DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Scoping Summary July 2020 Page 1 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Scoping Summary July 2020 Page 1 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY Public Scoping Summary July 2020 Page 1 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY DIAMOND FORK SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE PROJECT PROJECT OVERVIEW The Central Utah Water Conservancy District (District), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, as Joint Lead Agencies (JLAs), are proposing to update the Diamond Fork System of the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. The proposed project, the Diamond Fork System Environmental Update Project (Diamond Fork Project, or project), involves Sixth Water Creek and Diamond Fork Creek located in Diamond Fork Canyon and the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah County, Utah. An environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared to disclose and analyze the potential impacts of the updates to the Diamond Fork System as well as to inform the public of the project. The EA is being led by the District. It will assist the JLAs in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in determining whether any significant impacts could result from the analyzed actions. The Proposed Action would consist of adjusting instream flow deliveries to Sixth Water and Diamond Fork Creeks, revising the inspection and maintenance schedule of the Diamond Fork System, and preventing the continuous corrosion of the Upper Diamond Fork Flow Control Structure from nearby hydrogen sulfide springs. Additional information about the Proposed Action can be found in the scoping document in Attachment A. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SCOPING PURPOSE AND GOALS NEPA regulations for scoping in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 1501.7 state “There should be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.” The purpose of scoping is to obtain information that will focus the NEPA analysis on the potentially significant environmental issues and de-emphasize insignificant issues. Scoping engages the general public and other entities that may have an interest in the project with the goal of soliciting input on the issues, impacts, and potential alternatives to be addressed in the NEPA document. SCOPING PROCESS Scoping was conducted in accordance with the District’s Handbook for the National Environmental Policy Act, which specifies that the District must request any federal agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise concerning the proposed action to be a cooperating agency (District 2016). The JLAs invited the following agencies to participate in the NEPA process as cooperating agencies: the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service-Spanish Fork Ranger District, Utah County, the Utah Division of Water Quality, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service-Spanish Fork Ranger District, and the Utah Division of Water Quality accepted the invitation. Public Scoping Summary July 2020 Page 2 Prior to beginning the NEPA process for the Diamond Fork Project, the JLAs had already developed relationships with interested persons, organizations, and entities and had been meeting periodically with these stakeholders since 2011. The cooperating agencies and this stakeholder group were engaged to participate in public scoping for the EA. PUBLIC NOTICE The District mailed a scoping information packet, consisting of a letter and a scoping document explaining the Proposed Action and alternatives, to agencies and the public on Thursday, March 19, 2020. The packet was also mailed to tribes by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office on April 7, 2020. The letter in the packet introduced the project, referenced the scoping document, and offered instructions on how to comment. The scoping information packet and distribution list can be found in Attachment A. The District posted the scoping document on the project website on March 20, 2020 (https://cuwcd.com/diamondfork.htm). Interested parties were able to access other project information and technical documents on the website. The formal public scoping process for the project began on Sunday, March 22, 2020. Newspaper advertisements were placed in the Daily Herald, Salt Lake Tribune, and Deseret News on Sunday, March 22, 2020, and Wednesday, March 25, 2020. The advertisements provided a brief description of the project and directions on how to comment, as well as the comment deadline. The public notice advertisement can be found in Attachment A. The public scoping comment period concluded on Tuesday, April 24, 2020. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Interested parties were offered several ways to submit comments during the public scoping comment period: • Via a comment form on the project website: https://cuwcd.com/diamondfork.htm • By email to: [email protected] • By postal mail to Diamond Fork System Environmental Update Project c/o Sarah Sutherland 1426 E 750 N, Suite 400 Orem, Utah 84097 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MEETING A stakeholder engagement meeting in the form of a webinar was held on Thursday, April 2, 2020. Although the meeting was originally planned to be held in person, it was conducted as a webinar because of COVID-19 health concerns. Nine stakeholder agencies and organizations logged into and participated in the meeting. The webinar included presentations on project background and the Proposed Action elements, including instream flow alternatives. It also allotted time for multiple question-and-answer periods and provided information on how to comment. A summary of the stakeholder meeting notes is included in Attachment B. Public Scoping Summary July 2020 Page 3 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AND ISSUES RAISED Scoping comments were received from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Utah Division of Water Quality, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Trout Unlimited, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Strawberry Water Users Association, and a member of the general public (Attachment C). Comments submitted addressed topics such as fisheries, water quality, sediment transport, irrigation water, wildlife, hydrogen sulfide discharge points, air quality, and mitigation measures. Key issues and concerns raised in the comments are summarized below. Instream Flow Alternatives: • Consider selenium concentrations in surface waters when evaluating flow alternatives to avoid impairment to beneficial uses. • Examine the impacts of elevated selenium levels on agricultural water. • Investigate effects of the flow alternatives on other metals concentrations (besides selenium) in Sixth Water and Diamond Fork Creeks to prevent exceedances of water quality standards. • Continue to study bed shear stress and sediment transport that could occur with channel narrowing and identify specific interventions to promote variable flow, appropriate sediment transport, viable instream habitat, and reduced turbidity. • Evaluate possible impacts from lower base flows in the summer on thermal conditions in lower Diamond Fork Creek and Sixth Water Creek. • Evaluate impacts of higher temperatures on other coldwater aquatic species (besides Bonneville cutthroat trout and brown trout) to avoid impairments that could violate beneficial use requirements. • Evaluate possible impacts to dissolved oxygen levels from reduced flows (e.g., changes to the quantity and quality of leaf litter entering the river system) and related impacts on coldwater fish species and macroinvertebrate populations, including population health and species diversity. • Ensure the flow alternatives would maintain current water delivery obligations or evaluate additional alternatives for agricultural shortages. • Evaluate how changes to base flow would affect habitat conditions for brown trout and Bonneville cutthroat trout. • Consider whether winter minimum instream flows would continue to be partially met through deliveries from Strawberry Tunnel under the flow alternatives. Changes to these deliveries could affect water quality in Strawberry Reservoir, which has a Total Maximum Daily Load. • Consider whether irrigation in the project area would increase as a result of the project. • Consider the effects of lower winter flows on hydropower generation. Hydrogen Sulfide Spring Alternative: • Consider alternative locations for the hydrogen sulfide spring discharge into Diamond Fork Creek to limit impacts to fish populations and the fish barrier. Public Scoping Summary July 2020 Page 4 • Consider alternative locations for the hydrogen sulfide spring discharge into Diamond Fork Creek to limit impacts to water quality. • Consider off gassing along the discharge pipeline downstream of the Upper Diamond Fork Flow Control Structure. • Ensure that the existing fish barrier continues to achieve the goal of eliminating upstream movement of brown trout into the Bonneville cutthroat trout population when siting the hydrogen sulfide discharge point. • Ensure that the discharge of hydrogen sulfide spring water downstream does not adversely impact the brown trout population. General: • Describe in the EA current negative ecological conditions created by original base flows as well as expected improvements. • Describe in the EA the administrative/legislative processes that would be required to implement flow regime changes. • Evaluate whether an individual Clean Water Act Section 404 permit would be required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, and RELATED AGENCIES (Dollar Amounts in Thousands)
    Appendix C CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES (dollar amounts in thousands) 2022 State Project Request U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AK Office of Law Enforcement, Resident Agent in Charge Rehabilitate office and replace fuel storage tank .................................................................................. 350 AZ Alchesay National Fish Hatchery Replace effluent treatment system .......................................................................................................... 1,012 Replace tank house .................................................................................................................................... 1,400 CA Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Rehabilitate South Bay flood protection levee, phase 4 ....................................................................... 1,200 MT Northwest Montana National Wildlife Refuge Complex Replace infrastructure to support field stations currently supported at the National Bison Range ..................................................................................................................... 11,533 NY Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge Replace headquarters and visitor center; co-locate with Ecological Services office ........................ 3,160 WA Makah National Fish Hatchery Replace diversion dam and fish barrier, phase 2 .................................................................................. 2,521 WI Iron River National Fish Hatchery Demolish dilapidated milking barn .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • January 10, 2020 Dear Mr. Baxter
    Comments sent via email: [email protected] January 10, 2020 Mr. Rick Baxter Program Manager Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office 302 East Lakeview Parkway Provo, Utah 84606 RE: Bureau of Reclamation [RR04963000, XXXR0680R1, RR.17549661.1000000] Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Powell Pipeline project Dear Mr. Baxter, Please accept and fully consider these scoping comments from the Lake Powell Pipeline Coalition (Coalition) on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Lake Powell Pipeline project (LPP). The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to comment on DEIS. The Coalition consists of: Conserve Southwest Utah, Glen Canyon Institute, Wild Arizona, Grand Canyon Chapter Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, The Rewilding Institute, Grand Staircase Escalante Partners, Great Basin Water Network, Utah Rivers Council, Utah Audubon Council,Center for Biological Diversity and Living Rivers Colorado Riverkeeper. Some of the Coalition members have been studying and commenting on the LPP for over eleven years. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) said they would use the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission's (FERC) studies for the DEIS and will update them with current information. Over the past eleven years the Coalition has given very details comments outlining the flaws in the FERC’s studies. BOR recommended we resubmit our comments for this new process. Therefore, we will submit our past comments on the project separately in Appendix A. The comments are also posted on FERC’s website under elibrary Docket Number P- 12966. The elibrary web site is where all the FERC comments on the project are filed.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Utah Projects Upalco, Uintah, and Ute Indian (Ultimate Phase) Units
    Central Utah Projects Upalco, Uintah, and Ute Indian (Ultimate Phase) Units Project Location................................................................................................................ 2 Historical Setting............................................................................................................... 3 Construction History ...................................................................................................... 15 Post Construction History.............................................................................................. 25 Settlement of Project Lands........................................................................................... 25 Uses of Project Water ..................................................................................................... 26 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 26 Notes................................................................................................................................. 27 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 30 Index................................................................................................................................. 34 The Central Utah Project – Uintah, Upalco, and Ute Indian Units Historic Reclamation Projects Book Adam R. Eastman Page 1 The Central Utah Project (CUP) is the largest and most complicated
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Storage Project
    lhe Colorado River Storage Project AS AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 485 84th CONGRESS Published by UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 748 North Avenue Grand Junction, Colorado History In 1922 the Colorado River Compact was negotiated among the seven states served by the Colorado River. This compact pro­ vides for division of river water between the Upper and Lower basins, with each basin granted 7Y2 million acre-feet each year. Upper Basin States are Colorado, New Mex­ ico, Utah and Wyoming. Lower Basin States are Arizona, Nevada and California. (A small portion of Arizona is in the Upper Basin, and small areas within two Upper Basin states-Utah and New Mexico-are in the Lower Basin.) The Project In 1948 a compact dividing the water The Colorado River Storage Project, as allocated to the Upper Basin States was authorized by Public Law 485, 84th Congress, negotiated by these states. This compact is a multi-purpose reclamation project pro­ also created the Upper Colorado River Com­ viding for four large main-stream dams mission consisting of representatives of the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and known as " storage units" and eleven irri­ Wyoming and the Federal Government. gation projects known as " participating Plans for the upper basin Colorado River projects." Storage Project were completed in 1950. The project provides for far-reaching On April 20, 1955, the United States Senate benefits, including flood contra~, regulation approved a bill authorizing construction. of the Colorado River, production of power, On March l, 1956, the United States House recreational developments and water for of Representatives approved a similar bill.
    [Show full text]
  • The Central Utah Project
    The Central Utah Project Introduction The Central Utah Project ("CUP") has been in formal existence for over 3 decades and will provide part of the water supply for Salt Lake City's future needs. On May 16, 1986 the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City ("MWDSLC") gained an approved petition for 20,000 acre-feet of project water to be delivered beginning in the year 2005, in 4,000 acre-foot increments over a 5year period until the full 20,000 is delivered. In 1990 Sandy City was annexed into MWDSLC and the 20,000 acre-feet of CUP water will be used to meet both of the cities' future water supply requirements. The CUP has been controversial at times, and in recent years has changed, reflecting changing environmental and political times. Nevertheless, the project will play a significant role in meeting the future water supply needs of Salt Lake County. History of the Project • Purpose of the Project The CUP is a water resource development project that provides water supplies to the central portion of the state of Utah. It was authorized under the Colorado River Storage Act of April 11, 1956, with planning and construction initially by the Bureau of Reclamation ("BuRec"). The CUP diverts a portion of Utah’s 23 percent share of the Upper Basin of the Colorado River to originally a 12 county area within Utah (Millard and Sevier Counties have since withdrawn from the district, reducing the number of counties to10). Project features divert water from the southern slopes of the Uinta Mountains and the Colorado River to the Wasatch Front through a collection system consisting of a series of aqueducts, tunnels and dams.
    [Show full text]
  • The Central Utah Project - Jensen Unit
    The Central Utah Project - Jensen Unit Table of Contents Project Location................................................................................................................ 2 Historical Setting............................................................................................................... 3 Project Authorization ....................................................................................................... 9 Construction History ...................................................................................................... 12 Red Fleet Dam and Reservoir....................................................................................... 16 Drains and Tyzack Aqueduct........................................................................................ 20 Recreation Facilities...................................................................................................... 23 Post Construction History.............................................................................................. 25 Repayment Contract Renegotiation .............................................................................. 25 Remediation of Stewart Lake Waterfowl Management Area....................................... 27 Settlement of Project Lands........................................................................................... 29 Project Benefits and Uses of Project Water ................................................................. 29 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Draft Environmental Assessment
    Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Draft Environmental Assessment June 2021 Joint Lead Agencies U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office Central Utah Water Conservancy District Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission Cooperating Agency U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Responsible Officials Reed R. Murray U.S. Department of the Interior, CUPCA Office 302 East Lakeview Pkwy Provo, Utah 84606‐7317 Gene Shawcroft Central Utah Water Conservancy District 1426 East 750 North, Suite 400 Orem, Utah 84097‐5474 Mark Holden Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission 230 South 500 East, Suite 230 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102‐2045 For information, contact: Chris Elison Central Utah Water Conservancy District 1426 East 750 North, Suite 400 Orem, Utah 84097‐5474 (801) 226‐7166 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................ iv Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................... v Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Payoff Soars in Basin Project
    Reclamation grows in Colorado basin PAYOFF SOARS IN BASIN PROJECT HE Colorado River Storage Project has achieved outstanding progress since it began Toperation in 1963. Assets of the project had reached a total of $837.2 million as of June 30, 1969. Gross revenues during fiscal 1969 amounted to $21.9 million. In view of these figures, the project's future pro­ duction holds high promise for people in many fields of endeavor. Large popu}ations of seven States are directly or indirectly benefitted by the CRSP. The seven favorably affected are Arizona, California, Colo­ rado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. This multipurpose project delivers electric power for homes and industries, and water for both metropolitan and farm uses. The construction includes facilities for extensive lake recreation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife. Last year four powerplants at CRSP dams gen­ erated sufficient power during periods of heavy customer use to meet the equivalent full-day needs of more than 800,000 homes. Actual revenues from power sales in fiscal 1969 totaled a significant $19.8 million-income from 4 billion kilowatt-hours of generation. The powerplants are at four dams, Glen Canyon, Ariz.; Flaming Gorge, Utah; Blue Mesa, Colo.; and Fontenelle, Wyo. Seventy-five percent of the power produced on the project took place at Glen Canyon Dam where eight large turbines operate. This facility gen­ erated. 3 billion kilowatt-hours. Other power was from Flaming Gorge with 684 million kwh; Blue Mesa with 258 million kwh; and Fontenelle with 67 million kwh. Arizona was the highest user of CRSP power at 37.7 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Wayne Aspinall Unit Colorado River Storage Project
    Wayne Aspinall Unit Colorado River Storage Project Zachary Redmond Bureau of Reclamation History Program 2000 Table Of Contents Table Of Contents .............................................................1 The Wayne Aspinall Unit .......................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Prehistoric Setting .................................................4 Historic Setting ...................................................6 Project Authorization....................................................15 Construction History ....................................................20 Blue Mesa Dam..................................................20 Morrow Point Dam ...............................................33 Crystal Dam.....................................................43 Post-Construction History................................................53 Settlement of the Project .................................................61 Uses of Project Water ...................................................62 Conclusion............................................................64 About the Author .............................................................64 Bibliography ................................................................66 Archival Collections ....................................................66 Government Documents .................................................66 Articles...............................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2022 Central Utah Project Completion Act Budget Summary (Thousands of Dollars)
    The United States BUDGET Department of the Interior JUSTIFICATIONS and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2022 CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT NOTICE: These budget justifications are prepared For the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees. Approval for release of the justifications prior to their printing in the public record of the Subcommittee hearings may be obtained through the Office of Budget of the Department of the Interior. Printed on Recycled Paper U.S. Department of the Interior Office of the Secretary Central Utah Project Completion Act FY 2022 Budget Justification Central Utah Project Completion Act FY 2022 Budget Estimates Table of Contents Central Utah Project Completion Act Budget Summary .............................................................................. 1 FY 2022 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Central Utah Project Completion Act Account ............................................................................................. 5 Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission Account ....................................................... 8 Title IV - Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account .......................................................... 11 Employee Count by Grade .......................................................................................................................... 14 Appropriation Language ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The One-Dam Solution
    The One-Dam Solution Preliminary report to the Bureau of Reclamation on proposed reoperation strategies for Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam under low water conditions. July 2005 We welcome public feedback toward the development of a subsequent edition of this report to be concluded following release of Bureau of Reclamation draft recommendations for the reoperations of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam. PO Box 466 Moab, UT 84532 435.259.1063 [email protected] Cover illustration of Humpback Chub ©Gloria Brown from “A Naturalist’s Guide to Canyon Country” by Falcon Publishing www.falcon.com Table of Contents Summary Page 4 Th e Coming Crisis Page 6 Flaws in the System Page 7 Th e Underground Solution Page 10 Rethinking Glen Canyon Dam Page 11 Re-examine the Colorado River Compact Page 16 Conclusion Page 18 Notes Page 19 “We’ve got to rethink the use of water. But if you think it’s [the drought] going to go away, the people that think well, we’re going to go back to a wet cycle, don’t bet on it.” Stewart Udall, former Secretary of the Interior December 2003 3 Summary Life in the Southwest depends on the Colorado of archeological sites. So far, measures to reverse the River. Preserving this resource requires achieving decline of these park resources as directed by the 1992 a sustainable balance between water supply and Grand Canyon Protection Act have failed. demand. However, population growth and climate change are disrupting this equilibrium and pushing Th e desire to prevent the further fi lling of Lake Mead the management of this resource to its limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Rights Essay – Whalen
    The Risk of LPP’s Junior Water Right Status Jane Whalen - CSU Board Member Utah estimates it has 361,000 acre feet unused from its remaining share of 1.369 million acre feet yearly (MAFY) of the Colorado River and can use 86,249 acre feet for the Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP). But, relying on this remaining share carries risk; it may be only a paper water right. The water may not be physically in the river system due to: increased use, reduced storms, snow pack and stream flows from rising temperatures, over allocation, junior in priority of other water rights, such as the Central Utah Project, including the unsettled Federal Reserve water rights claims of the Indian Tribes. As water supplies continue to decline, junior water right holders are at risk of being shut off. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has well-documented that there is more water allocated to users of the Colorado River than the river produces annually, even without considering a warming climate. The outflows from Lake Powell to Lake Mead continue to exceed inflows. This over allocation is draining the reservoirs faster than anyone predicted. The Colorado River has reached its limit, yet plans are underway to take more water for the LPP. Utah’s share of the Colorado River is a percentage; 23% of the Upper Basin (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico) allocation. It is not a fixed amount like the Lower Basin states have. The Upper Basin States are currently dividing 6 (MAFY). This is using a 100 year average with annual flow of 15 MAFY in hydrological modeling.
    [Show full text]