DOCSLIB.ORG

NEPA--Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NEPA--Environmental Assessment United States Environmental Department of Agriculture Forest Assessment Service February 2015 Mill Creek Dam Removal and Restoration Project Salt Lake Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Salt Lake County, Utah Lead Agency: USDA-Forest Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Salt Lake Ranger District 6944 South 3000 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84121 Responsible Official: Catherine Kahlow, Salt Lake District Ranger (801) 733-2660 Contact Information: Paul Cowley, Project Leader (801) 999-2177 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Planning Record.............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND USE OF SCIENCE ..................................................................................................... 7 1.7 DECISION FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.9 ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.9.1 Issues considered but eliminated from detailed analysis ............................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................... 10 2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Multi-Phase Restoration Project for Mill Creek Canyon ............................................................................................... 11 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL .......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Alternative 2: The Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAIL STUDY .................................................................................................... 15 2.4 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION FOR RESOURCE PROTECTION ................................................................. 15 2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................ 16 3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 24 3.4 RECREATION........................................................................................................................................................................ 29 3.5 SOILS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 3.6 SCENIC RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 33 3.7 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 3.8 WATER AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 38 4. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................. 41 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................................................... 44 6. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 45 APPENDIX 1: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 45 i CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Document Structure The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into six parts: • Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Chapter 2 - Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures and design features. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. • References Cited: This section lists all of the references consulted in the writing of this report. • Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the EA. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EA. 1.1.1 Planning Record Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Salt Lake Ranger District Office in Salt Lake
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rockport Utah a Brief History and Photographs of Homes
    ROCKPORT UTAH A BRIEF HISTORY AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOMES Edited and Compiled by Thomas E. Brown FORWARD Several years ago I was asked to speak at sacrament meeting program in the Peoa Ward. The Peoa members of the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers had planned the program and I was asked to speak about the pioneers in the valley. Since no one specifically asked me to speak about Peoa, I focused my remarks on my hometown of Rockport. Days were spent researching the subject. Books and documents in my possession provided a base, but additional information was needed. Much time was spent at the Church Historical Department reviewing documents and soon enough information had been collected to fill the assignment. After the meeting, several friends asked for copies of the talk. The information was not typed and it needed to be put together better. All this time I had a set of wonderful photographs showing the homes in Rockport taken by Florence Siddoway Walsh Hunter years before. The photos had been shown to friends who said they would like copies. Because of the interest in both the talk and the photos, I decided to get the history typed and the photos enlarged and labeled so they could be put together in some printed form. There may be misspelled names, wrong dates, incorrect information, omissions and a host of other problems with this document. Some problems may have existed in the materials I used and some may be of my own making. This is not a complete history in any sense of the word, but I hope you find some enjoyment and satisfaction in reviewing the history and the photos just as I have.
    [Show full text]
  • Park City, Utah 8.37 Acre Commercial Development Parcel Entitled for Five Multi-Use Buildings Totalling 209,990 Sf Gross 122,432 Sf Leasable/ Salable
    PARK CITY, UTAH 8.37 ACRE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PARCEL ENTITLED FOR FIVE MULTI-USE BUILDINGS TOTALLING 209,990 SF GROSS 122,432 SF LEASABLE/ SALABLE Offered by: RONALD J. SHARP & ASSOCIATES Robert Holmes Associate Broker [email protected] • 435.640.6367 Kahrin Holmes [email protected] • 435.640.5370 Sales Price $8,100,000 LAND 8.37 Acre Development Parcel $22.22 / SF Gross Land Area $48.09 / SF Developable Land Area IMPROVEMENTS Recently approved entitlements for residential and commercial development of 5 buildings totaling 209,991 square feet gross/122,432 square feet leasable. $38.57/SF Gross Building Area $66.16/SF Net Leasable Area WATER 38.38 Shares (ERC’s) of Mountain Regional Water available for $403,489.00 ($10,513.00/ERC) I-80 (APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE) HWY 40 TO I-80 BLDG. D PARK CITY STORAGE BLDG. B HWY 40 UNDERGROUND PARKING DRIVE-THRU BLDG. A SILVER CREEK BUSINESS PARK UNDERGROUND PARKING BLDG. E BLDG. C FRONTAGE RD. SEATTLE SALT LAKE NEW YORK CITY CITY 80 PARK CITY • Forbes Magazine released its CHICAGO annual BEST STATES FOR BUSINESS AND CAREERS ranking Utah #1 for the 3rd SAN HEBER consecutive year. Rankings FRANCISCO CITY are based on six primary categories: business costs, PROVO PHOENIX economic climate, growth SAN prospects, labor, quality of life DIEGO ATLANTA and regulatory environment. DALLAS • Utah was named the TOP STATE FOR ECONOMIC 70 OUTLOOK for the 5th ORLANDO consecutive year by ALEC- Laffer State Economic Index; FLIGHT TIMES “Rich States, Poor States.” for SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: Business Facilities Magazine ATLANTA ...............................3:40 HRS ORLANDO ............................4:20 HRS SAN DIEGO ..........................1:54 HRS 15 • ranked Utah #1 overall for its CHICAGO ..............................3:01 HRS PHOENIX ..............................1:31 HRS SAN FRANCISCO ..............1:42 HRS DALLAS ..................................2:30 HRS NEW YORK ..........................4:27 HRS SEATTLE ...............................1:54 HRS PRO-BUSINESS CLIMATE.
    [Show full text]
  • Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003
    Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Echo Dam, Weber River Project Summit County, Utah, Safety of Dams Modification, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact PRO-EA-05-003 Weber River Project, Summit County, Utah Upper Colorado Region Provo Area Office Contact Person W. Russ Findlay Provo Area Office 302 East 1860 South Provo, Utah 84606 801-379-1084 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office Provo, Utah September 2009 Contents Page Chapter 1 – Need for Proposed Action and Background.................................. 1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Dam Safety Program Overview............................................................ 1 1.2.1 Safety of Dams NEPA Compliance Requirements..................... 2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action...................................... 2 1.4 Description of Echo Dam and Reservior .............................................. 2 1.4.1 Echo Dam.................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Echo Reservoir............................................................................ 5 1.4.3 Normal Operations.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Morgan County, Utah Centennial County History Series
    610 square miles, more than 90 percent of which is privately owned. Situated within the Wasatch Mountains, its boundaries defined by mountain ridges, Morgan Countyhas been celebrated for its alpine setting. Weber Can- yon and the Weber River traverse the fertile Morgan Valley; and it was the lush vegetation of the pristine valley that prompted the first white settlers in 1855 to carve a road to it through Devils Gate in lower Weber Canyon. Morgan has a rich historical legacy. It has served as a corridor in the West, used by both Native Americans and early trappers. Indian tribes often camped in the valley, even long after it was settled by Mormon pioneers. The southern part of the county was part of the famed Hastings Cutoff, made notorious by the Donner party but also used by Mormon pioneers, Johnston's Army, California gold seekers, and other early travelers. Morgan is still part of main routes of traffic, including the railroad and utility lines that provide service throughout the West. Long known as an agricultural county, the area now also serves residents who commute to employment in Wasatch Front cities. Two state parks-Lost Creek Reservoir and East A HISTORY OF Morgan COUY~Y Linda M. Smith 1999 Utah State Historical Society Morgan County Commission Copyright O 1999 by Morgan County Commission All rights reserved ISBN 0-913738-36-0 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 98-61320 Map by Automated Geographic Reference Center-State of Utah Printed in the United States of America Utah State Historical Society 300 Rio Grande Salt Lake City, Utah 84 101 - 1182 Dedicated to Joseph H.
    [Show full text]
  • Valleys of Utah Lake and Jordan River, Utah
    Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 157 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DlKKCTOK UNDERGROUND WATER IN THE VALLEYS OF UTAH LAKE AND JORDAN RIVER, UTAH BY G. B. RICHARDSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1906 CONTENTS. Page. Introduction.......................... 5 Topography and drainage.............. 5 Geology.............................. 7 Literature........................ Descriptive geology of the highlands Late geologic history.............. 11 Tertiary..................... 11 Quaternary.................... 11 Climate.............................. 13 Precipitation.. 14 Temperature.. 15 Wind velocity. 16 Humidity..... 16 Evaporation-.. 17 Summary..... 17 Hydrography...... 18 Streams tributary to Utah Lake and Jorc an River. 18 Utah Lake.................... 23 Jordan River.................. 24 Great Salt Lake................ 25 Underground water.................. 27 General conditions............. 27 Source.................... 27 Distribution............... 29 Quality................... 30 Recovery................. 35 Suggestions................. 38 Occurrence.................... 38 West of Jordan .River........ 38 Divisions of area....... 38 Upland area............ 39 Lowland area.......... 41 East of Jordan River........ 43 Salt Lake City......... 43 South of Salt Lake City. 45 Utah Lake Valley........... 48 Lehi and vicinity. 48 American Fork, Pleasant Grove, and vicinity. 49 Provo and vicinity....... i- 51 Springville and vicinity... 52 Spanish Fork, Payson, and vicinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah History Encyclopedia
    THE MORMON TRAIL IN UTAH The Utah portion of the Old Mormon Trail remains the best-known and most famous section of the several emigrant trails (which total more than 10,000 miles) used by the Mormons in their migrations during the nineteenth century. This Utah trail is a seventy-mile-long natural highway, a chain of defiles commencing just west of The Needles at the mouth of Coyote Creek Canyon at the Wyoming state line, and including Cache Cave Creek Draw, Echo Canyon, Weber River Valley, Main Canyon, East Canyon, Little Emigration Canyon, and Emigration Canyon. These natural features form a passage that meanders through the forbidding Wasatch Range of the Rockies, the last barrier to the new Mormon Zion in the Valley of the Great Salt Lake. The route of the pioneers is easy to follow, except for a four-mile hike up Little Emigration Canyon. Unfortunately, however, few of the original wagon ruts have been preserved. The longest single section of this trail is in the twenty-five-mile-long Echo Canyon; with all of the subsequent road and rail widenings, however, the original track is long gone. In 1846 the trail essentially was blazed by the Donner-Reed party to what is now known as Donner Hill near the mouth of Emigration Canyon. The Mormons of 1847 actually blazed only about one mile of the entire trail from Nauvoo to Salt Lake City – the remaining mile from Donner Hill into the valley. Along this trail travelers may wish to note and visit many of the twenty­ four historic sites and/or markers.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs
    SALT LAKE CITY PARKS & PUBLIC LANDS NEEDS ASSESSMENT December 2018 SALT LAKE CITY PARKS & PUBLIC LANDS NEEDS ASSESSMENT December 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL LANDMARK DESIGN CONSULTANT TEAM District 1 - James Rogers Mark Vlasic, ASLA, PLA, AICP Principal-in-Charge District 2 - Andrew Johnston Jennifer Hale, ASLA, PLA Project Manager District 3 - Chris Wharton Lisa Benson, ASLA, PLA, AICP Senior Planner District 4 - Derek Kitchen Siri Vlasic, Intern District 5 - Erin Mendenhall District 6 - Charlie Luke District 7 - Amy Fowler LEWIS, YOUNG, ROBERTSON & BURNINGHAM Fred Philpott, Vice President Teresa Pinkal, Analyst SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR’S OFFICE Mayor Jackie Biskupski Y2 ANALYTICS Scott Riding, Managing Partner Kyrene Gibb, Director of Research SALT LAKE CITY PARKS & PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Nancy Monteith, Landscape Architect, Project Manager Kristin Riker, Director Brandon Fleming, PPL Office Facilitator & GIS Coordinator Tyler Murdock, PPL Project Coordinator Nole Walkingshaw, PPL Administrative Services & Communications Manager Lewis Kogan, PPL Natural lands Program Manager Kathy Rollman, Park Usage Coordinator Troy Baker, PPL Maintenance Program Manager Kyle Shields, PPL Maintenance Program Manager RESIDENTS OF SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment i CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................iii 5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................... 91 5.1 Citywide Summary .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Conditions Canyon Above the Interstate 215 2009)
    RIPARIAN CORRIDOR STUDY FINAL PARLEYS CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.0 BASELINE ASSESSMENT RESULTS Watershed Conditions Canyon above the Interstate 215 2009). Approximately 4 of the crossing, drains 33,272 acres of 10.8 miles of upper Parleys Size and Land Use wooded mountainous terrain. Creek has been piped to Upper Parleys Creek flows 10.8 accommodate freeway Parleys Creek lies between miles and its two major construction. The majority of the Emigration Creek to the north headwater tributaries, Mountain upper subwatershed is forested, and Mill Creek to the south Dell Canyon and Lambs with less than 10% of the area (Figure 3.1). The upper Canyon, flow for 6.2 miles and developed and an estimated subwatershed, located in Parleys 5.3 miles respectively (SLCO overall impervious cover of Figure 3.1. Parleys Creek watershed (map from SLCO 2009). SALT LAKE CITY OCTOBER 2010 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES3-1 BIO-WEST, INC. RIPARIAN CORRIDOR STUDY FINAL PARLEYS CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN 11.5% (SLCO 2009). Much of Hydrology Flows are not typically released the subwatershed lies within the out of Mountain Dell Dam except Wastach National Forest and is The hydrology of Parleys Creek when the reservoir fills during managed primarily for low- is altered by the water storage spring runoff, and during base impact recreation. The areas and flow regulation operations of flow periods the stream dries up above the Mountain Dell/Parleys Mountain Dell and Little Dell for some distance below the dam Creek confluence receive Reservoirs. Originally completed until gains from groundwater protection as a Salt Lake City in 1917, Mountain Dell Dam is a resupply surface flow.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Guide to the Central Wasatch Front Canyons
    Introduction . 1 Striking beauty, abundant recreational opportunities, historic mining and Overview Map . 2 pioneer locales, and a unique geologic story stretching back over one bil- Geologic Story . 3 lion years make Salt Lake County’s Wasatch Front canyons a world-class Lake Bonneville . 4 attraction. Glaciers . 5 This guide highlights the six canyons open to vehicles. Topical pages Faults . 7 present the region’s fascinating geologic history and active processes, Landslides . 8 while descriptions and maps with road mileage further explain each Mining History . 9 canyon’s geology. Stone Quarries . 10 Enjoy your tours. Rocks Discussed in this Guide . 12 William F. Case – Emigration, Parleys, and Mill Creek Canyons City Creek Canyon (text) . 13 Sandra N. Eldredge – Big Cottonwood Canyon Mark R. Milligan – City Creek Canyon Emigration and Lower Parleys Canyons (text) . 15 Christine Wilkerson – Little Cottonwood Canyon Mill Creek Canyon (text) . 17 Big Cottonwood Canyon (text) . 19 Driving conditions to be aware of include narrow roads combined with heavy bicycle Little Cottonwood Canyon (text) . 21 traffic in City Creek, Emigration, and Mill Creek Canyons; and high-speed highway traffic in Parleys Canyon. Description of Map Units . 23 No dogs are allowed in Big Cottonwood, Little Cottonwood, and upper City Creek City Creek Canyon (map) . 24 Canyons because the areas are culinary watersheds. Emigration and Lower Parleys Canyons (map) . 25 For other regulations regarding recreation: Contact the Salt Lake Ranger District of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest for Mill Mill Creek Canyon (map) . 26 Creek, Big Cottonwood, and Little Cottonwood Canyons. Big Cottonwood Canyon (map) . 27 Contact the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities for City Creek Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • An Early History of the Community of Park City, Utah
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1969 An Early History of the Community of Park City, Utah Oscar F. Jesperson Jr. Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Anthropology Commons, History Commons, Mormon Studies Commons, and the Sociology Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Jesperson, Oscar F. Jr., "An Early History of the Community of Park City, Utah" (1969). Theses and Dissertations. 4827. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4827 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ANAN EARLY HISTORY OF THE COMMUNITY OF PARK city9CITY UTAH izltd102 2 A thesis submitted to the department of history brigham young university prolprowprovo utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of art by oscar F jespersonJesjespersongpersong jr august 1969 PREFACE while books and theses have been written on the mines and some of the individuals associated with park city there iisi s something lacking an incompleteness about the story of park city utahitahoutaho it was not a boom or temporary town as were so many other mining communities in the western united states park city was differentdifferdifferentodifferenthoento not only was this a gentile town in the heart of mormon country
    [Show full text]
  • CLOUDBURST FLOODS in UTAH 1850-1938 by RALF R
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR J. A. Krug, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director Water-Supply Paper 994 CLOUDBURST FLOODS IN UTAH 1850-1938 By RALF R. WOOLLEY With a chapter on physiographic features By RAY E. MARSELL and a FOREWORD by NATHAN C. CROVER UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1946 For sale by the Supt. of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. Price $1.50 CLOUDBURST a definition The term "cloudburst" is commonly used to designate a tor­ rential downpour of rain which by its spottiness and relatively high intensity suggests the bursting and discharge of a whole cloud at once. Cloudbursts are usually associated with thunder­ storms; they may occur anywhere but generally over a relatively small area. They are common in the hilly and mountainous dis­ tricts of the West, and the resulting floods pouring out from the small precipitous catchment basins are flashy and often destructive. CONTENTS Page Cloudburst a definition____-___---__--__-_______--_--_-__-__..-.._..,-_-_ ii Foreword, by Nathan C. Grover---.-...-..----__________________________ 1 Abstract.________-_-___----------__--_---_-_---_-_-..-.. ___-_-._____ 5 Authorization ___________________..___..---__--____-_-_..________ ._-______ 7 Administration and personnel____________________________________________ 7 Scope of report.___________-_--_---_----_____--_-_-_---_--_-_____---__- 8 Cooperation and basic data.---_--_--_-------_-_---------_--_..__--___-_- 9 Previous studies____-____---_-_-------_-_--_---------___.-..---_---_--
    [Show full text]
  • Parley's Interchange Alternative Development Public Comments
    Parley's Interchange Alternative Development Public Comments This document provides a copy of the comments received during the 30-day comment period for the Parley's EIS Preliminary Alternatives. UDOT is reviewing and considering these comments as they refine the project alternatives. Comments received after the 30-day comment period will be reviewed and considered. There will be additional opportunities to provide comments during the Draft EIS public comment period in the summer of 2019. PARLEY’S INTERCHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I-80/I-215 Eastside Comment #1 Date: 7/12/2018 Source: Phone Name: Joshua Stewart Comments: I am opposed to widening of Foothill. We need to be discouraging people from travelling here rather than encouraging them. Comment #2 Date: 7/18/2018 Source: Email Name: Emily W. Allen Comments: Just writing to indicate my opposition to the current alternatives for the I-80/ I-215 redesign which may impact my neighbors and the Grandeur Peak trailhead. Thanks! Emily Allen Comment #3 Date: 7/18/2018 Source: Email Name: Jen Schmidt Comments: To Whom It May Concern: I would like to formally voice concern and object to any plans that may put at-risk homes or trailheads as a result of the Parley’s reconstruction. I live in a home that could potentially be impacted. I also love this area for recreation, and I am not alone. There are many, many individuals who enjoy Wasatch Blvd as well as Grandeur Peak for all sorts of recreation activities. Please do not consider any plans that would put these amazing areas at risk.
    [Show full text]