contract under the authority of the Warren Act between the U.S. Department of the Interior (CUPCA Office), CUWCD, and PRWUC (for non‐project water specific to either agency). The Proposed Action would require compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. Warren Act contracts for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir would require approval, NEPA documentation and entrance into a storage contract with CUWCD and CUPCA Office.

CUWCD and PRWUC would be required to submit a change application in accordance with Utah State water law for storing the Ontario Drain Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters.

These non‐project waters listed in Table 1‐1 would be stored for CUWCD and PRWUC uses within their service areas upon the above mentioned approvals. The non‐project water would be stored only when there is storage space available in Jordanelle Reservoir. The quantity and timing of non‐project storage is limited to what can be stored and delivered without negatively impacting the CUP water rights or other federal water development projects. The storage requested for the carriage contracts and this NEPA document would not exceed 11,700 AF in Jordanelle Reservoir.

Page 7 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need March 2017 1.6 Related Projects and Documents The Proposed Action has taken into consideration related environmental documents, including:  Jordanelle Reservoir Resource Management Plan (RMP);  Jordanelle Reservoir Environmental Assessment for the RMP;  Provo River Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement;  Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project and Daniel Replacement Project Environmental Impact Statement; and  Municipal and Industrial System Final Environmental Statement.

1.7 The Draft Environmental Assessment dated January 2017 supersedes the Environmental Assessment dated April 2016 The Joint Lead Agencies released an Environmental Assessment dated April 2016 [noted as EA (April 2016)]. A total of nine different agencies or groups commented on the EA (April 2016). The comments (see Appendix A) focused mainly on the Provo River Project water sources that were being considered for storage under a Warren Act contract at the time: Echo Storage and Deer Creek Storage waters. Upon receiving these comments on the EA (April 2016), the Joint Lead Agencies reevaluated the Proposed Action and decided to remove the Provo River Project waters (Echo Storage and Deer Creek Storage) from consideration in this NEPA process. The only non‐project waters considered for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir as part of this project and pending a Warren Act contract are listed in Table 1‐1 on page 6. These waters are the Ontario Drain Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement. A new NEPA process would need to be completed in the future for Deer Creek Storage and Echo Storage water or any other waters proposed for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir under a Warren Act contract.

Page 8 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need March 2017 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

This chapter discusses the No‐Action and the Proposed Action alternatives. The impacts of both the No‐ Action and Proposed Action alternatives are evaluated in Chapter 3 of this document.

2.1 No‐Action Alternative Under the No‐Action Alternative, the U.S. Department of the Interior would not execute a Warren Act contract with CUWCD and PRWUC to store non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir. The No‐Action Alternative would not store the non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir.

2.2 Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative allows CUWCD and PRWUC to store up to 11,700 AF of non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir from three different water sources identified in Table 1‐1 in Chapter 1. A brief description of each non‐project water source is described below.

Ontario Drain Tunnel The mining industry in Park City gained a reputation for being "wet", meaning that water filled the mines and the pumping operations became a big expense. The Ontario Mine constructed one of the first drain tunnels in 1881 below the working mine levels; it drained to open ground at lower elevations. Eventually, the Ontario Drain Tunnel was constructed to empty into a tributary of the Provo River above Heber City (source: http://utahrails.net/mining/park‐city‐drain‐tunnels.php). The Ontario Drain Tunnel water is treated at the Keetley Water Treatment Plant3 before discharging into Jordanelle Reservoir. The Ontario Drain Tunnel water owned by CUWCD and evaluated in this NEPA document currently flows through Jordanelle Reservoir without being stored. The Ontario Drain Tunnel Water is developed water foreign to the Provo River drainage.

Annually, CUWCD has a water right to 5 ½ cfs of this water delivered between September 15th and April 15th equating to approximately 2,120 AF. No Warren Act contract is proposed for any other Ontario Drain Tunnel water owned by others – only the water rights owned by CUWCD. CUWCD proposes to store a maximum of up to 5,000 AF of the Ontario Drain Tunnel water in Jordanelle Reservoir on a space available basis under a Warren Act contract for municipal and industrial uses in northern Utah County and Salt Lake County areas as needed4. This water is currently used for municipal and industrial uses and other uses as approved.

3 The Keetley Water Treatment Plant is operated by the Jordanelle Special Service District. 4 Other Ontario Drain Tunnel Water owned by other agencies may be diverted and used according to their approved rights.

Page 9 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Alternatives March 2017 Upper Lakes Holdover Within the High Uinta Mountains in the upper Provo River drainage there are 14 reservoirs that feed into the headwaters of the Provo River known as the Upper Lakes. The Upper Provo River Reservoir Stabilization project stabilized 11 of the Upper Lakes between 1994 and 1999. Three of the Upper Lakes (Trial, Washington, and Lost) were reconstructed and are managed and operated by CUWCD (see Figure 1‐2). Water from the 11 stabilized lakes is now stored in Jordanelle Reservoir. Water from Trial, Washington and Lost lakes is used upstream of Jordanelle Reservoir as part of the CUP supply in exchange for water released from Jordanelle Reservoir to meet downstream rights. The water right holders of the Upper Lakes Water (not part of the CUP or other federal water development project) have a contractual right to a one year holdover (water held in storage for an additional year) in Jordanelle Reservoir on a space available basis. Under the proposed Warren Act contract this water (up to 6,200 AF – see Table 1‐ 1) could be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir for multiple years. These waters would be used for municipal and industrial uses in northern Utah County and Salt Lake County areas as determined by CUWCD and PRWUC/JVWCD. This water is currently used for municipal and industrial uses and other uses as approved.

Daniel Replacement Historically, the Daniel Irrigation Company diverted water from the upper Strawberry River basin to Daniels Creek where it was used in the Heber Valley. The diversion was removed in the late 1990s and this water was replaced by water conserved through the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project (WCWEP). CUWCD proposes to store up to 500 AF of Daniel Replacement non‐project water if an opportunity becomes available to purchase or lease this water from Daniel Irrigation Company sometime in the future. This water would be for use in northern Utah County and Salt Lake County areas for municipal and industrial use as determined by CUWCD and in accordance with state laws. This water is currently used in the Daniel irrigation system.

Other Non‐Project Water not Evaluated in this Document Separate NEPA compliance along with a Warren Act contract would be required to store other non‐project water not addressed in this document. Also, contract(s) must be entered into and executed between the CUPCA Office, CUWCD, and the entity requesting storage of their non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir. A new NEPA process would need to be completed in the future for Deer Creek Storage and Echo Storage water or any other waters proposed for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir under a Warren Act contract.

Page 10 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Alternatives March 2017 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction In accordance with the NEPA regulations codified in 40 CFR §1502.14, this chapter discusses the existing environmental conditions that may be impacted by the Proposed Action and the environmental consequences of the No‐Action and the Proposed Action alternatives. The Proposed Action would not require the construction of new water delivery facilities, require any changes to existing facilities, and would not require any ground‐disturbing activities. The Proposed Action would not adversely impact any federal water development project or facilities including the CUP (Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir are a component of the Bonneville Unit of the CUP) and the Provo River Project (PRP). There would be no effect to the conveyance of CUP or PRP water.

Affected Environment The Affected Environment or the existing conditions were identified based on prior experience and knowledge of Jordanelle and Deer Creek reservoirs, Provo River, and coordination with federal, state, and local agencies.

Environmental Consequences NEPA requires consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, plus identification of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts (if any). The description of impacts are as follows:  Direct impacts are those caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR §1508.8). Those resources with the potential to be impacted are discussed in this chapter.  Indirect impacts are those caused by the action and occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR §1508.8). There are no indirect impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and are not discussed further in this document.  Cumulative impacts are those impacts to the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR §1508.7). Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 3.10 in this chapter.

Resources Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis Resources considered but eliminated from analysis are those that may not be present within or near Jordanelle Reservoir and/or would not be impacted by the No‐Action or Proposed Action alternatives. The resources considered for inclusion but eliminated are:  Air Quality;  Soils and Geotechnical;  Prime, Unique, and Statewide Important Farmland;  Wild and Scenic Rivers (the Provo River has not been designated as a Wild and Scenic River in accordance with PL 90‐542; 16 USC §1271);  Wilderness;  Wildlife;

Page 11 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017  Cultural Resources (the Joint Lead Agencies follow Reclamation policy which states that carriage contracts, where existing facilities would be used and no modifications or land use changes are proposed, is not considered an undertaking. The Proposed Action would result in no effect to historic properties and formal consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office is not required);  Floodplains and Wetlands;  Vegetation and Invasive Species;  Noise and Vibration;  Energy;  Socioeconomics;  Transportation;  Hazardous Waste;  Groundwater;  Land Use Plans and Policies; and  Public Health and Safety.

Resources Evaluated Further The following resources have been analyzed further and addressed in more detail in this chapter:  Jordanelle Reservoir Hydrology;  Provo River Hydrology;  Endangered Species Act and State Listed Sensitive Species;  Recreation;  Water Quality;  Environmental Justice;  Indian Trust Assets; and  Climate Change.

3.2 Jordanelle Reservoir Hydrology The storage of non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir would be added to the existing CUP water storage and other storage rights within the reservoir (see tier levels below). The non‐project water cannot and would not interfere with the storage, existing water rights, and delivery of CUP water and is subject to approval of any required change application(s) under Utah State water law. The non‐project water identified in this document (Ontario Drain Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters) would be allowed storage in Jordanelle Reservoir during times when unused reservoir capacity would be available as a 7th tier of storage. The existing and established storage tiers are: Tier 1 – Provo City 10,000 AF allotment Tier 2 – Upper Lakes Contract Water Tier 3 – CUP Project Water Tier 4 – Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project Conserved Water Tier 5 – Upper Lakes Holdover (up to one full year's water right) Tier 6 – Jordanelle Wetlands Water Tier 7 – Warren Act Contracts (Proposed Action)

Page 12 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 Inflow forecasts for Jordanelle Reservoir are estimated by CUWCD and utilized for reservoir planning and project operations prior to and during the flood season, optimization and coordination of the water supply for downstream users, and assisting in planning operational procedures with Deer Creek Reservoir.

No‐Action Alternative The No‐Action Alternative would not alter or change the Jordanelle Reservoir hydrology.

Proposed Action Alternative The storage requirements of the non‐project water described in the Proposed Action are minor compared to the overall capacity of Jordanelle Reservoir. The reservoir has a capacity of 314,006 AF with a surface area of 3,024 acres. In addition, the reservoir has a dedicated flood storage capacity of 49,348 AF above its capacity of 314,006 AF (see Figure 3‐1 – Historic Elevations, Releases, and Top of Active Storage). The non‐project water described in this document would be the first water released if required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control diagram for Jordanelle Reservoir.

Proposed Action Would Have No Effect to the Jordanelle Reservoir The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect to Jordanelle Reservoir operations. The reservoir volumes and surface water elevation fluctuate depending on the amount of moisture received in the upper Provo River basin and downstream water use demand. The non‐ Example #1 – Increased Storage Flexibility project water would be stored on a space CUWCD’s Ontario Drain Tunnel Water must available basis and within or below the normal currently be used between September 15th and full operating elevation of 6,166.40 feet AMSL. April 15th. The Proposed Action would allow this Any reservoir elevation increase resulting from water to be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir and the non‐project water storage would be small be used when other sources aren’t available. All and within the maximum historic reservoir water sources in Table 3‐1 in section 3.3 are operational elevation. The dedicated flood used in varying amounts to meet minimum Provo River instream flows and water user control storage elevation, which is above the demands. normal full operating elevation of 6,166.40 feet, would not be impacted in any way from the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would not affect or interfere with CUP and PRP operations and other water rights.

Page 13 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 Jordanelle Reservoir Historic Elevation, Releases, Top of Active Storage

Reservoir Elevation (feet) Active Storage Elevation (feet) Release to Provo River cfs

6180 2500

6160 2000

6140

1500 6120 Flow Rate (cfs) 6100 Elevation (AMSL) 1000

6080

500 6060

6040 0

FIGURE 3‐1: JORDANELLE RESERVOIR – HISTORIC ELEVATION, RELEASES, AND TOP OF ACTIVE STORAGE

3.3 Provo River Hydrology This section describes the Provo River system in two parts: the middle Provo River and the lower Provo River. There would be no effect to the Provo River from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.

Middle Provo River CUPCA, as mandated by congress, requires a minimum flow rate of 125 cfs in the middle Provo River (see Figure 1‐1) beginning at the base of Jordanelle Dam to where it enters Deer Creek Reservoir (PL 102‐575, Title III, Section 303(c)(2)). The minimum 125 cfs is released from the outlet works and/or through the hydroelectric power plant at Jordanelle Reservoir. The flows in the middle Provo River and releases from Jordanelle Reservoir consist of water sources listed in Table 3‐1 on the following page. These water sources are used to maintain the 125 cfs minimum flow rate in the middle Provo River.

Page 14 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 TABLE 3‐1: MIDDLE PROVO RIVER WATER SOURCES

Description Comments Water developed as part of the Central Utah Project and the Provo Federal Water Development Projects River Project

Upper Lakes reservoirs of Trial, Washington, and Lost – and 11 other Upper Lakes Storage Water stabilized reservoirs improved as part of CUPCA Mine dewatering tunnel that discharges to Jordanelle Reservoir (all Ontario Drain Tunnel Water water is treated at the Keatley Water Treatment Plant before release to the reservoir – see Section 3.6 – Water Quality) Many other natural streams and springs that feed into the main Natural Provo River Flows Provo River above and below Jordanelle Reservoir

Lower Provo River CUPCA legislation mandates a minimum flow rate of 100 cfs for the Provo River from the confluence of Provo Deer Creek and the Provo River (below the dam) at Deer Creek Dam to the Olmsted Diversion in Provo Canyon (PL 102‐575, Title III, Section 303(c)(3)). The minimum 100 cfs is released from the outlet works and spillway and/or through the hydroelectric power plant at Deer Creek Dam. The release from Deer Creek is from water consisting of PRP water and the water listed in Table 3‐1.

No‐Action Alternative The No‐Action Alternative would have no effect on Provo River hydrology.

Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative is to store 11,700 AF of non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir from three sources: Ontario Drain Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters. The non‐ project water proposed for storage and release from Jordanelle Reservoir would be used help to meet the already‐existing operational and contractual demands of the Joint Lead Agencies and PRWUC. The historic flow rates of the lower and middle Provo River are shown in Figures 3‐2 and 3‐3. Figure 3‐2 is the historic flow rate hydrograph of the Jordanelle Reservoir operational releases between the years 1997 and 2016. Figure 3‐3 is the historic flow rate hydrograph of the Provo River below Deer Creek Reservoir between the years 1997 and 2016 (note that the flow rate shown in Figure 3‐3 does not include flows from Provo Deer Creek). These hydrographs illustrate the variable nature of the Provo River system. This variability is a function of a number of factors:  snowpack and precipitation patterns;  reservoir elevation;  unpredictable nature of downstream water demand and timing; and  water users calling for their different water supplies.

The flows released from Jordanelle and Deer Creek reservoirs to the Provo River are a function of water demand from the various communities in Wasatch, Utah, and Salt Lake counties, irrigation demand, and natural flows. During the summer months, flow rates in the river are typically higher due to demand increase for outdoor water use and irrigation. Flow rates are generally lower in the winter.

Page 15 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 Improved Operational Flexibility The storage of non‐project water would Example #2 – Ability to Deliver Non‐project allow the Joint Lead Agencies and PRWUC Water during Maintenance Shutdowns greater operational flexibility in The Proposed Action would provide increased determining which water source would be flexibility during maintenance of pipelines or water used and delivered to their respective treatment plants between September 15th and customers. However, the Proposed Action April 15th. During these times, the CUWCD’s would not affect the flow rate released Ontario Drain Tunnel water cannot currently be from Jordanelle Reservoir to the middle stored and is therefore not available for CUWCD Provo River or the lower Provo River. The uses. This water would flow down the Provo River overall middle and lower Provo River flow and would not be stored, treated, or delivered to CUWCD customers. The Proposed Action would rates would not be affected as a result of allow this water to be stored during maintenance the Proposed Action and would fall within shutdowns and then delivered when the pipelines the variability of the hydrographs shown in or water treatment plants are back in use. figures 3‐2 and 3‐3. The Joint Lead Agencies are committed to maintaining the minimum flow requirements for the Provo River as legislated by CUPCA.

The three water sources would be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir, on space available basis, and used by either CUWCD or PRWUC when needed by the downstream users. The Proposed Action would allow the Joint Lead Agencies to more flexibly manage water deliveries. Each water source has use and delivery conditions.

Proposed Action Would Have No Effect to the Provo River The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on the Provo River. The Example #3 – Ability to Use Later in the Season When Other Sources aren’t Available hydrographs shown in figures 3‐2 and 3‐3 The PRWUC, through JVWCD the majority demonstrate the variability of the flow shareholder in the PRUWC, has multiple water patterns from year to year along the middle sources other than what is discussed in this and lower Provo River, particularly during document. Some of JVWCD water sources are only the spring and summer months. The overall available during high runoff periods usually in the flow rates would not increase or decrease as springtime. The Proposed Action would allow them a result of the Proposed Action and would to store their Upper Lakes Holdover Water and then fall within the variability of the hydrographs. use it later in the season or use it in dry years to The three sources listed as part of the supplement the early season water sources to meet their water user demands. Proposed Action currently flow through both Jordanelle and Deer Creek reservoirs without being stored under a Warren Act contract; no new water sources would be added to the Provo River.

Page 16 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 Jordanelle Reservoir Operational Releases 1997‐2016

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2500 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2000

1500

Flow Rate (cfs) 1000

500

0 January February March April May June July August September October November December FIGURE 3‐2: JORDANELLE RESERVOIR OPERATIONAL RELEASES

Page 17 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 Lower Provo River (measured below Deer Creek Reservoir)

1997‐2016

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

Flow Rate (cfs) 800

600

400

200

0 January February March April May June July August September October November December FIGURE 3‐3: FLOW RATE ON LOWER PROVO RIVER (BELOW DEER CREEK DAM)

Page 18 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 3.4 Endangered Species Act and State Listed Sensitive Species

Endangered Species Act Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (7 USC §136, 16 USC §1531 et seq.), as amended, requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if listed species or designated critical habitat may be affected by a proposed federal project.

Table 3‐2 lists the federally‐listed ESA species that are known to occur within or near Jordanelle Reservoir and the lower and middle Provo River between Jordanelle Dam and Utah Lake. The Joint Lead Agencies used USFWS IPaC which provided the listed endangered and threatened species within the project area.

TABLE 3‐2: ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST IN PROJECT STUDY AREA Species Status Occurrence in the Study Area Yellow‐Billed Cuckoo No suitable habitat and no documented occurrences within Threatened (Coccyzus americanus) the project study area. Ute ladies'‐tresses Threatened No impact to suitable habitat. (Spiranthes diluvialis) The lower 4.9 miles of the Provo River before entering Utah June sucker Endangered Lake has been designated as critical habitat. No impact to (Chasmistes liorus) suitable habitat. Canada Lynx No suitable habitat and no documented occurrences within Threatened (Lynx canadensis) or near Jordanelle Reservoir. No impact to suitable habitat. Source: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

Utah Sensitive Species The Utah Sensitive Species List identifies several conservation agreement or sensitive species in addition to federally‐listed threatened and endangered species shown above. Of those, seven have been documented to occur near Jordanelle Reservoir and are listed in Table 3‐3.

TABLE 3‐3: STATE SENSITIVE AND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT SPECIES IN PROJECT AREA Species Status Habitat and Occurrence in the Study Area No suitable habitat (coniferous forests with waterfalls). Black Swift State Sensitive Observed in 1996 below Jordanelle Dam, but correct (Cypseloides niger) identification was not confirmed. Suitable habitat consists of wet meadows and some Bobolink State Sensitive irrigated pastures and hay fields. Documented occurrences (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) are located below Jordanelle Dam along the Provo River. Suitable habitat consists of perennial seeps, springs, and Columbia Spotted Frog Conservation sloughs with herbaceous wetland vegetation. This species (Rana luteiventris) Agreement is known to occur below the Jordanelle Dam along the Provo River. Suitable habitat varies widely and includes slow moving Western Toad State Sensitive streams, wet meadows, springs, ponds, lakes, and (Bufo boreas) woodlands.

Page 19 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 TABLE 3‐3: STATE SENSITIVE AND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT SPECIES IN PROJECT AREA Species Status Habitat and Occurrence in the Study Area This species is native to streams and rivers in southern Southern Leatherside Chub Conservation portions of the Bonneville Basin. It prefers slow water with (Lepidomeda aliciae) Agreement deep pools. Surveys below the Jordanelle Dam in the Provo River documented the species in 2005. This species is native to the Bonneville Basin and can be Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Conservation found in a number of habitat types ranging from high‐ (Oncorhynchus clarkii Utah) Agreement elevation mountain streams and lakes to low‐elevation grassland streams. Greater sage‐grouse Conservation These species are obligate residents of the sagebrush (Centrocercus urophasianus) Agreement ecosystem. Source: Utah Conservation Data Center and UNHP Data

No‐Action Alternative The No‐Action Alternative would have no effect on any listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species and would have no effect on any state sensitive or conservation agreement species.

Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action would have no effect on populations of listed threatened, endangered, candidate, or state sensitive species. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or ground disturbing activities. As discussed above, the volume and timing of water released to the Provo River from Jordanelle Reservoir would be minor and within the historical flow rates. The Proposed Action Alternative would not result in any change in function of the existing reservoir and aquatic or riverine habitat along the Provo River.

3.5 Recreation Recreation facilities were built by Reclamation as part of the Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir construction. The Jordanelle State Park opened in June 1995 and is managed by Utah Division of State Parks. At full operating capacity the reservoir is over 3,000 acres of open water and is ideal for boating and other water recreational activities offering a wide variety of opportunities: camping, picnicking, fishing, boating, water sports, swimming, hiking, mountain biking. Jordanelle Reservoir provides fishing for rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brown trout, and smallmouth bass and draws over 200,000 angler hours per year.

No‐Action Alternative The No‐Action Alternative would have no effect on recreational activities on or near Jordanelle Reservoir.

Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect to recreational activities on or near Jordanelle Reservoir. The Proposed Action Alternative would be within the limits of the active storage elevation shown in Figure 3‐1.

Page 20 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 3.6 Water Quality Jordanelle Reservoir is classified by use designations assigned by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. The water quality of the reservoir is protected for the following beneficial uses (see section R317‐ 2‐6 of Utah Code Annotated):  Class 1C – Protected for domestic purposes with prior treatment by treatment processes as required by the Utah Division of Drinking Water.  Class 2A – Protected for frequent primary contact recreation where there is a high likelihood of ingestion of water or a high degree of bodily contact with the water. Examples include, but are not limited to, swimming, rafting, kayaking, diving, and water skiing.  Class 3A – Protected for cold‐water species of game fish and other cold‐water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.  Class 4 – Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering.

The major water source for Jordanelle Reservoir is the Provo River. The Upper Lakes Holdover and the Daniel Replacement waters are part of the other water sources for the Provo River. The Ontario Drain Tunnel water is another source which is a dewatering tunnel for the Ontario mine. The entire flow from the Ontario Drain Tunnel is treated by the Jordanelle Special Service District (JSSD) at the Keatley Water Treatment Plant under a Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permit for water quality prior to discharging into Jordanelle Reservoir.

No‐Action Alternative The No‐Action Alternative would have no effect on water quality at Jordanelle Reservoir.

Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on water quality. All of the Ontario Drain Tunnel water is treated by JSSD at its Keatley Water Treatment Plant before discharging into Jordanelle Reservoir and would continue under the Proposed Action Alternative. Storing the Upper Lakes Holdover and Daniel Replacement waters would have no effect on water quality.

3.7 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 established Environmental Justice as a federal agency priority to ensure that minority and low‐income groups are not disproportionately affected by federal actions. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would not disproportionately or unequally affect any low‐income or minority communities. The proposed project would not involve any facility construction, population relocation, health hazards, hazardous waste, property takings, or substantial economic impacts. This action would therefore have no adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low‐ income populations.

No‐Action Alternative The No‐Action Alternative would have no effect on Environmental Justice populations.

Page 21 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect to Environmental Justice populations.

3.8 Indian Trust Assets Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) are legal interests in property held in trust by the United States for federally recognized Indian tribes or individuals. Assets can be real property, physical assets, or intangible property rights, such as lands, minerals, hunting and fishing rights, and water rights. The U.S. Department of Interior’s policy is to recognize and fulfill its legal obligations to identify, protect and conserve the trust resources of federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal members, and to consult with the tribes on a government‐to‐government basis whenever plans or actions affect tribal trust resources, trust assets, or tribal safety. Under this policy, the federal government is committed to carrying out its activities in a manner that avoids adverse impacts to ITAs when possible, and to mitigate or compensate for such impacts when it cannot. All impacts to ITAs, even those considered insignificant, must be discussed in the trust analyses in NEPA compliance documents and appropriate compensation or mitigation must be implemented. There are no known ITAs in the Project Study Area. The implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would have no foreseeable negative impacts on Indian Trust Assets.

No‐Action Alternative The No‐Action Alternative would have no effect on Indian Trust Assets.

Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on Indian Trust Assets.

3.9 Climate Change Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance established an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the federal government and made the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority for federal agencies. Carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions. The Proposed Action Alternative would not cause an increase in CO2 or other greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, it would not contribute to climate change, or would it create vulnerability to climate change impacts. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be consistent with Executive Order 13514 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.

No‐Action Alternative The No‐Action Alternative would have no effect on climate change.

Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on Climate Change. In addition, Climate Change would have no effect on the Proposed Action.

Page 22 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017

3.10 Cumulative Impacts In addition to project‐specific impacts, cumulative impacts were analyzed for the potential for adverse effects to resources affected by the project and by other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities. According to the CEQ's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR §1508.7), a “cumulative impact” is an effect on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively larger actions taking place over a period of time. It focuses on whether the Proposed Action Alternative, considered together with any known or reasonably foreseeable actions by CUWCD, PRWUC, other federal or state agencies, or some other entity combined to cause an effect. The Joint Lead Agencies have determined that the Proposed Action Alternative would not have an adverse impact to any resource.

Page 23 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 24 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences March 2017 CHAPTER 4: PROJECT COORDINATION

Chapter 4 describes the project coordination and public involvement activities for the proposed project.

4.1 Environmental Assessment Process Environmental Assessment (April 2016) The Joint Lead Agencies released an Environmental Assessment April 2016 [noted as EA (April 2016)] for public and agency review. The 30‐day comment period extended until June 3, 2016. The list below outlines the public involvement activities for the EA (April 2016):  Interested party letters were sent to state, local, and federal agencies and other groups that may have an interest in the Proposed Action;  Native American consultation letters were sent (no response received);  Digital version on CUWCD (with a comment form), CUPCA Office, and JVWCD websites; and  Ad was placed in local and statewide papers notifying of its release.

Correspondence Received on the EA (April 2016) Nine agencies or groups provided comments on the EA (April 2016). A list of commenting agencies and groups is found below. The comments each provided and the responses from the Joint Lead Agencies are found in Table A‐1 in Appendix A.  U.S Bureau of Reclamation (Provo Area Office)  Trout Unlimited (Utah Water Project Director & Weber River Restoration Coordination)  Weber River Water Users Association  Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company  Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA)  Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (comment came as part of PRWUA)  Weber Basin Water Conservancy District  Trout Unlimited  PacifiCorp

Draft Environmental Assessment (January 2017) The Joint Lead Agencies released a Draft Environmental Assessment dated January 2017 [(noted as Draft EA (January 2017)] for agency and public review following the comments received on the previous EA (April 2016). A 30‐day comment and review period extended until February 10, 2017. The list below outlines the public involvement activities for the Draft EA (January 2017):  Interested party letters were sent to state, local, and federal agencies and other groups that may have an interest in the Proposed Action including those that commented on the EA (April 2016);  Digital version on CUWCD (with comment form), CUPCA Office, and JVWCD websites; and  Ad was placed in local and statewide papers notifying of its release.

Page 25 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 4: Project Coordination March 2017 Correspondence Received on the Draft EA (January 2017) Four agencies or groups provided comments on the Draft EA (January 2017). A list of commenting agencies and groups is found below. The comments each provided and the responses from the Joint Lead Agencies are found in Table B‐1 in Appendix B.  Davis & Weber Counties Canal Company;  PacifiCorp;  Trout Unlimited; and  Weber Basin Water Conservancy District

The Draft Environmental Assessment dated January 2017 supersedes the Environmental Assessment dated April 2016 As discussed above, a total of nine different agencies or groups commented on the EA (April 2016) and those comments are found in Appendix A. The comments focused mainly on the Provo River Project water sources that were being considered for storage under a Warren Act contract at the time in Jordanelle Reservoir: Echo Storage and Deer Creek Storage water. Upon receiving these comments on the EA (April 2016), the Joint Lead Agencies reevaluated the Proposed Action and decided to remove the Provo River Project waters (Echo Storage and Deer Creek Storage) from consideration in this NEPA process. The only non‐project waters considered for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir as part of this project and pending a Warren Act contract are listed in Table 1‐1 on page 6. These waters are the Ontario Drain Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement. A new NEPA process would need to be completed in the future for Deer Creek Storage and Echo Storage water or any other waters proposed for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir under a Warren Act contract.

Furthermore, the CUPCA Office will prepare a stand‐alone decision document that will be based on the Proposed Action and information contained in this Final Environmental Assessment (March 2017).

Final Environmental Assessment (March 2017) and Finding of No Significant Impact This Final Environmental Assessment reflects the changes made in response to the comments received on the EA (April 2016) and the Draft EA (January 2017). The CUPCA Office, upon recommendation from CUWCD, has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Action will be issued.

Page 26 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 4: Project Coordination March 2017 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS

Name Title Agency

W. Russ Findlay CUPCA Program Coordinator CUCPA Office

Sarah Sutherland Environmental Programs Manager CUWCD

Rich Tullis Assistant General Manager CUWCD

Daryl Devey CUP Manager CUWCD

Jared Hansen CUP Manager CUWCD

Devin McKrola Bonneville Unit Manager CUWCD

Paul Pierpont Provo Area Manager CUWCD

Chris Elison Project Manager – Water Rights CUWCD

Steve Clyde Attorney Council for CUWCD

Bart Forsyth Assistant General Manager JVWCD/PRWUC

Jeff Bryant Water Rights Manager JVWCD/PRWUC Reclamation Provo Area Office Rick Baxter Environmental Division Manager (Cooperating Agency) Reclamation Provo Area Office Peter Crookston Environmental Group Chief (Cooperating Agency) Reclamation Provo Area Office Justin Record Water Rights (Cooperating Agency) Reclamation Provo Area Office Rachel Musil Water Rights (Cooperating Agency) Mitigation Commission Melissa Stamp Project Manager – Mitigation Commission (Cooperating Agency)

Page 27 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 5: Preparers March 2017

APPENDIX A COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE EA (APRIL 2016)

TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Comments Response/How Addressed Comment A1 Section 3.6 – Water Quality has been added to chapter 3 of this Draft Environmental Need a section on Water Quality due to Ontario drain tunnel water being stored. Assessment (January 2017). There would be no change to water quality in Jordanelle Reservoir as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. Comment A2 See Section 3.4 –Endangered Species Act and State Listed Sensitive Species has been added Need a small section on ESA as ULTs are known to exist between Jordanelle and in chapter 3 of the Draft EA (January 2017). This section discusses the threatened, Deer Creek along the Provo River. endangered, candidate, and state sensitive species in Wasatch County. There would be no effects to threatened, endangered, candidate, and state sensitive species as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. Comment A3 Section 3.5 – Recreation has been added in chapter 3 of the Draft EA (January 2017). The Need a small section on Recreation based on the 7.5 ft water pool storage. changes to recreation due to the Proposed Action Alternative are negligible. Comment A4 Sections 3.2 and 3.3 – Jordanelle Reservoir Hydrology and Provo River Hydrology, Need a section on hydrology ‐ timing of release should be analyzed along with respectively, have been added to this Draft EA (January 2017). The changes to the releases storage timing and duration. from Jordanelle Reservoir to the middle Provo River and the lower Provo River below Deer Creek would be within the range of the current hydrograph and any slight changes would be negligible (see figures 3‐2 and 3‐3).

Trout Unlimited (Paul Burnett – Utah Water Project Director and Weber River Restoration Coordination)

Comments Response/How Addressed Comment B1 Climate Change and Cumulative Impact sections have been added to Chapter 3 of this Draft We believe that the BOR and Central Utah Water Conservancy District need to EA (January 2017) (see sections 3.9 and 3.10 respectively). The Echo Storage water has been consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed actions under this EA along with removed from this document. Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative would have no past actions, including the seismic upgrades to Echo Reservoir (which eliminated change and no impact to the Weber River Basin (direct, indirect, or cumulative) as defined by low flow leakage), Jordanelle Dam construction, and improvements to the Weber‐ 40 CFR §1508.7 and §1508.8. However, cumulative impacts are evaluated for the Provo River Provo Diversion. Paired with climate change the trends for the Weber River are Basin (see Section 3.10 – Cumulative Impacts). troubling. Comment B2 The Proposed Action Alternative has been modified and includes only the Ontario Drain We are very concerned that this EA allows further storage and removal of water Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters. The Deer Creek Storage and from the Weber River system as these out‐of‐basin water deliveries are responsible the Echo Storage waters have been removed from the evaluation and are no longer a for winter‐long dewatering of 12 miles of the Weber River below Echo Reservoir component of the Proposed Action Alternative. and essentially dewaters the Weber River below the Weber Provo Diversion.

Page A1 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment B3 See response to Comment B2. One significant impact caused by the proposed action in this EA is a continuation of an extended period of dewatering, which is greatly limiting recreational fishing opportunities within the Weber River. The EA lists a complex set of non‐CUP water that would be stored in Jordanelle. The source of each water is not provided and whether this water is involved in any exchanges or agreements with the Weber River Basin. Comment B4 See response to Comments B1 and B2. Finally, although not explicitly indicated in the EA, it stands to reason that storing additional non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir will primarily occur during periods of low water yield in the Provo and Weber River systems. These are also the periods when flow reductions are most severe below Echo Reservoir, below the Weber‐Provo Diversion and in the lower Weber River.

As part of this EA, we believe the Central Utah Water Conservancy District should investigate the cumulative effects that these actions are having, and work with stakeholders to develop instream flow criteria below the Weber‐Provo canal and Echo Dam. Weber River Water Users Association (Theo Cox – President)

Comments Response/How Addressed Comment C1 The Proposed Action Alternative has been modified and includes only the Ontario Drain We are opposed to having Weber River water stored on the Provo River side as per Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters. The Deer Creek Storage and the proposal. We especially do not support storage of said water for multiple years. the Echo Storage waters have been removed from the evaluation and are no longer a component of the Proposed Action Alternative. Comment C2 The Weber River Water Users Association (WRWUA) has been added to the mailing list for The Weber River Water Users Association (WRWUA) is an interested party in this this project. matter and believe that we should have received notice about this EA, but did not receive such a letter. Comment C3 See response to Comment C1. The intent of the Weber‐Provo diversion/canal was to get the single‐purpose irrigation water to the Provo River Basin for beneficial use within a year and not to be stored, especially over multiple years. The contract to construct Echo and the Weber‐Provo Diversion Canal references the Warren Act and that the facilities are to be used for irrigation purposes.

Page A2 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment C4 See response to Comment C1. The diversion of water from the Weber River Basin to the Provo River Basin has a greater impact to the watershed than inter‐basin exchanges and diversions since there are no return flows to the water users. Comment C5 See response to Comments C1. We believe the proposal to store 5,000 AF of Echo Storage water in Jordanelle would be enlarging a water right. The WRWUA does not intend to nor would support a change application of our water rights to the Provo River Basin. Comment C6 See response to Comment C1. The Weber River Water Users Association is opposed to the proposal to store Weber River water in the Provo River Basin in Jordanelle Reservoir. Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company (Scott Paxman – President)

Comments Response/How Addressed Comment D1 The Proposed Action Alternative has been modified and includes only the Ontario Drain We are opposed to having Weber River water stored on the Provo River side as per Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters. The Deer Creek Storage and the proposal. We especially do not support storage of said water for multiple years. the Echo Storage waters have been removed from the evaluation and are no longer a component of the Proposed Action Alternative. Comment D2 The Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company has been added to our mailing list for this The Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company is an interested party in this matter project. and believe that we should have received notice about this EA, but did not receive such a letter. Comment D3 See response to Comment D1. The intent of the Weber‐Provo diversion/canal was to get the single‐purpose irrigation water to the Provo River Basin for beneficial use within a year and not to be stored, especially over multiple years. The contract to construct Echo and the Weber‐Provo Diversion Canal references the Warren Act and that the facilities are to be used for irrigation purposes. Comment D4 See response to Comment D1. The diversion of water from the Weber River Basin to the Provo River Basin has a greater impact to the watershed than inter‐basin exchanges and diversions since there are no return flows to the water users. As a water user, we’ll be negatively impacted. Comment D5 See response to Comment D1. We believe the proposal to store 5,000 AF of Echo Storage water in Jordanelle would be enlarging a water right. Page A3 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment D6 See response to Comment D1. The Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company is opposed to the proposal to store Weber River water in the Provo River Basin in Jordanelle Reservoir. Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA) and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (via letter received from Snow Christensen & Martineau) Comments Response/How Addressed Comment E1 Section 205(b) of CUPCA states: Due to the language of section 205(b) of CUPCA, we question the technical aspect “…Federal funds authorized under this title may not be provided to the District until the of CUWCD being considered a federal agency for purposes of NEPA where federal District enters into a binding agreement with the Secretary to be considered a "Federal funds are not being expended by CUWCD, and PRP water is involved in the Agency" for purposes of compliance with all Federal fish, wildlife, recreation, and proposed action. environmental laws with respect to the use of such funds, and to comply with this Act.”

The Joint Lead Agencies understand this comment to mean that since no federal funding is being expended that CUWCD has no authority for purposes of NEPA. To clarify, NEPA is needed since a federal decision involving use of a federal facility is required on the Proposed Action Alternative regardless of funding. Compliance with NEPA is required by all federal agencies before making final decisions about federal actions. NEPA applies to a wide range of federal actions that include, but are not limited to, federal construction projects, plans to manage and develop federally owned lands, water ways and reservoirs, and federal approval of other activities such as grants, licenses, contracts, and permits.

Page A4 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment E2 The Joint Lead Agencies disagree with the comment that “the ultimate decision as to any We also wonder about the technical ability of the Secretary to delegate Warren Act particular Warren Act contract should rest with Reclamation.” This comment is contrary to contracting authority to CUWCD. In any event, the ultimate decision as to any law and existing agreements. particular Warren Act contract should rest with Reclamation. This is particularly important where decisions may impact Reclamation projects other than the CUP. Section 202(e) of CUPCA states: “The Secretary is responsible for carrying out the responsibilities as specifically identified in this title and the Act of April 11, 1956, popularly known as the Colorado River Storage Project Act, relating to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project including oversight for all phases of the Bonneville Unit, the administration of all prior and future contracts, operation and maintenance of previously constructed facilities and may not delegate such responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation…”

Article VI of the agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior and CUWCD dated August 11, 1993 states: “The Secretary agrees to assist the District by appointing a federal official as a Program Director for the Project to be located in Utah County, Utah. The Program Director will have authority to provide review, oversight and approval of District activities required under this Agreement, the cost sharing agreement, and any other agreements between the parties pursuant to the Act. The Program Director’s authority shall include, but not be limited to, oversight, review, and approval of NEPA compliance documents prepared by the District…”

The U.S. Department of the Interior, CUPCA Office has the authority to enter into a contract for the impounding, storage, and carriage of non‐project water in the Bonneville Unit and CUP facilities through a contract issued under the authority of the Warren Act (43 USC §523; February 21, 1911, Chap. 141, [36 STAT. 925]). The Warren Act authority is not being delegated to CUWCD but is correctly exercised by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Comment E3 The Proposed Action Alternative has been modified and includes only the Ontario Drain For example, one of our primary concerns is the discussion in the EA regarding the Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters. The Deer Creek Storage and storage of Provo River Project (PRP) water in Jordanelle Reservoir. The storage of the Echo Storage waters have been removed from the evaluation and are no longer a PRP water is not discussed with adequate detail in the EA, and was not adequately component of the Proposed Action Alternative. discussed with the PRP stakeholders, particularly PRWUA. As you know, PRWUA is responsible by statute and contract for the care, operation, maintenance and repayment of the PRP. We do not believe storage of PRP water in Jordanelle is consistent with the Deer Creek Jordanelle Operating Agreement (Operating Agreement), the PRP water rights, or the agreements among PRWUA and its shareholders.

Page A5 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment E4 See response to Comment E3. The PRP water rights do not authorize storage in Jordanelle. To the extent that PRP water is in Jordanelle after the accounting/paper exchange contemplated by the Operating Agreement, it is to be released to Deer Creek Reservoir under the direction of the State Engineer. That regulation of PRP water by the State Engineer for the benefit of instream flows has not been considered storage in the past, and should not be considered storage now. Comment E5 See response to Comment E3. We believe the same desired end results can be achieved by utilization of the flexibility CUWCD already has in making deliveries to its petitioners, and by exchanging of water among parties who have access to PRP, CUP and/or direct flow supplies. Comment E6 See response to Comment E3. At a minimum, if storage of PRP water is discussed in the final EA, the final EA should include a third alternative that does not involve storage of PRP water. Also, sections 1.5 of the EA should make clear that PRWUA’s signature will be necessary as to contracts, and applications involving PRP water filed with the State Engineer’s office. Comment E7 See response to Comment E3. Another primary concern is that the EA does not unequivocally say that no Warren Act contract for storage of non‐project water in Jordanelle will be signed if it does not adequately assure protection of the operations, yield and commitments of all Reclamation projects, including the PRP. This should be stated clearly. This is of particular concern when it comes to the storage of PRP water in Jordanelle, as previously mentioned. Comment E8 See response to Comment E3. It is also a particular concern with the storage of water from the Weber River. The carriage of Weber River water in the Weber Provo Canal in a manner that differs from historical operations has serious potential for diminishing the yield of PRP Weber River water rights, and interfering with PRP commitments.

Page A6 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment E9 See response to Comment E3. The Weber Provo Diversion and Weber Provo Canal are PRP facilities involving certain contractual commitments relating to the carriage of Weber River Project water. Any use of those facilities for the carriage of water that is neither PRP, nor Weber River Project water already the subject of existing contracts, requires a Warren Act contract relating to the use of PRP facilities in addition to one relating to the use of Jordanelle. This should be made clear in the EA.

We understand that the only "Echo Storage" water discussed in the EA is that Weber River Project water that is the subject of existing PRWUA contracts. Any change in the carriage of that water from historic operations contemplated by contracts involving PRWUA would require PRWUA's consent. This should be made clear in the EA. Comment E10 Section 2.2 for the description for the Ontario Drain Tunnel Water has been reworded and In section 2.2, page 11, of the EA there is a paragraph discussing Ontario Drain now states: Tunnel (ODT) water. That paragraph contains a sentence stating: "The Ontario Drain Tunnel water currently flows through Jordanelle Reservoir without being stored “The Ontario Drain Tunnel Water is treated at the Keetley Water Treatment Plant5 before and eventually is delivered to Utah Lake and onto the Great Salt Lake." This discharging into Jordanelle Reservoir. The Ontario Drain Tunnel Water owned by CUWCD and statement does not appear to be material to any environmental analysis or the EA, evaluated in this NEPA document currently flows through Jordanelle Reservoir without being but it is materially incorrect. We raise this concern because the misstatement stored. The Ontario Drain Tunnel Water is developed water foreign to the Provo River potentially negatively implicates the beneficial use of non CUWCD water rights. drainage.

A footnote #3 has been added that states “Other Ontario Drain Tunnel Water owned by other agencies may be diverted and used according to their approved rights.”

5 The Keetley Water Treatment Plant is operated by the Jordanelle Special Service District. Page A7 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment E11 The Proposed Action Alternative includes CUWCD entering into a Warren Act contract which In the EA paragraph discussing ODT water, in the sentence following the one just would allow 5,000 AF of the CUWCD Ontario Drain Tunnel Water to be stored in Jordanelle commented on, the EA indicates that up to 5,000 AF of ODT water will be stored. Reservoir. Annually, CUWCD has a water right to 5 ½ cfs delivered between September 15th The EA says CUWCD has a right to use 2,120 AF of ODT water annually. Given these and April 15th equating to approximately 2,120 AF. This has been clarified throughout this two volume figures it is not clear if ODT under water rights other than the CUWCD Draft EA (January 2017). No Warren Act contract is proposed for any other Ontario Drain right may be stored. If that is the intent that should be made clear, and the Tunnel Water owned by others – only the water rights owned by CUWCD. necessary contracts and State Engineer approvals should be mentioned in Section 1.5 of the EA. Comment E12 This has been corrected in this Draft EA (January 2017). In the second paragraph of section 1.2 the EA says JVWCD treats water for MWDSLS. Without more this may suggest JVWCD treats and delivers to MWDSLS water that is available under JVWCD water rights and contracts. For the most part JVWCD treats and delivers to MWDSLS water available to MWDSLS under MWDSLS' water rights and contracts. We would appreciate that clarification. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District (via letter received from Holland & Hart)

Comments Response/How Addressed Comment F1 The Proposed Action Alternative has been modified and includes only the Ontario Drain To the extent that any of the three above‐described PRWUC scenarios could result Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters. The Deer Creek Storage and in additional import of Weber River water to the Provo River drainage, the EA is the Echo Storage waters have been removed from the evaluation and are no longer a insufficient because it does not evaluate the impacts to the environment in the component of the Proposed Action Alternative. Weber River drainage, which would be a direct result of the Proposed Action Alternative. The action would have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant effects. Comment F2 See response to Comment F1. The Proposed Action is likely to increase water diversion from the Weber River to the Provo River. The amount and timing of this increased diversion is not discussed in the EA. Weber Basin is directly and immediately impacted by any diversion and use of Weber River water in the Provo River/Utah Lake drainage, and increased diversion hits Weber Basin especially hard. Comment F3 See response to Comment F1. The Proposed Action Alternative has the very real potential for injuring Weber Basin through changes in operation of Jordanelle and Deer Creek Reservoirs resulting in increased water importation from the Weber River and a change in these historical volume and flow limitation, with consequential environmental impacts.

Page A8 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment F4 See response to Comment F1. 1. Storage of PRWUC’s Echo Share Water Cannot Enlarge the Echo Water Right Due to operations under the Power Contract, PRWUC is limited in the times that it can take delivery of its Echo Share Water through the Weber‐Provo Diversion Canal. In the event that all of its Echo Share Water cannot be diverted through the Weber‐ Provo Canal in any given year, any detriment to PRWUC is far outweighed by freeing PRWUC of the irrigation return flow requirement that other WRWUA shareholders and other irrigation water users in the Weber River drainage have. The Echo Water Right has no storage above the Weber‐Provo Diversion Canal or storage in the Provo River drainage, so, in essence, PRWUC’s Echo Share Water must be delivered and used when there is capacity in the Weber‐Provo Diversion Canal and in outlet facilities of the Provo River Project and Central Utah Project reservoirs. Comment F5 See response to Comment F1. Storing PRWUC’s Echo Share Water in Provo River reservoirs is an extremely significant upgrade to that portion of the Echo Water Right unavailable to other WRWUA shareholders and not authorized by the Weber River Project. Which PRWUC cannot be faulted for desiring a storage component for its Echo Share Water, authorizing such storage is a huge enlargement of a portion of the Echo Water Right unavailable to other WRWUA shareholders and in derogation of Utah water law.

Page A9 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment F6 See response to Comment F1. 2. In Addition to a Warren Act Contract, the Agencies Must Comply with Utah Water Law and Reclamation Law Governing Echo Reservoir to Store Echo Share Water in Jordanelle Reservoir. The EA does not discuss the need to comply with Utah water law to implement the Proposed Action Alternative. Such compliance would be difficult and circumvents the right claimed by all Reclamation projects in Utah to evaluate change applications for use of their project water and sign change applications under appropriate circumstances. The Echo Water Right is authorized for storage in Echo Reservoir. Even under the Power Contract, both the Echo Share Water and power water diverted to the Provo River Water Users Association (“PRWUA”) are accounted for as Echo storage water under the Echo Water Right.

The Agencies can draft the EA and adopt the Proposed Action Alternative, but the Echo Share Water cannot be stored in Jordanelle Reservoir until the WRWUA enters into a change application agreement with its shareholder, PRWUC, to authorize storage in Jordanelle Reservoir, and until the Utah State Engineer approves Jordanelle Reservoir as a point of rediversion for 5,000 acre feet of the Echo Water Right for storage. The EA does not discuss the necessity of an approved change application, although the Deer Creek Reservoir FONSI did. PRWUC must follow the provisions of Utah Code Ann. § 73‐3‐3.5 to request authorization to store Echo Share Water in Jordanelle Reservoir, first from WRWUA, and then by filing the change application with the Utah State Engineer. If approved by the WRWUA, the change application must be advertised and protests must be fully evaluated by the Utah State Engineer prior to approval of the change application. The days of entering into the Power Contract and changing water storage and delivery operations in two river basins without complying with Utah water law are long gone.

Page A10 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment F7 See response to Comment F1. Additionally, the EA is vague in its description of the characteristics of the three types of PRWUC water for which the Proposed Action Alternative attempts to authorize storage in Jordanelle Reservoir. Weber Basin understands the attributes of the Echo Water Right and the implications for its storage. However, without listing the water rights owned by PRWUC in the “Deer Creek Storage” and “Other Non‐Project Water” sections of the EA, Weber Basin, and others desiring to comment on the EA, are unable to fully evaluate the Proposed Action Alternative. For example, in the “Deer Creek Storage” section, the Proposed Action Alternative proposes to store up to 2,500 acre feet of PRWUC’s Provo River Project water in Jordanelle Reservoir. Without a reference to water rights, impacts to the Weber River basin cannot be easily determined. What is the source of this water? Under what water right is it diverted and stored? Is a change application anticipated? If it comes from the Weber River drainage through the Weber‐Provo Diversion Canal, will approval of the Proposed Action Alternative result in deviations (increases) in Weber River water diverted to the Provo River drainage? Comment F8 See response to Comment F1. Both the Reclamation authorization for the Weber River Project and the Echo Water Right, under Utah water law, limit the Echo Water Right to irrigation use. The EA clearly states that under the Proposed Action Alternative, “the Echo Storage water would be delivered for later use in communities in northern Utah and Salt Lake counties for municipal and industrial use as needed.” Under what authority, state or federal, does the EA propose to change the federal Reclamation authorization for the Weber River Project through a Warren Act Contract not even negotiated with the WRWUA, let alone without Congressional authorization?

Page A11 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment F9 See response to Comment F1. 3. The Proposed Action Alternative Anticipates Actions in Violation of Federal Reclamation Law. The EA treats the Echo Share Water as if it were an independent water right owned by PRWUC. It is not. The Echo Share Water is just that – water from a Reclamation project made available to a WRWUA shareholder under the same terms as water is made available to all other WRWUA shareholders. Individual shareholder allocations of Echo Water cannot be carried over, even in Echo Reservoir. Authorizing its carry‐over storage for an individual shareholder in Jordanelle Reservoir, especially without volume limitation, would cause the WRWUA to impermissibly favor PRWUC as a shareholder over all other shareholders using water on the Weber River. This will also cause problems in accounting for all water under the Echo Water Right. If a WRWUA shareholder can hold‐over storage water, then how is that to be accounted for under the 74,000 acre feet Echo Water Right? Either all of the WRWUA shareholders will have less water in the following year’s allocation (because the carry over water will be deducted from the total storage available to satisfy other shareholders), or the Echo Water Right would be enlarged (because it could store more than 74,000 acre feet in a year). Comment F10 See response to Comment F1. The WRWUA shareholders are a diverse group, but the Board of Trustees of the WRWUA tries to treat each shareholder equally. The Proposed Action Alternative with respect to the Echo Share Water would amount to an overt attempt by the Agencies to mandate unequal treatment of WRWUA shareholders to benefit a single shareholder and change the use of the Weber River Project from irrigation to M&I without Reclamation and Congressional authorization, or input from the WRWUA.

Page A12 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment F11 See response to Comment F1. The Proposed Action Alternative would also cause unintended consequences for the Agencies and PRWUC that the Agencies need to carefully consider – Weber Basin could acquire storage water in Jordanelle Reservoir. On September 24, 2014, Weber Basin and the WRWUA entered into that certain “Agreement for Annual Purchase of Storage Water” pursuant to which Weber Basin, on November 1st of each year, annually purchases any WRWUA allocations that its shareholders have not used prior to the end of that year’s irrigations season. Because PRWUA’s Echo Share Water has never had a storage component after it left the Weber River system and thus always was required to be used as it flowed down the Provo River in the year it was diverted through the Weber‐Provo Diversion Canal, Weber Basin has not purchased any unused WRWUA shareholder allocation to PRWUC under the September 24, 2014 Agreement. However, if the Proposed Action Alternative is adopted by the Agencies and the WRWUA and the Utah State Engineer approve a Change Application, Weber Basin will own PRWUC carry‐over water stored in Jordanelle Reservoir. Footnote #3: Weber Basin will also own PRWUC water stored in Deer Creek Reservoir as carry‐over water if the WRWUA and the Utah State Engineer approve a Change Application to implement the Deer Creek Reservoir FONSI. Comment F12 See response to Comment F1. A Warren Act Contract for Storage in Jordanelle Reservoir (or Deer Creek Reservoir) may satisfy Reclamation law on the Provo River side, but WRWUA controls the distribution of water from the Weber River Project and should have a say in how and where such water is stored. Otherwise, the federal agencies are guilty of entering in to a contract with a water user and not the operator of the Reclamation project. It is no different than the Utah Division of Water Rights accepting a change application signed by a water user (and not the Reclamation project operator) for water delivered by a Reclamation project.

Page A13 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment F13 See response to Comment F1. 4. To Protect Bureau of Reclamation Projects on the Weber River, Coordinated Operation of Jordanelle Reservoir and Deer Creek Reservoir Cannot Result in Increased Diversions from the Weber River to the Provo River. Weber Basin and the owners of other vested water rights on the Weber River have long raised concerns about operations under the Power Contract and the Deer Creek‐Jordanelle Exchange. Both agreements state that operations thereunder will not impair the water supplies of the Weber River Project for the WRWUA, and the Deer Creek‐ Jordanelle Exchange explicitly states in several sections that operations under it will not impair the water supplies of either the Weber River Project or the Weber Basin Project. However, if PRWUC water diversions from the Weber River, either under its Echo Share Water or as a shareholder in the Provo River Water Users Association, are stored in Jordanelle and carried over because they were not needed in the year they were delivered through the Weber‐Provo Diversion Canal, and the following year additional water is delivered through the Weber‐Provo Canal, then, in fact, diversions from the Weber River to the Provo River are increased. No water user is more directly and immediately impaired by such actions than Weber Basin because of its late priority water rights. And the environmental impacts to the Weber River basin have not been considered although they are required to be as cumulative impacts.

Page A14 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment F14 See response to Comment F1. 5. Storage of PRWUC’s Echo Share Water in Jordanelle Should Not Result in a De Facto Transfer of Echo Share Water from Irrigation Use to M&I Use. As stated in Paragraph 2 of these comments, Echo Water Right is approved for irrigation use only by the Utah State Engineer. The Bureau of Reclamation’s policies governing use of the Echo Water Right are even more restrictive than the “irrigation use” approved by the Utah State Engineer for the Echo Water Right. See, “Policy Water‐ Related Contract and Repayment General Principles and Requirements” (PEC 09), and “D&S Conversions of Project Water from Irrigation Use to M&I Use” (PEC 09‐ 01). In fact, the Echo Share Water used by PRWUC has, by far, the most Reclamation‐imposed restrictions of any of the federal water used in the Provo River drainage.

Weber Basin is concerned that once the Echo Share Water is diverted through the Weber‐Provo Canal, stored in Jordanelle Reservoir, carried over in Jordanelle Reservoir, and then released, the restrictions on its use, and still in effect for other WRWUA shareholders in the Weber River basin, will long be forgotten. The water will have been changed to M&I use without compliance with either Utah or Reclamation law. Comment F15 See response to Comment F1. Conclusion. The EA does not adequately describe the impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative for full review and discussion by the public, nor does it adequately evaluate cumulative impacts to the Weber River basin. The EA needs to be withdrawn and reissued after further study of the environmental impacts so that appropriate evaluation can occur.

Page A15 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Trout Unlimited (Brian Anderson – Vice Chair, Utah Trout Unlimited)

Comments Response/How Addressed Comment G1 Sections 3.2 and 3.3 – Jordanelle Reservoir Hydrology and Provo River Hydrology, One of the core, environmental‐impact issues would be the changed flow regime respectively, have been added to this Draft EA (January 2017). The changes to the releases on the Provo River and possibly the Weber River that would result from the from Jordanelle Reservoir to the middle Provo River and the lower Provo River below Deer proposed action. The storage of the non‐project water will result in that water Creek would be within the range of the current hydrograph and any slight changes would be flowing out of Jordanelle at a different times and different seasons than it has negligible (see figures 3‐2 and 3‐3). historically. The rivers’ ecosystems and wildlife could be negatively (or positively) impacted by the changed flow timing and new flow regime. Comment G2 See response to Comment G1. REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EA: Trout Unlimited requests that CUPCA Office and CUWCD provide additional river in‐ This Draft EA (January 2017) addresses the concerns and comments raised during the stream flow information so that Trout Unlimited, DWR, and other stakeholder comment period for the released EA (April 2016). A comment period for this Draft EA (January entities might be able to better understand and more fully assess potential impacts 2017) has been provided and allow agencies, groups, and individuals another opportunity to resulting from the changed flow regime. The current average seasonal river flows review and comment on the Proposed Action Alternative and the NEPA evaluation (comments must be compared to future “projected” flows resulting from the proposed action. due on Friday February 10, 2017). The Joint Lead Agencies will release a Final EA where Adequate information must be made available to stakeholders and an opportunity comments received on the Draft EA (January 2017) will be addressed. to comment on a complete set of information is needed. Specifically, the requested supplemental draft EA information should include the following: The Proposed Action Alternative has been modified and includes only the Ontario Drain 1. A one‐year hydrograph of the AVERAGE flows for the last 10 or 15 years for the Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters. The Deer Creek Storage and Middle and Lower Provo River sections. the Echo Storage waters have been removed from the evaluation and are no longer a 2. A one‐year hydrograph of the PROJECTED average flow regime based on the component of the Proposed Action Alternative. most‐likely NEW timing of the non‐project‐water releases. 3. Projected impact of modified hydrograph on all aquatic life, including trout.

(Note: If the flow regime on the Weber River is likely to be altered, the same analysis should be undertaken for the Weber River.) Comment G3 See responses to Comments G1 and G2. REASON FOR REQUESTING A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EA: In‐stream river flows during different seasons affect trout, wildlife, and aquatic life. For example, flow volumes are critically important to trout during spawning, egg‐ and‐fry development, fry habitat and survival, and other important life stages. If flow that currently flows through during the winter were to be altered (either increased or decreased during winter), that could potentially have a huge impact (either negative or positive) on the survival of the fall‐spawning brown‐trout fry.

Page A16 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016) Comment G4 See responses to Comments G1 and G2. OTHER QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EA: Weber River System: A. Would storage of the “Echo Storage” result in more or less water being taken from the Weber‐River system? a. Is the maximum quantity of water currently taken from the Weber system annually? B. With the ability to store Echo Storage in Jordanelle, would the timing of water diversion from the Weber change? If so, how? Comment G5 See responses to Comments G1. Provo River System: C. Would flows be higher or lower than the current average in the winter? D. Would flows be higher or lower than the current average in the spring? E. Would flows be higher or lower than the current average in the summer? F. Would flows be higher or lower than the current average in the fall? Comment G6 All waters listed in Table 1‐1, of this Draft EA (January 2017), currently flow into Jordanelle Please clarify the following language and comments in the Draft EA: Reservoir (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 – Jordanelle Reservoir Hydrology and Provo River G. Some waters listed in Table 1 are said to be “not acquired.” Do these waters Hydrology, respectively). Note that the Echo Storage and Deer Creek Storage waters have currently “flow‐through” as indicated elsewhere in the document? If so, what are been removed from consideration and are no longer part of the Proposed Action Alternative. the ramifications of “acquiring” these waters? CUWCD currently has a water right of 5 ½ cfs for the Ontario Drain Tunnel Water which equals about 2,120 AF annually. Currently, CUWCD does not have a water right for the remaining 2,880 AF of Ontario Drain Tunnel, the 2,000 AF of the Upper Lakes Holdover, or the 500 AF of the Daniel Replacement waters. These water rights are held by other agencies, irrigation companies, or individuals. To store these waters in Jordanelle Reservoir, CUWCD must first acquire or obtain a water right for them. However, the impact of storing these non‐project waters in Jordanelle Reservoir under a Warren Act contract is evaluated and disclosed in Chapter 3 of this Draft EA (January 2017). Comment G7 Sections 3.2 and 3.3 – Jordanelle Reservoir Hydrology and Provo River Hydrology, respectively H. What are the “established flows rates” of the Provo River and how was the have been added to this Draft EA (January 2017). The changes to the releases from Jordanelle determination made that there would be “no changes” to the “overall” flow rates? Reservoir to the middle Provo River and the lower Provo River below Deer Creek would be What is the definition of “overall” as used in the draft EA? within the range of the current hydrographs and any slight changes would be negligible (see figures 3‐2 and 3‐3). Comment G7 See response to Comment G2. In summary, Trout Unlimited (TU) requests a Supplemental Draft EA, and TU will comment more meaningfully once it understands the flow regimes resulting from the proposed action, and the projected impact on aquatic life from the altered flow regimes. Page A17 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 TABLE A‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (APRIL 2016)

Pacificorp (Eve Davies)

Comments Response/How Addressed Comment H1 PacifiCorp has been added to the mailing list for this project. PacifiCorp is very interested in any proposed water diversions that will affect flows within the Weber River system, including the change of storage water location from Echo to Jordanelle. We were somewhat disappointed to not be included in the list of interested parties that were directly contacted in regards to this proposed project, and would request that we be added to your mailing list for all future formal and informal subsequent project communications. Comment H2 The Proposed Action Alternative has been modified and includes only the Ontario Drain The EA did not give any detail regarding the seasonality, timing, or flows related to Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters. The Deer Creek Storage and the change in storage from Echo to Jordanelle, but it is clear that that action could the Echo Storage waters have been removed from the evaluation and are no longer a impact not only flows in the Weber River, but also in the riverine habitats between component of the Proposed Action Alternative. Echo and the lower Weber River. The Final EA and Decision Notice should address any potential impacts to rare or state‐listed aquatic wildlife species, such as the Bluehead Sucker and Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, given the work that PacifiCorp and many other partners and stakeholders, including the Provo River Water Users and the Bureau of Reclamation, are engaged in to benefit these species particularly in the Weber River watershed. Potential impacts could come from changes in the timing, flow volume, seasonality, or other factors associated with the proposed change in water storage location. PacifiCorp is also hoping to better understand any potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action on flows in the Weber River that may affect our Weber Hydroelectric Project, particularly given the current stage of relicensing our Weber Project.

Page A18 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix A – Comments and Responses on the EA (April 2016) March 2017 From: "Baxter, Rick" To: Chris Elison CC: Kent Kofford , David Snyder Date: 5/24/2016 10:17 AM Subject: Review of EA re: storage of non project water in Jordanelle

Chris,

I had David Snyder review the subject EA for content and clarity. He did a good job! Overall he was happy with it. There were a few things, based on very recent regional guidance from Nancy Coulam, that were not included and that may need to be addressed, even if briefly. They include the following:

- Need a section on Water Quality due to Ontario drain tunnel water being stored - Need a small section on ESA as ULTs are known to exist between Jordanelle and Deer Creek along the Provo River - Need a small section on Recreation based on the 7.5 ft water pool storage - Need a section on hydrology - timing of release should be analyzed along with storage timing and duration

Please take into consideration these are suggested changes. Please make changes as CUWCD sees appropriate. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Please let us know if you have questions.

Rick Baxter Group Chief, Environmental Bureau of Reclamation 801.379.1078 [email protected]

Trout Unlimited 1777 N Kent Street, Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 522-0200

June 2, 2016

Chris Elison Central Utah Water Conservancy District 355 W. University Parkway Orem, UT 84058

Dear Chris,

Since 2001, Trout Unlimited (TU) has been a leading conservation organization in Utah, developing collaborative and engaged actions intended to conserve and protect important coldwater resources, while finding win-win solutions for nontraditional partners within our state. Through time, we have completed dozens of cooperative projects with private landowners, water users and government agencies ranging from irrigation diversion reconstruction, irrigation efficiency, culvert reconstruction and removal, and stream channel restoration within many river basins in Utah, with particular emphasis in the Weber River Basin. We understand the needs for water security among our communities, and although we recognize that water development for agricultural and municipal use is important and needs to happen to support economic development, we also believe that water development needs to occur responsibly and that expansions and improved flexibility of our water supply need to be adequately balanced with the system values that the underlying watersheds provide to the people of Utah. We are sympathetic to the challenges that water managers face in trying to meet irrigation needs in a dry state like Utah, however within the bounds of natural limitations, continued and enhanced water deliveries out of the headwaters of the Upper Weber River basin and other watersheds across Utah and throughout the western US, poses one of, if not the, most significant challenge to maintaining robust native aquatic species in the state (2015 Utah Wildlife Action Plan). The long term existence of wild and native (and highly sought after) sport fish species such as Bonneville cutthroat trout and the sensitive and imperiled species, such as the bluehead sucker, face severe long term threats by out-of-basin water exports.

In addition to economic productivity that water delivery provides to our economy, TU also recognizes and values the positive economic and ecological benefits that perennially flowing, coldwater streams and rivers provide to all of Utahans. For example, in 2013, Utah State University completed an economic analysis of angling in the State of Utah. Fisheries in Utah provided $259 Million in direct annual expenditures to the Utah Economy. Although lower in magnitude than agricultural economic production (which stands at approximately $1.1 Billion annually), angling and recreational activities continue to grow in Utah and contribute to the economic diversity of our state, and these opportunities are significant driver towards individuals and businesses making the choice to move into Utah. We at TU take pride in our efforts to improve these fisheries and aquatic systems in a way that benefits all of the people of Utah (and across the west) by developing collaborative solutions to solve major water challenges.

______Conserving, protecting, and restoring North America’s coldwater fisheries

We recognize the expectation of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and the water users in the Provo River to have improved flexibility with water management and storage, but we think this flexibility comes at a dramatic cost to the contributing basins from which water is removed. As a key example to this, we highlight the Weber River. Out-of-basin water deliveries remove dramatically more water from the headwaters of the Weber River Basin, which is putting significant strain on the rest of the Weber River system. Many of the BOR's projects and activities in both the Weber River and Provo River basins are accumulating a considerable negative impact on flows in the Weber River and have been for decades. We are particularly concerned about trends that are emerging over the most recent two decades in which we have seen a doubling of the number of days per year when the middle and lower Weber Rivers have reached critical low flows (<25 cfs and 100 cfs respectively). These critical low flow levels were used because they reflect minimum flow release out of Rockport Dam and the flow at which PacifiCorp has insufficient flow to generate power at the Weber Hydro Facility respectively, and they are based on water flow records at the Echo and Gateway Gauges. Based on our analysis of this gauge data, we believe that the BOR and Central Utah Water Conservancy District need to consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed actions under this EA along with past actions, including the seismic upgrades to Echo Reservoir (which eliminated low flow leakage), Jordanelle Dam construction, and improvements to the Weber-Provo Diversion. Paired with climate change the trends for the Weber River are troubling. Number of Days with Flows less than 25 cfs out of Echo Reservoir Decade Number of Days/Year 1930's 52.3 1940's 45.1 1950's 61.4 1980's 26.0 1990's 91.0 2000's 173.4 2010's* 170.5 Note: Gauge was not operable during the 1960’s-1980’s. The 2010’s number of days less than 25cfs/year is based on 2010-2016 gauge data. Number of Days with Flows less than 100 cfs at the Gateway Gauge Decade Number of Days/Year 1920’s 1.1 1930’s 20.1 1940’s 0 1950’s 37.2 1960’s 80.0 1970’s 40.1 1980’s 42.0 1990’s 56.6 2000’s 105.9 2010’s* 110.8 Note: The 2010’s number of days less than 100cfs/year is based on 2010-2015 gauge data, annualized.

______Conserving, protecting, and restoring North America’s coldwater fisheries

We are very concerned that this EA allows further storage and removal of water from the Weber River system as these out-of-basin water deliveries are responsible for winter-long dewatering of 12 miles of the Weber River below Echo Reservoir and essentially dewaters the Weber River below the Weber Provo Diversion. Since the development of the Power Water Interference agreements of 1938 and 1965, the Weber River below Echo reservoir has been traditionally dewatered from Oct 15 to April 15. During many years in the past, this dewatering period had been reduced by above- average snowpack in the headwaters, which filled Rockport and Echo Reservoirs and then was passed down to the River below before the April 15th date. Recently, however a number of factors have extended this period of dewatering beyond the traditional April 15 date. Two specific examples of this include drought and an increasing amount of water diverted from the upper Weber River the Provo River. In fact over recent years water has been held back in Echo Reservoir beyond the traditional April 15 date because of the lack of water flow into Echo Reservoir from the upper Weber River Watershed. In 2015, 0 cfs was released out of Echo Reservoir from October 15 through June 1 and water was not released out of Echo Reservoir until May 13 in 2016. The winter dewatering plan is very out-of-step with current trends in recreational use and social needs in the Weber River. Current practices are extending the dewatering period by more than a month, which has potentially significant impacts to 2 important species occupying the Weber River, the Bluehead Sucker and Bonneville Cutthroat trout, by confining these fish to isolated pools during a period when they would potentially be migrating to spawning grounds. Delaying water releases later into the spring also increases the risks of subjecting fish, which are concentrated into isolated habitats, to warm temperatures. Of equal importance is the economic impact that dewatering has on the local recreational economy within the middle Weber River. One significant impact caused by the proposed action in this EA is a continuation of an extended period of dewatering, which is greatly limiting recreational fishing opportunities within the Weber River. The EA lists a complex set of non-CUP water that would be stored in Jordanelle. The source of each water is not provided and whether this water is involved in any exchanges or agreements with the Weber River Basin.

Finally, although not explicitly indicated in the EA, it stands to reason that storing additional non- project water in Jordanelle Reservoir will primarily occur during periods of low water yield in the Provo and Weber River systems. These are also the periods when flow reductions are most severe below Echo Reservoir, below the Weber-Provo Diversion and in the lower Weber River.

With Kind Regards,

Paul Burnett Utah Water Project Director and Weber River Restoration Coordinator 801-436-4062

Fred Reimherr Stonefly Society Chapter of Trout Unlimited

______Conserving, protecting, and restoring North America’s coldwater fisheries

Weber Ríver Project Weber Riaer Users WEBER RIVER WATËR USERS Wøter Associøtion ASSOCTATTON 138 West 1300 North . Sunset, Utah 840't 5-2918 . p (801) 774-6373. f (801) 774-5424. WRWUA.org Establ¡shed 1926 co,t\as.EÃðzE

|une3,2016

Central Utah Water Conservancy District Mr. Chris Elisory NEPA Compliance Coordinator 355 W. University Parkway Orem, UT 84058

Re: Environmental Assessment for Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir

Dear Mr. Elisoru

We are commenting on the environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed storage of non- project water in ]ordanelle Reservoir by Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) and Centrat Utah Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA Office). We are opposed to having Weber River water stored on the Provo River side as per the proposal. We especially do not support storage of said water for multiple years. The Weber River Water Users Association (WRWLIA) is an interested party in this matter and believe that we should have received notice about this EA, but did not receive such a letter.

The purpose of diverting Weber River water to the Provo River Basin is to meet power contract water rights and irrigation rights held by the Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA) and Provo Reservoir Water Users Company (PRWUC). The intent of the Weber-Provo diversion/canal was to get the single-purpose irrigation water to the Provo River Basin for beneficial use within a year and not to be stored, especially over multþle years. The contract to construct Echo and the Weber-Provo Diversion Canal references the Warren Act and that the facilities are to be used for irrigation purposes.

The diversion of water from the Weber River Basin to the Provo River Basin has a greater impact to the watershed than inter-basin exchanges and diversions since there are no refum flows to the water users. We strive to treat all of our shareholders equitably, and so we cannot allow for storage of water specifically for an individual shareholder, especially out of the watershed. There may be some indirect storage now on the Provo side due to exchanges, but there was no intention to store such water in the Provo River Basin. We believe the proposal to store 5,000 AF of Echo Storage water in Jordanelle would be enlarging a water right. The WRWUA does not intend to nor would support a change application of our water rights to the Provo River Basin.

As stated above, the Weber River Water Users Association is opposed to the proposal to store Weber River water in the Provo River Basin in Jordanelle Reservoir.

Sincerely, Weber River Water Users Association d Theo Cox President

Cc: Board of Directors Kentlones - State Engineer Wayne Pullan - Bureau of Reclamation Cole Panter - Weber River Commissioner

2 Døais ønd Weber Counties Cønøl Compøny

Confts¡stlvæ' 138 West 1300 North t Sunset, Utah 840L5-291"8 t Office: (801) 774-6373 t Fax: (801) 774-5424 t iløvisweber.org

lune3,20'1,6

Central Utah Water Conservancy District Mr. Chris Elisorç NEPA Compliance Coordinator 355 W. University Parkway Orem, UT 84058

Re: Environmental Assessment for Storage of Non-Project Water in fordanelle Reservoir

Dear Mr. Elisoru

We are commenting on the environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed storage of non- project water in Jordanelle Reservoir by Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) and Central Utah Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA Office). As a large shareholder of the Weber River Water Users Association (WRWLIA), we are opposed to having Weber River water stored on the Provo River side as per the proposal. We especially do not support storage of said water for multiple years. We are an interested party in this matter and desire to comment on the proposed EA.

The intent of the Weber-Provo diversion/canal is to get the single-purpose irrigation water to the Provo River Basin for beneficial use within ayear and not to be stored, especially over multiple years. The contract to construct Echo and the Weber-Provo Diversion Canal references the Warren Act and that the facilities are to be used for irrigation purposes.The diversion of water from the Weber River Basin to the Provo River Basin has a greater impact to the watershed than inter-basin exchanges and diversions since there are no return flows to the water users. As a water user, we'llbe negatively impacted.

There may be some indirect storage now on the Provo side due to exchanges, but there was no intention to store such water in the Provo River Basin. We believe the proposal to store 5,000 AF of Echo Storage water in Jordanelle would be enlarging a water right. As stated above, the Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company is opposed to the proposal to store Weber River water in the Provo River Basin in ]ordanelle Reservoir.

Sincerely, Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company

Scott Paxman President

Cc: Board of Directors Kent fones - State Engineer Wayne Pullan - Bureau of Reclamation Cole Panter -Weber River Commissioner

2 Shawn E. Draney SNOW LAWYER CHRISTENSEN Direct: 801.322.9138 Cell: 801.560.9852 &MARTINEAU [email protected] June 2, 2016 John E. Gates Michael R. Carlston Samuel Alba Shawn E. Dram), Via Email and regular U.S. Mail: [email protected] Rodney R. Parker Richard A. Van Wagoner Warren Act Project Andrew M. Morse Daniel D. Hill Attn: Chris Elison Camille N. Johnson Central Utah Water Conservancy District Elizabeth L. Willey 355 West University Parkway E. Scott Awerkamp Orem, UT 84058 Korey D. Rasmussen Terence L. Rooney Jill L. Dunyon Re: Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir David L. Pinkston Environmental Assessment Brian P. Miller Judith D. Wolferts Provo River Water Users Association and Keith A. Call Comments of Randall B. Bateman Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy Heather S. White Robert W Thompson Dear Mr. Elison: Scott H. Martin Maralyn M English Kenneth L. Reich The following are the comments of Provo River Water Users Association Bradley R. Blackham (PRWUA)and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy(MWDSLS) to D. Jason Hawkins the Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Environmental Richard A. Vazquez Assessment (the EA). P. Matthew Cox Derek J. Williams Scott Young We appreciate and support the goal of maximizing the benefits to the Nathan A. Crane public from the appropriate utilization of surplus carriage and storage capacity of Scott C. Powers Reclamation project facilities, if this can be accomplished in the manner Christopher W Droubay understanding Nathan R. Skeen consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Warren Act. It is our Brian A. Mills that an important limitation on the Secretary's authority under the Warren Act is Dani N. Cepernich that no Warren Act contract adversely impact the operations or yield of any Robert W Lin Reclamation project, or the ability of those who are operating Reclamation Adam M Pace rojects to meet commitments. We understand Provo River Project(PRP) James S. Judd p Nathanael J. Mitchell stakeholders are some of the likely beneficiaries of the storage of non-project Taymour B. Semnani water in Jordanelle. For this reason we are particularly interested in being Matthew B. Purcell cooperative and helpful as to the accomplishment of the intended benefits, Erik R. Hamblin without adverse impact to the operations or yield of any Reclamation project, or OF COUNSEL the ability of those operating Reclamation projects to meet their commitments. A. Dennis Norton MWDSLS,like JVWCD and several others, has significant stakes in both the PRP Allan L. Larson Kim R. Wilson and the CUP. Max D. Wheeler David W. Slaughter Our comments to the EA are intended to be concise, direct and Steven W. Beckstrom constructive. Nothing in our comments should be taken as qualifying our Christopher L. Wight Warren Act contracts. Sarah W. Matthews fundamental support for appropriate Tenley H. Schofield Michael T. Lowe

10 Exchange Place, 1lth Floor, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I Main: 801.521.90001 wwwscinlaw.com Due to the language of section 205(b) of CUPCA, we question the technical aspect of CUWCD being considered a federal agency for purposes of NEPA where federal funds are not being expended by CUWDC,and PRP water is involved in the proposed action.

We also wonder about the technical ability of the Secretary to delegate Warren Act contracting authority to CUWCD.

In any event, the ultimate decision as to any particular Warren Act contract should rest with Reclamation. This is particularly important where decisions may impact Reclamation projects other than the CUP.

For example, one of our primary concerns is the discussion in the EA regarding the storage of Provo River Project(PRP) water in Jordanelle Reservoir. The storage ofPRP water is not discussed with adequate detail in the EA, and was not adequately discussed with the PRP stakeholders, particularly PRWUA. As you know,PRWUA is responsible by statute and contract for the care, operation, maintenance and repayment of the PRP.

We do not believe storage of PRP water in Jordanelle is consistent with the Deer Creek Jordanelle Operating Agreement(Operating Agreement), the PRP water rights, or the agreements among PRWUA and its shareholders.

The PRP water rights do not authorize storage in Jordanelle. To the extent that PRP water is in Jordanelle after the accounting/paper exchange contemplated by the Operating Agreement, it is to be released to Deer Creek Reservoir under the direction of the State Engineer. That regulation of PRP water by the State Engineer for the benefit of instream flows has not been considered storage in the past, and should not be considered storage now. We believe that point has been settled. We are not anxious to revive the passionate concerns historically voiced by Weber River water users relating to storage ofPRP water in Jordanelle. We do not believe that a renewed debate should be risked. That would not be in the best interests of the CUP or the PRP, or JVWCD or PRWUC who are to be benefited by the proposed storage.

With the exception of those approved exchanges that are reflected in PRP water rights or the State Engineer's files, the point of delivery of PRP water to PRWUA shareholders is Deer Creek Reservoir. This is reflected in PRWUA agreements. We would be pleased to provide more details.

Fortunately, we believe the same desired end results can be achieved by utilization of the flexibility CUWCD already has in making deliveries to its petitioners, and by exchanges of water among parties who have access to PRP, CUP and/or direct flow supplies. This includes JVWCD,MWDSLS, Provo City, and several others. We have seen this kind of cooperation in the past. We have confidence in the parties in this regard. We are committed to supporting efforts to accomplish the same benefits that storage of PRP water in Jordanelle would yield, without the risks, change applications on PRP water rights, or amendments to existing PRP contracts that would otherwise be required. We would be pleased to discuss this in more detail.

2 At a minimum, if storage of PRP water is discussed in the final EA,the final EA should include a third alternative action that does not involve storage of PRP water. Also, section 1.5 of the EA should make it clear that PRWUA's signature will be necessary as to contracts, and applications involving PRP water filed with the State Engineer's office.

Another primary concern is that the EA does not unequivocally say that no Warren Act contract for storage of non-project water in Jordanelle will be signed if it does not adequately assure protection of the operations, yield and commitments of all Reclamation projects, including the PRP. This should be stated clearly. This is of particular concern when it comes to the storage ofPRP water in Jordanelle, as previously mentioned. It is also a particular concern with the storage of water from the Weber River. The carriage of Weber River water in the Weber Provo Canal in a manner that differs from historical operations has serious potential for diminishing the yield of PRP Weber River water rights, and interfering with PRP commitments.

As you know, the Weber Provo Diversion and Weber Provo Canal are PRP facilities involving certain contractual commitments relating to the carriage of Weber River Project water. Any use of those facilities for the carriage of water that is neither PRP water, nor Weber River Project water already the subject of existing contracts, requires a Warren Act contract relating to the use of PRP facilities in addition to one relating to the use of Jordanelle. This should be made clear in the EA. We understand that the only "Echo Storage" water discussed in the EA is that Weber River Project water that is the subject of existing PRWUA contracts. Any change in the carriage of that water from historic operations contemplated by contracts involving PRWUA would require PRWUA's consent. This should be made clear in the EA.

In section 2.2, page 11, of the EA there is a paragraph discussing Ontario Drain Tunnel (ODT)water. That paragraph contains a sentence stating: "The Ontario Drain Tunnel water currently flows through Jordanelle Reservoir without being stored and eventually is delivered to Utah Lake and onto the Great Salt Lake." This statement does not appear to be material to any environmental analysis or the EA, but it is materially incorrect. We raise this concern because the misstatement potentially negatively implicates the beneficial use of non CUWCD water rights.

A significant right to use the flows from the ODT(ODT water right) belongs to MWDSLS. Water available under that right has for a considerable period of time been diverted at the Salt Lake Aqueduct(SLA), the Olmstead Diversion, and/or the Murdock Diversion, and used by MWDSLS to supply water to MWDSLS' member cities, or to meet MWDSLS' exchange obligations to Utah Lake Distribution Company. This year a small volume of that water has been stored in Deer Creek Reservoir pursuant to a Warren Act.

A significant ODT water right belongs to Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department (SLC). Water under that right is leased to Jordanelle Special Service District(JSSD). JSSD treats water available under that ODT water right, and provides it to Park City, or otherwise uses that water. To the extent this SLC ODT water is not used by JSSD, it is used by MWDSLS as described in the paragraph above.

3 We understand JSSD has leased another significant ODT water right and is using water available under that water right.

Several ODT water rights are the subject of approved change applications that allow well water to be taken by exchange.

We understand JVWCD has been using water available under CUWCD ODT water rights.

In the EA paragraph discussing ODT water, in the sentence following the one just commented on, the EA indicates that up to 5,000 AF of ODT water will be stored. The EA says CUWCD has a right to use 2,120 AF of ODT water annually. Given these two volume figures it is not clear if ODT under water rights other than the CUWCD right may be stored. If that is the intent that should be made clear, and the necessary contracts and State Engineer approvals should be mentioned in Section 1.5 of the EA.

In the second paragraph of section 1.2 the EA says JVWCD treats water for MWDSLS. Without more this may suggest JVWCD treats and delivers to MWDSLS water that is available under JVWCD water rights and contracts. For the most part JVWCD treats and delivers to MWDSLS water available to MWDSLS under MWDSLS' water rights and contracts. We would appreciate that clarification.

Very truly yours, 2 SNOW.CHRIS 'ENSEN & MARTI

. liraney Counsel for MWDSLS & PRWUA

SED:sd cc: MWDSLS PRWUA

Brian Anderson 3502 Santa Rosa Drive Vice Chair, Utah State Council of Trout Unlimited Salt Lake City, UT 84109 801-550-3623 [email protected]

June 3, 2016

Chris Elison Central Utah Water Conservancy District 355 W. University Parkway Orem, UT 84058

Re: Comments by Utah Council of Trout Unlimited on Draft EA for Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir

Dear Mr. Elison,

The Utah State Council of Trout Unlimited offers the following comments and requests regarding the Draft EA dated April 2016:

One of the core, environmental-impact issues would be the changed flow regime on the Provo River and possibly the Weber River that would result from the proposed action. The storage of the non-project water will result in that water flowing out of Jordanelle at a different times and different seasons than it has historically. The rivers’ ecosystems and wildlife could be negatively (or positively) impacted by the changed flow timing and new flow regime.

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EA:

Trout Unlimited requests that CUPCA Office and CUWCD provide additional river in-stream flow information so that Trout Unlimited, DWR, and other stakeholder entities might be able to better understand and more fully assess potential impacts resulting from the changed flow regime. The current average seasonal river flows must be compared to future “projected” flows resulting from the proposed action. Adequate information must be made available to stakeholders and an opportunity to comment on a complete set of information is needed. Specifically, the requested supplemental draft EA information should include the following:

1. A one-year hydrograph of the AVERAGE flows for the last 10 or 15 years for the Middle and Lower Provo River sections.

2. A one-year hydrograph of the PROJECTED average flow regime based on the most- likely NEW timing of the non-project-water releases.

3. Projected impact of modified hydrograph on all aquatic life, including trout.

(Note: If the flow regime on the Weber River is likely to be altered, the same analysis should be undertaken for the Weber River.)

REASON FOR REQUESTING A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EA:

In-stream river flows during different seasons affect trout, wildlife, and aquatic life. For example, flow volumes are critically important to trout during spawning, egg-and-fry development, fry habitat and survival, and other important life stages. If flow that currently flows through during the winter were to be altered (either increased or decreased during winter), that could potentially have a huge impact (either negative or positive) on the survival of the fall- spawning brown-trout fry.

OTHER QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EA:

Weber River System: A. Would storage of the “Echo Storage” result in more or less water being taken from the Weber-River system? a. Is the maximum quantity of water currently taken from the Weber system annually? B. With the ability to store Echo Storage in Jordanelle, would the timing of water diversion from the Weber change? If so, how?

Provo River System: C. Would flows be higher or lower than the current average in the winter? D. Would flows be higher or lower than the current average in the spring? E. Would flows be higher or lower than the current average in the summer? F. Would flows be higher or lower than the current average in the fall?

Please clarify the following language and comments in the Draft EA: G. Some waters listed in Table 1 are said to be “not acquired.” Do these waters currently “flow-through” as indicated elsewhere in the document? If so, what are the ramifications of “acquiring” these waters? H. What are the “established flows rates” of the Provo River and how was the determination made that there would be “no changes” to the “overall” flow rates? What is the definition of “overall” as used in the draft EA?

In summary, Trout Unlimited (TU) requests a Supplemental Draft EA, and TU will comment more meaningfully once it understands the flow regimes resulting from the proposed action, and the projected impact on aquatic life from the altered flow regimes.

Sincerely, Brian Anderson Vice Chair, Utah Trout Unlimited

2 *From:* Davies, Eve [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Friday, June 3, 2016 10:43 AM *To:* Jeff Budge *Cc:* 'Baxter, Rick' ; Justin Record ; Cole Panter ; Kolkman, Jack < [email protected]>; Baldwin, Connely < [email protected]> *Subject:* Comments on the EA for the Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir

Hello Jeff-

I am hopeful that you, Rick or Justin can get these comments to the right person prior to the deadline today. Please advise if you have a better suggestion for the right person to get them to, and thank you. I was helpfully notified of the existence of the referenced EA very recently, and after reviewing the document, did not see any instructions for submitting comments. Given the short timeline, I am hopeful that sending our comments to you directly will suffice given the lack of specific instructions regarding comment submission. Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to give me in that matter.

PacifiCorp is very interested in any proposed water diversions that will affect flows within the Weber River system, including the change of storage water location from Echo to Jordanelle. We were somewhat disappointed to not be included in the list of interested parties that were directly contacted in regards to this proposed project, and would request that we be added to your mailing list for all future formal and informal subsequent project communications. The EA did not give any detail regarding the seasonality, timing, or flows related to the change in storage from Echo to Jordanelle, but it is clear that that action could impact not only flows in the Weber River, but also in the riverine habitats between Echo and the lower Weber River. The Final EA and Decision Notice should address any potential impacts to rare or state-listed aquatic wildlife species, such as the Bluehead Sucker and Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, given the work that PacifiCorp and many other partners and stakeholders, including the Provo River Water Users and the Bureau of Reclamation, are engaged in to benefit these species particularly in the Weber River watershed. Potential impacts could come from changes in the timing, flow volume, seasonality, or other factors associated with the proposed change in water storage location. PacifiCorp is also hoping to better understand any potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action on flows in the Weber River that may affect our Weber Hydroelectric Project, particularly given the current stage of relicensing our Weber Project.

Our comments are necessarily brief given the timeline under which comments are due by. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions regarding these comments; please also do include me and Connely Baldwin, PacifiCorp Hydrologist (same address, below), on all future Project communications related to this EA and related NEPA process. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Eve Davies

Eve Davies, Principal Scientist

Hydro Resources, PacifiCorp

1407 West North Temple, Ste. 120

Salt Lake City, Utah 84116

801-220-2245

801-232-1704 (cell)

*Justin Record, MS PE* *Water Rights Coordinator* *Bureau of Reclamation* *302 East 1860 South* *Provo, UT 84606* *(801) 379-1072 (office)* *(801) 918-1817 (cell) * *(801) 379-1159 (fax)* *[email protected] * APPENDIX B COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT EA (JANUARY 2017)

TABLE B‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (JANUARY 2017)

Comments Received – Davis & Weber Counties Canal Company (email from Rick Smith)

Comments Response/How Addressed Here are a couple of comments, more formatting, than anything. 1. Page 1, shoreline not 'show line'. [in the project study area first sentence] All typos and edits listed in this comment have been corrected in the Final Environmental 2. Figure 1‐2, change the label to 'Weber‐Provo Canal' instead of diversion. Assessment dated March 2017 [noted as Final EA (March 2017)]. 3. Page 15, typo in bulleted list (calling) 4. Page 32, in the quote of the state statute, there is a typo (may instead of my). 5. Chapter 5, should that be 'list of preparers'?

Comments Received – PacifiCorp (Eve Davies)

Comments Response/How Addressed PacifiCorp appreciates the opportunity to comment on the current "Storage of The Joint Lead Agencies initiated the NEPA process for the Proposed Action and released Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir‐January 2017" Environmental Analysis an Environmental Assessment dated April 2016. The EA (April 2016) listed five sources of (Project EA). The bulk of our comments are in reference to the relationship between non‐project water proposed for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir [for reference see Table 1 the original Proposed Action (per the 2016 EA) and the current Proposed Action. It was in the EA (April 2016)]. Nine agencies or groups provided comments on the EA (April 2016). only clear from reading the response to comments in Section 4.0 that the current Most comments and concerns centered on the Provo River Project waters (Deer Creek Proposed Action had been altered from the previous, original Proposed Action. There Storage and Echo Storage) and their proposed storage in Jordanelle Reservoir under a is no mention anywhere in the Introduction or anywhere else in the document that I Warren Act contract. The Joint Lead Agencies during the Summer and Fall of 2016 could find except as noted in Table 4‐1 how this document relates to the previous‐in reevaluated the Proposed Action and which of the non‐project waters should be stored in Section 4.2 it seems to suggest the 2016 document was merely a previous Draft EA. Jordanelle Reservoir at this time. As a result, the Proposed Action was modified to three This seems unnecessarily confusing and should be clarified. Is the current EA a revision non‐project water sources: Ontario Drain Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel of the first, or was the first rescinded and this one replaces it? If the Weber River Replacement waters. The Provo River Project waters – Deer Creek Storage and Echo portion of the Project has been removed, the document should state that clearly in the Storage – were removed from the Proposed Action and are not considered under this description, and not merely as a response to a comment on the previous iteration of NEPA process. this Project and EA. If the Weber River portion of the original Proposed Action has been eliminated from Future requests to store non‐project waters in Jordanelle Reservoir are addressed in this Project, will it be addressed in a future Project? Section 2.2 of the Final EA (March 2017). The language in Section 2.2 is intended to explain the process for future requests for storage of non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir. Thus, Section 2.2 discusses that future actions would require a separate NEPA process, Warren Act contracts, agreements with CUWCD (as the operator of Jordanelle Reservoir), and resolving of water rights issues prior to implementing such action. Therefore, the Proposed Action and this NEPA process only apply to the Ontario Drain Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, and Daniel Replacement waters that are listed in the Final EA (March 2017).

Page B1 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix B – Comments and Responses on the Draft EA (January 2017) March 2017 TABLE B‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (JANUARY 2017)

The relationship between the EA documents, the current Proposed Action, and any By nature of the NEPA and EA processes, the Draft EA (January 2017) supersedes the EA future Projects (if any), should be clarified in the Final EA and Record of Decision. (April 2016). The comments received on the EA (April 2016) were used to help guide and PacifiCorp needs to ensure that we understand any effects of this proposal or any prepare the Draft EA (January 2017), the Final EA (March 2017), and decision document subsequent related ones that could affect the magnitude or timing of the Weber River prepared by the CUPCA Office. Section 1.7 and a paragraph in Section 4.2 in this Final EA flows and thus the operation of our Weber River Hydroelectric Project and/or any of (March 2017) was added and is titled “The Draft Environmental Assessment dated January the Weber and Provo River water agreements that PacifiCorp's generation operations 2017 supersedes the Environmental Assessment dated April 2016”. These sections provide rely on. more information and clarification regarding the status of each Environmental Assessment submitted on this project. Furthermore, the CUPCA Office will prepare a stand‐alone decision document that will be based on the Proposed Action and information contained in this Final EA (March 2017).

Trout Unlimited (Paul Burnett – Utah Water Project Director and Weber River Restoration Coordination) Comments Response/How Addressed We appreciate the needs for water security among our communities and water suppliers, and although we recognize that water development for agricultural and The Joint Lead Agencies appreciate the comments and support of Trout Unlimited. municipal use is important and needs to happen to support economic development, we also believe that water development needs to occur responsibly and that expansions and improved flexibility of our water supply need to be adequately balanced with the system values that the underlying watersheds provide to the people of Utah.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this EA. We are supportive of the EA as currently written, with the removal of Weber River water from the non‐ project storage in Jordanelle Reservoir. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District (via letter received from Holland & Hart) Comments Response/How Addressed Weber Basin's comments to the April 2016 Environmental Assessment for Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir (the "2016 EA") are included in Appendix A The Joint Lead Agencies removed the Provo River Project waters (Echo Storage and Deer to the 2017 EA, and CUWCD clarified in "Comment F1" that the Proposed Action Creek Storage) for consideration in this NEPA and EA process. Alternative to the 2017 EA has been modified to exclude Deer Creek Storage and Echo Storage. Weber Basin appreciates CUWCD's responsiveness to its comments.

Page B2 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix B – Comments and Responses on the Draft EA (January 2017) March 2017 TABLE B‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (JANUARY 2017)

1. The Relationship between the 2017 EA and the 2016 EA Requires Clarification in the The Joint Lead Agencies initiated the NEPA process for the Proposed Action and released Final Document. The 2017 EA does not state whether it replaces or amends the 2016 an Environmental Assessment dated April 2016. The EA (April 2016) listed five sources of EA in total or whether it splits out the non‐project water described in Table 1‐1 of the non‐project water proposed for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir [for reference see Table 1 2017 EA (the "Table 1‐1 Water") from all water included in the 2016 EA and purports in the EA (April 2016)]. Nine agencies or groups provided comments on the EA (April 2016). to take action only on the Table 1‐1 Water now. The last sentence of Weber Basin's Most comments and concerns centered on the Provo River Project waters (Deer Creek Comments to the 2016 EA stated, "The EA needs to be withdrawn and reissued after Storage and Echo Storage) and their proposed storage in Jordanelle Reservoir under a further study of the environmental impacts so that appropriate evaluation can occur." Warren Act contract. The Joint Lead Agencies during the Summer and Fall of 2016 It is unclear from the 2017 EA whether that occurred and Weber Basin requests reevaluated the Proposed Action and which of the non‐project waters should be analyzed clarification in the Final 2017 EA. for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir at this time. As a result, the Proposed Action was Section 4.1 "Environmental Assessment (April 2016)" references the 2016 EA, but only modified to three non‐project water sources: Ontario Drain Tunnel, Upper Lakes Holdover, to describe the Comments received on it. It does not express CUWCD's final action, if and Daniel Replacement waters. The Provo River Project waters – Deer Creek Storage and any, on the 2016 EA. This is concerning because the description in Section 1.3 of the Echo Storage – were removed from the Proposed Action and are not considered under non‐project water covered by the Proposed Action states, "This definition includes but this NEPA process. is not limited to water rights held or acquired in the future by the CUWCD and PRWUC, By nature of the NEPA and EA processes, the Draft EA (January 2017) supersedes the EA or other entities providing that NEPA documentation is completed and contracts have (April 2016). The comments received on the EA (April 2016) were used to help guide and been executed (see discussion on Other Non‐Project Waters in Section 2.2)." The prepare the Draft EA (January 2017), the Final EA (March 2017), and decision document relevant portion of Section 2.2 similarly gives no comfort in this regard. It states, prepared by the CUPCA Office. Section 1.7 and a paragraph in Section 4.2 in this Final EA "Separate NEPA compliance along with a Warren Act contract would be required to (March 2017) was added and is titled “The Draft Environmental Assessment dated January store other non‐project water not addressed in this document. Also, a contract must 2017 supersedes the Environmental Assessment dated April 2016”. These sections provide be entered into and executed between the CUPCA Office, CUWCD, and the entity more information and clarification regarding the status of each Environmental Assessment requesting storage of their non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir." submitted on this project. Furthermore, the CUPCA Office will prepare a stand‐alone Does the language in Sections 1.3 and 2.2 mean that the Deer Creek Storage and Echo decision document that will be based on the Proposed Action and information contained Storage water, and other Weber River basin water described in the 2016 EA could be in this Final EA (March 2017). stored in Jordanelle in the future through finalization of the 2016 EA and a Warren Act The language in Section 2.2 is intended to explain the process for future requests for Contract? Weber Basin does not believe this is the intent of the 2017 EA, but CUWCD storage of non‐project water in Jordanelle Reservoir. Thus, Section 2.2 discusses that needs to clarify this ambiguous language to express its intent. future actions would require a separate NEPA process, Warren Act contracts, agreements with CUWCD (as the operator of Jordanelle Reservoir), and resolving of water rights issues prior to implementing such action. Therefore, a new NEPA process would need to be completed in the future for Deer Creek Storage and Echo Storage water or any other non‐ project waters proposed for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir under a Warren Act contract.

Page B3 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix B – Comments and Responses on the Draft EA (January 2017) March 2017 TABLE B‐1: COMMENTS AND REPONSES FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (JANUARY 2017)

2. CUWCD and the Joint Lead Agencies Must Unequivocally State that the 2017 EA By nature of the NEPA and EA processes, the Draft EA (January 2017) supersedes the EA Replaces and Supersedes the 2016 EA. Weber Basin believes that finalization of the dated April 2016. The comments received on the EA (April 2016) were used to help guide 2017 EA requires clear resolution because the NEPA record will otherwise be unclear and prepare the Draft EA (January 2017), the Final EA dated March 2017, and decision and cannot lead to a defensible Final Action. If CUWCD does not intend to completely document prepared by the CUPCA Office. Section 1.7 and a paragraph in Section 4.2 in this replace the 2016 EA with the 2017 EA and eliminate the future possibility of Deer Creek Final EA (March 2017) was added and is titled “The Draft Environmental Assessment dated Storage and Echo Storage and storage of other Weber River basin water pursuant to January 2017 supersedes the Environmental Assessment dated April 2016”. These sections the 2017 EA, Weber Basin incorporates its comments previously submitted to the 2016 provide more information and clarification regarding the standing of each Environmental EA into these comments to the 2017 EA. Assessment submitted on this project. Furthermore, the CUPCA Office will prepare a stand‐alone decision document that will be based on the Proposed Action and information contained in this Final Environmental Assessment dated March 2017. A new NEPA process Conclusion. would need to be completed in the future for Deer Creek Storage and Echo Storage water Weber Basin requests CUWCD and the Joint Lead Agencies to directly state in the Final or any other non‐project waters proposed for storage in Jordanelle Reservoir under a EA that the 2017 EA replaces and supersedes the 2016 EA and the that 2016 EA has no Warren Act contract. further force and effect.

Furthermore, the CUPCA Office will prepare a stand‐alone decision document that will be In addition, please include me individually on your contact list for the 2017 EA in based on the Proposed Action and information contained in the Final Environmental addition to Weber Basin. Assessment dated March 2017.

Jody Williams has been added to the contact list for this project.

Page B4 Storage of Non‐Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir Final Environmental Assessment Appendix B – Comments and Responses on the Draft EA (January 2017) March 2017 From: Rick Smith To: "[email protected]" Date: 1/31/2017 11:29 AM Subject: Jordanelle EA comments

Here are a couple of comments, more formatting, than anything.

1. Page 1, shoreline not 'show line'. [in the project study area first sentence]

2. Figure 1-2, change the label to 'Weber-Provo Canal' instead of diversion.

3. Page 15, typo in bulleted list (calling)

4. Page 32, in the quote of the state statute, there is a typo (may instead of my).

5. Chapter 5, should that be 'list of preparers'?

[cid:[email protected]]

Richard (Rick) D. Smith, P.E. General Manager Davis & Weber Counties Canal Company Weber River Water Users Association 138 West 1300 North p Sunset, UT 84015 P 801-774-6373 p F 801-774-5424 p C 801-540-8345 [email protected]

[cid:[email protected]]

From: "Davies, Eve" To: "'[email protected]'" CC: "Kolkman, Jack" , "Davies, Eve" , "Baldwin, Connely" Date: 2/10/2017 11:37 AM Subject: Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir EA-- PacifiCorp Comments

Dear Mr. Elison:

PacifiCorp appreciates the opportunity to comment on the current "Storage of Non-Project Water in Jordanelle Reservoir-January 2017" Environmental Analysis (Project EA). The bulk of our comments are in reference to the relationship between the original Proposed Action (per the 2016 EA) and the current Proposed Action. It was only clear from reading the response to comments in Section 4.0 that the current Proposed Action had been altered from the previous, original Proposed Action. There is no mention anywhere in the Introduction or anywhere else in the document that I could find except as noted in Table 4-1 how this document relates to the previous-in Section 4.2 it seems to suggest the 2016 document was merely a previous Draft EA. This seems unnecessarily confusing and should be clarified. Is the current EA a revision of the first, or was the first rescinded and this one replaces it? If the Weber River portion of the Project has been removed, the document should state that clearly in the description, and not merely as a response to a comment on the previous iteration of this Project and EA. If the Weber River portion of the original Proposed Action has been eliminated from this Project, will it be addressed in a future Project? The relationship between the EA documents, the current Proposed Action, and any future Projects (if any), should be clarified in the Final EA and Record of Decision. PacifiCorp needs to ensure that we understand any effects of this proposal or any subsequent related ones that could affect the magnitude or timing of the Weber River flows and thus the operation of our Weber River Hydroelectric Project and/or any of the Weber and Provo River water agreements that PacifiCorp's generation operations rely on.

Thank you for bringing this version of the Project EA to our attention, and please continue to keep PacifiCorp on the Project list for all future notifications for this and any related Project, including any future proposals regarding Weber River water. Thank you for your consideration of our comments; we look forward to a clearer understanding of the Project.

Eve Davies, Principal Scientist Hydro Resources, PacifiCorp 1407 West North Temple, Ste. 110 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 801-220-2245 801-232-1704 (cell)

Trout Unlimited 1777 N Kent Street, Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 522-0200

February 10, 2017

Chris Elison Central Utah Water Conservancy District 355 W. University Parkway Orem, UT 84058

Dear Chris,

We appreciate the needs for water security among our communities and water suppliers, and although we recognize that water development for agricultural and municipal use is important and needs to happen to support economic development, we also believe that water development needs to occur responsibly and that expansions and improved flexibility of our water supply need to be adequately balanced with the system values that the underlying watersheds provide to the people of Utah.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this EA. We are supportive of the EA as currently written, with the removal of Weber River water from the non-project storage in Jordanelle Reservoir.

With Kind Regards,

Paul Burnett Utah Water Project Director and Weber River Restoration Coordinator 801-436-4062

______Conserving, protecting, and restoring North America’s coldwater fisheries