FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

LITTLE DELL LAKE SALT LAKE*£IT*Y SXREAKStiMAH

U S. ARMY ENGINEER, DISTRICT SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA'

SEPTEMBER 1974 SUMMARY

Little Dell Lake, Salt Lake City Streams, Utah

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: U. S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone No. (916) 449-2232

1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative

2. Description of Action: Little Dell Lake project will be a 275-foot- high dam across Dell Creek to Impound up to 30,000 acre-feet of water. The project will include diversion structures to divert water from Emigra­ tion Canyon and Parleys Creek (below Lambs Canyon) into Little Dell Lake. Highway 65 will be relocated around the lake and affected utilities will be relocated. The project will be operated for the purposes of flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, and recreation and fish and wildlife.

3. a. Environmental Impacts: Flood control will be provided for exist­ ing and future development in Emigration Canyon, Parleys Canyon and Salt Lake City. A supply of municipal and industrial water and a new recrea­ tion opportunity will be available for the people of the Salt Lake metro­ politan area. The large numbers of people attracted to the lake for recreation will result in heavy traffic on the existing road system. A portion of Utah State Highway No. 65 will require relocation. A 1.5 mile stretch of the historic Mormon and Pony Express trail and the site of the Little Dell Pony Express Station, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, will be inundated. The trail and the station will be relocated adjacent to the new lake and incorporated into the public use development. About 340 acres of land will be inundated, including 35 acres of cultivated fields, and 300 acres of undeveloped land managed for water quality protection and used by wildlife. An additional 803 acres of land will be acquired in fee for use by the public and about 74 acres by easements for construction of facilities which is undeveloped except for about 2 acres of residential land.

b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Wildlife habitat, including some meadow and riparian vegetation, will be inundated by the new lake. Project construction will result in some scarring of the landscape. Little Dell Pony Express Station will be moved from its historic location and 1.5 miles of the Mormon Trail inundated. Diversion of Emigration Creek water to the new lake would diminish the limited trout fishery downstream from the diversion. The aesthetic quality of the lake will be affected during infrequent heavy drawdown periods.

4. Alternatives: Different reservoir sizes; different reservoir sites; various diversions from nearby streams; future additional diversions from Mill Creek and Big Cottonwood Creek; flood plain management; downstream channel improvements; floodway on surface streets; and "no action."

5. Comments Received:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency U. S. Department of the Interior U. S. Forest Service U. S. Department of housing and Urban Development State of Utah Sierra Club, Uinta Chapter Utah Environment Center Stanley hulaik

G. Draft Statement to CLQ 11 July 1973. Final Statement to CEQ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT LITTLE DELL LAKE SALT LAKE CITY STREAMS, UTAH

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Subject Page

1 Project Description 1.01 Location 1 1.02 Authorization and current status 1 1.03 Local cooperation 1 1.04 Project data 1 1.05 Project purposes 3 1.06 Project operation 6 1.07 Basis for determining costand benefits 7

2 Existing Resources and Environmental Impact 2.01 Physical geography 9 2.02 Geology and mineral resources 9 2.03 Climate 10 2.04 Hydrology and ground water 10 2.05 Water quality 13 2.06 Land use 20 2.07 Aestnetics 22 2.08 Archeological and historical resources 26 2.09 Recreation 31 2.10 Other natural resources 34

3 Relationship of Proposed Action to Land Use Plans 41

4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 42

5 Alternatives 5.01 Multiple purpose plans 43 5.02 Flood control 45 5.03 Water supply 47 5.04 Recreation 49 5.05 No action 50

6 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 51

7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Should the Project be Constructed 52 Paragraph Subject Page

o Coordination and Comments and Responses 8.01 Public participation 53 8.02 Governmental agencies 54 8.03 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 55 8.04 U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service 56 8.05 Department of Housing and Urban Development 62 6.06 Department of the Interior 62 8.07 State of Utah 76 8.08 Citizen groups ' 78 3.09 Sierra Club, Uinta Chapter 79 8.10 Utah Environment Center 81 8.11 Stanley B. Mulaik 85 8.12 National Wildlife Federation 90

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1 General map Chart 2 General map and possible alternative improvement Chart 3 Little Dell Lake Chart 4 Emigration Creek flows Chart 5 Lambs Canyon flows Chart 6 Map showing the results of a seepage run in Emigration Creek, August 9-10, 1965 Chart 7 Central Utah Project

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1 Little Dell Lake Project - Looking southwest Photo 2 Emigration Creek - Upstream from Highway 65 Photo 3 Little Dell Station

APPENDIXES

Appendix A Economic Data Appendix B Flora and Fauna of the Little Dell Project Area Appendix C References Cited Appendix D Letters Received by the District Engineer Appendix E Memorandum of Agreement Concerning Little Dell Station and Related Correspondence FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT LITTLE DELL LAKE SALT LAKE CITY STREAMS, UTAH

SECTION I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.01 Location. - The project consists of a dam and reservoir to be constructed on Dell Creek, a tributary of Parleys Creek, about 6.5 miles east of Salt Lake City, Utah, in the western part of the Wasatch Mountains. The damsite will be 1.5 miles upstream from the existing Mountain Dell Dam. The project will Include a diversion structure and tunnel to divert water from nearby Emigration Canyon and a diversion structure Just below the confluence of Parleys and Lambs Canyons to divert the combined runoff of these creeks during high flows. Flows from both diversions will enter Little Dell Lake. Location of the project Is shown on charts 1 and 2 and photo 1.

1.02 Authorization and current status. - The Little Dell Project is in the advance planning (preconstruction) stage. The project was authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Acts of 1960 and 1968. The most recent authorization was on the basis of recommendations of the Chief of Engineers contained in Senate Document No. 53, 90th Congress, 1st Session.

1.03 Local cooperation. - The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City furnished assurances for repayment of costs allocated to municipal water supply. Salt Lake County has indicated they will furnish assurances for providing the non-Federal flood control requirements, which include a contribution in cash or in kind for lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations allocated to the flood control function. The County has also forwarded a letter of intent to assume the cost-sharing and administration responsibilities for recreation at Little Dell Lake.

1.04 Project data. - The project is shown on chart 3 and will consist of the following:

a. A 275-foot high rolled earthfill dam with a crest length of 2,300 feet and a crest width of 20 feet.

b. A 9-foot high diversion structure on Emigration Creek below the confluence of Burr Fork and Killyon Canyon approximately 2,000 feet upstream from where Highway 65 crosses the stream (chart 3), and a 6.5-foot diameter tunnel, 1.03 miles long, to convey water to Little Dell Lake. C. A diversion structure 8.5 feet high on Parleys Creek Just below its confluence with Lambs Canyon and a 4—foot diameter pipeline, 3.1 miles long, to convey water to Little Dell Lake.

d. Recreation development:

(1) 75 family picnic sites, grouped in three areas.

(2) 7 group picnic areas, each accommodating up to 200 people (and possibly for use as youth camp areas).

(3) One two-lane launching ramp, for non-power boats.

(4) A 1-1/2 acre sand swimming beach.

(5) A three-mile long asphalt bike-hike trail.

e. Little Dell Pony Express Station (photo 3) will be relocated.

f. The following facilities will be relocated:

(1) State Highway 65.

(2) Two crude oil lines.

(3) Two natural gas lines.

(4) One overhead telephone line.

g. Reservoir data for Little Dell Lake are shown below:

Gross Pool Inactive Pool

Capacity 30,000 acre-feet Capacity 3,000 acre-feet Surface area 340 acres Surface area 87 acres Shoreline 4.2 miles Elevation 5,706 feet Elevation 5,835 feet

h. About 7,900,000 cubic yards of borrow material will be taken from the following borrow areas for construction of the project. Areas are shown on chart 3.

(1) In the reservoir area below gross pool.

(2) From the spillway excavation. (3) Material excavated from Emigration Creek tunnel.

(4) Material excavated from Lambs Canyon conveyance facilities.

(5) If necessary, reserve borrow areas on the hillside near the left abutment and along the north shore of the lake.

Concrete aggregates and heavy riprap for the lakeside face of the dam and for erosion protection at outlet structures will be obtained from commercial sources in the Salt Lake City area. Material from the above areas which is not suitable for the dam embankment will be spoiled in the reservoir area, or used to restore borrow areas to as near natural contours as possible.

1.05 Project purposes. - Little Dell Lake will be constructed for the purposes of flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, recre­ ation and fish and wildlife.

a. Flood control. - The flood plain in the area of 13th South Street in Salt Lake City (see chart 2) is subject to periodic flooding from cloudbursts in the foothills east of the city and from general rainfloods and snowmelt runoff from the drainage areas of Parleys, Emigration, and Red Butte Creeks 1/ (13th South Street Stream Group). The streams of the 13th South Street Stream Group flow vest from the Wasatch Mountains and affect a 2,150-acre highly developed residential, commercial, and industrial flood plain area in Salt Lake City. Near the foothill line the streams enter existing conduits which merge at 13th South Street and convey flows to the Jordan River. Combined flow of more than 300 cubic feet per second results in flooding due to Inadequate conduit capacity. Little Dell Lake, operated in tandem with existing Mountain Dell Reservoir just downstream, would provide a total flood control storage of 30,000 acre-feet of water and provide a high degree of protection from snowmelt floods (standard project flood 2/) and from rainfloods originating above Mountain Dell Reservoir. The project will not prevent rainflood damage from storms

1/ Red Butte Creek is not directly Included in the project, but by regu­ lating other sources going into existing conduits, space is made available to accommodate Red Butte flows. 2/ A Standard Project Flood is a rare occurrence which may be expected from the most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions considered reasonably characteristic of the geographical area in which the drainage basin is located. centering downstream of the dam. The Emigration Canyon diversion structure would provide protection from the standard project snowmelt flood and from general rainstorms with an occurrence of about once in 100 years to improvements in Emigration Canyon below the diversion point. Areas below the foothill line affected by floodflows from Emigration and the adjacent Red Butte Creek, would be protected from the standard project snowmelt flood and general rainfloods occurring about once in 50 years, on the average. Cloudburst floods centering below the diversion would not be affected appreciably by the project.

b. Water supply. - Municipal water supply developed by the project is estimated at 8,900 acre-feet annually based on present Bonneville Unit status, and 3,200 acre-feet annually assuming use subsequent to Bonneville Unit. The developed water supply includes an average annual flow of 1,500 acre-feet divertible from Emigration Creek (1930 to 1971 average) and about 1,000 acre-feet of previously uncontrolled flow annually at Mountain Dell Dam which will be regulated by the project. In addition, more complete utilization of other local supplies will result from firming up existing local supplies by releasing storage water to meet peak water demands during dry periods. Under low runoff conditions, such as occurred historically in 1934-1935, 1940-1941 and 1961, the reservoir will be drawn down to increase the firm system yield to the area. During normal and above normal runoff periods, a greater use of existing supplies accounts for the increased yield over and above the water supply developed at the site. The following tabulation summarizes the water supply accomplishments for two pre-project conditions and for the initial and potential development conditions.

: Present y : Post-Bonneville : Bonneville Unit : Unit

Preproject system yield 158,400 acre-feet 253,800 acre-feet Year project water is needed 1980 1998

Initial Little Dell development System yield with project 167,300 acre-feet 257,000 acre-feet Year demand will equal supply 1982 1999

Potential ultimate development System yield with project 170,500 acre-feet 260,380 acre-feet Year demand will equal supply 1983 2000 y Includes Jordan Aqueduct and Jordan Narrows treatment plant, which allow increased utilization of Provo River Project and other local water supplies, but no delivery of Bonneville Unit Water. Salt Lake City's municipal water Is presently supplied by a combination of local Wasatch Mountain stream runoff, springs and deep wells, and the Bureau of Reclamation's Deer Creek Reservoir, near Heber, Utah. The various features of Salt Lake City's water supply system are described below. Deer Creek Reservoir presently stores excess Provo River water and water Imported from adjacent Weber and Duchesne River drainages which is conveyed, upon demand, to Salt Lake County via the 42-mlle long Salt Lake Aqueduct. The Bureau of Reclamation plans to coordinate the operation of Deer Creek Reservoir with the authorized Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. The overall Bonneville Unit is about 16 percent complete, and together with other previously completed developments (Provo River Project and Salt Lake Aqueduct), the Bonneville Unit could begin providing additional water to the valley in 1974, if needed. The two principal features of the Bonneville Unit associated with Salt Lake County water deliveries would be Jordanelle Reservoir, to be built upstream from Deer Creek Reservoir on the Provo River, and the Jordan Aqueduct, to convey water from the Provo River to the west side of the Salt Lake Valley. With the completed Bonneville Unit in operation, an average of about 70,000 acre-feet annually will be available for use in the Salt Lake metropolitan area, alleviating any existing water shortage problems until the 1990's. (See chart 7 for graphic description of the Central Utah Project, including Bonneville Unit.) At that time, or ear..ler if needed, water from Little Dell Lake would be available as a source of municipal water.

c. Recreation. - Both the State's comprehensive recreation plan, Outdoor Recreation for Utah (10), and the Great Basin Framework Study (14) point out the rapidly increasing, largely unmet, demand for both water- oriented and day-use recreation areas in the Salt Lake metropolitan area. There are two large bodies of water in the vicinity; however, Utah Lake (see chart 1) has water quality and shoreline access problems which restrict recreational use, and Great Salt Lake because of its salinity, lack of fish, and often unappealing aesthetic qualities, do not satisfy this demand. Little Dell Lake would provide a new freshwater lake resource with much needed day-use picnic areas, boating, a lake fishery and related outdoor activities. Facilities have been planned to accommodate 8,000 people per day (design day). Maximum practical use of 960,000 recreation days annually is expected to be reached by the tenth year of operation. The Corps of Engineers recommends that high speed boating be prohibited to avoid conflicts with other uses on the small surface of the lake. The state of Utah has indicated their concurrence, although subsequent actions by their Boating Advisory Council and the Board of Parks and Recreation are required. If needed, a Federal regulation could be adopted as a part of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations which provides similar such regulations for Corps of Engineers lakes elsewhere. 1.06 Project operation.

a. Little Dell Lake. - Until the water supply need is realized sometime after 1990, the reservoir would be operated for flood control and recreation. A minimum of 1,000 acre-feet of space will be reserved at all times in the two reservoirs for control of floods resulting from cloudburst or general rain storms; 300 acre-feet would be in Little Dell Reservoir and 700 acre-feet in Mountain Dell Reservoir. During the spring months, February through May, Little Dell Lake would be drawn down to make space available to store runoff as anticipated from snowmelt forecasts. With this flexible storage pattern, a nearly full pool for recreation should result by the first of June over 50 percent of the time. The lake would be filled and held near gross pool during the important recreation months of May through August whenever spring runoff is sufficient and can be stored consistent with flood control objectives. Runoff data from the study period indicate that Mountain Dell Reservoir and Little Dell Lake , together, with a combined capacity of 33,200 acre-feet, should be full in 54Z of the years by 1 June and 66Z of the years by 1 July. When water is needed for water supply purposes it would normally be released from storage during the late summer and fall periods. Simulated reservoir studies based on historical flow for the 1930 to 1968 period show that major water supply drawdown would occur in six of the 39 years studied and would result in the lake being below the conservation pool level (29,900 acre-feet) for 14 out of the 39 years. During this period of study the lake would have been drawn down to the inactive storage pool on two occasions. Average end of month lake storage based o n ‘the 1930-68 study period is shown below:

Month Averagt> Storage Area

Oct 26,600 acre-feet 316 acres Nov 26,500 acre-feet 316 acres Dec 26,500 acre-feet 316 acres Jan 26,300 acre-feet 314 acres Feb 25,700 acre-feet 311 acres Mar 24,400 acre-feet 302 acres Apr 25,000 acre-feet 306 acres May 27,100 acre-feet 320 acres Jun 27,200 acre-feet 321 acres Jul 27,200 acre-feet 321 acres Aug 26,900 acre-feet 318 acres Sep 26,700 acre-feet 317 acres

b. Emigration Canyon diversion. - At the diversion structure on Emigration Creek, flows, except for a bypass of one cubic foot per second down Emigration Creek, would be diverted to Little Dell Lake. The average annual diversion from Emigration Creek to Little Dell Lake would be about 1,500 acre-feet per year. When streamflow at the diversion point drops below one cubic foot per second, as it often does in July, August, and September (see chart 4), no water would be diverted. An outlet port in the diversion dam V’ould be provided to pass one cubic foot per second to maintain a live stream in Emigration Creek but during high flow periods cculd pass as much as 8 cubic feet per second before overflow of the structure. The diversion dam will be designed for standard project snowmelt floods. A cloudburst flood in excess of the one-in~a-hundred year figure (about 100 c.f.s.) would result in water spilling over the top of the diversion dam. The diversion dam will be designed to allow water to flow over it without damage to the structure.

c. Parleys Creek diversion. - Diversion facilities will consist of an overflow weir with a gated diversion on Parleys Creek balow Lambs Canyon. Diversions will occur only during the months of peak flow, generally the months of March, April, May and June, During the diversion period, a minimum release of 5 c.f.s. will be made to protect the downstream fishery in Parleys Creek. The average annual diversion to Little Dell Lake would be about 1,000 acre-feet per year. The design flow capacity is 90 c.f.s. Flows in excess of this will result In water spilling over the diversion dam.

1.07 basis for determining cost and benefits. - The total project cost of Little Dell Lake is estimated at $36,730,000, based on 1974 price levels. I This includes $1,870,000 for Emigration Creek diversion, $950,000 for Parleys Creek diversion, $2,440,000 for land acquisition, $1,470,000 for road and utilities relocations, and $3,035,000 for recreation facilities (these figures for special features do not include engineering and design nor supervision and administration costs). An economic life of 100 years is used. The authorized interest rate is 3-1/4 percent. Since local assurances were provided prior to 31 December 1969, this interest rate will remain in effect during project feasibility studies. Total costs expressed on an annual basis for the Little Dell Lake project are estimated at $1,720,000. Total benefits are $2,965,000 per year. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.7 to 1.0. A summary of benefits derivation is presented in the following paragraphs.

Flood control annual benefits are estimated at $1,350,000 and consist of annual damages prevented. Over 90 percent of the damage to be prevented is in the 13th South Street flood plain.

Water supply benefits beginning in the 1990’s were computed at $67.00 (average equivalent discounted value) per year per acre-foot for the estimated yield of 3,200 acre-feet. Average annual water supply benefits are estimated at $215,000. (This is based on post-Bonneville Unit conditions. If Little Dell water supply were used under present status of the Bonneville Unit, water supply annual benefits would be increased.) Average annual general recreation benefits, computed at a unit value of $1.50 per day of recreation use, are estimated at $1,360,000 per year. Fishing benefits for the new lake, listed as "fish and wildlife benefits," are also computed at a unit value of $1.50 per day. Estimated annual fishing benefits amount to $40,000. Total average annual recreation benefits are estimated at $1,400,000 per year. General recreation refers to all day-use activities such as picnicking, hiking, swimming and other activities at the lake. Because of the demand for outdoor recreation in the Salt Lake area, the maximum practical use of the lake would be reached early in the life of the project. Adequate facilities would be provided in the construction program to accommodate the maximum practical use of the lake.

Additional information is provided in Appendix A. SECTION II EXISTING RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL I MI'ACT

2.01 Physical geography. -

a. Setting. - Salt Lake Valley in north-central Utah is part of the lake bed of the great inland sea, Lake Bonneville, that once covered vast areas of the Great Easin during the Pleistocene Epoch, Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake are the last remaining basins of this ancient sea that still contain water. The valley is bordered on the west by the Oquirrh Mountains and on the east by the rugged, faulted and folded Wasatch Front. To the south of the Salt Lake Valley lies the Traverse Mountains and Utah Lake; to the north is the Great Salt Lal;e. The Wasatch Mountain Range is a physiographically distinct range which comprises the western edge of the Rocky Mountains and the eastern border of the Great Basin. The terrain rises from A,500 feet on the valley floor up to elevations of over 11,000 feet.

2*02 Geology and mineral resources. -

a. Setting. - The rocks in the immediate vicinity of the proposed dam range in age from Jurassic to Quaternary and include the claystonc, siltstone,- sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone of the Kelvin Formation at the right abutment; the sandstone, siltstone and claystonc of the Frontier formation at the left abutment; and the alluvial fill material which makes up the streambed. Known’-mineral resources within the reser­ voir site consist of sand and gravel and limestone. The major active fault in the project area is the Wasatch fault which passes within 6 miles of the dansite. The strongest recorded earthquake in the area had a Richter magnitude of 5.5.

b. Impact. - Rock and earthfill will be excavated from the spill­ way and various borrow areas (see chart 3), from the Emigration Canyon tunnel, and from mountain slopes for the Parleys Creek diversion pipeline. That which is not used for construction of the dam will be deposited in the reservoir area or used to restore borrow areas. Borrow excavation will result in a short-term disturbance of surface materials but will have no impact, beneficial or detrimental, on geology. Due to the mountainous terrain, extensive, cut and fill work will be required for grading of relocated Highway 65. A total of 168,000 cubic yards will be cxcava.tcd and an estimated 445,000 cubic yards of fill will be required for the relocation. Any surplus earthfill (none is expected) will be short-term increase in erosion may result. c, Remedial, protective and raitigative measures, - All cuts and fills will be seeded with native grasses to control erosion and the configuration of borrow areas will be planned to minimize conflicts with other uses. Detailed project designs with regard to seismic resistance will be based on the latest state of the artf

2.03 Climate. -

a. Setting. - North-central Utah has a temperate, semi-arid climate. Temperatures at Salt Lake City range from a summer high of 105oF. to low winter temperatures down to -20oF. The Wasatch Front is generally about 10 degrees cooler than the valley floor and receives considerably more precipitation. Accumulated winter snow in the mountains provides spring snowmelt streamflows.

b. Impact. - Little Dell Lake, as a new body of water with an average evaporation loss of 300 acre-feet would affect the microclimate of the immediate area by slightly increasing humidity. Due to the limited number of surface acres, the project would have a negligible effect on overall climate in the region.

2.04 Hydrology and ground water. -

a. Setting. - Snowmelt in April, May and June accounts for about 60 percent of the annual runoff in the 13th South Street Stream Group and constitutes the main downstream flood problem. Conduits from Emigra­ tion, Parleys, and Red Butte Creeks, with respective capacities of 100, 200, and 50 second feet, merge into two conduits which convey flows to the Jordan River. The downstream conduits are unable to convey flows in excess of 300 cubic feet per second. The worst snowmelt flood in recent history on the 13th South Street flood plain, nearly a one-in- 100-year flood, occurred in April and May of 1952 when about 1,000 acres along the 13th South conduit, covering portions of 75 blocks, were flooded. During the flood, many commercial and industrial facilities, as well as 1,500 homes, were affected by floodwaters. Peak flows were estimated at 580 cubic feet per second and damage was estimated at $2,570,000, most of it downstream from the 13th South Street conduit entrance. Records obtained from Salt Lake City show that during the high runoff in 1952, at least 70 percent of the flow at the mouth of Parleys Creek originated above Mountain Dell Reservoir. Emigration Creek flows have been recorded on the gage at the Burr Fork diversion point since 1964 and show an average of 63 percent of the flows recorded by the gage at the mouth of Emigration Canyon during April, 61 percent during May and 51 percent during June, Computation of the percent of Parleys Creek flow at foothill line originating above the proposed Parleys Creel; Diversion was 27 percent during April, 29 percent during Hay and 49 percent during June, Daily runoff records near Salt Lake City for most of the streams have been kept since the early 1900's, The average historical monthly flows for Emigration Creek and Parleys Creek are shown in charts 4 and 5, respectively, along with the expected stabilized flows .after diversion.

All the canyons in the Wasatch and Oquirrh Mountains which drain into the Jordan Valley contain unconfined ground water which percolates through the stream-laid deposits of silt, sand, and gravel. Some of this water is withdrawn for domestic use by wells and pumps and the remainder moves to the ground water reservoir in Jordan Valley. There is virtually no development in lower Parleys Canyon. The residents of Emigration Canyon, however, rely on deep wells for their water supply. The rise and fall in ground water is sensitive to variations in surface recharge. Below the diversion site, Emigration Creek varies as both a gaining stream (water percolates from the ground water table to the stream) and a losing stream (water in the stream percolates to ground water). Plow in August 1965 varied from about one to four cubic feet per second as shown on Chart 6, which also shows the amount of gain and loss in each reach. Present uses of Emigration Canyon waters are mainly for domestic water supply and associated irrigation in the canyon, and for irrigation use below the canyon mouth. Annual ground water pumpage is about 100 acre-feet for use in the canyon. Surface waters are used in the natural channel to maintain the existing environment.

b. Impact. -

(1) Changes or conversions. - The Little Dell Lake project will control downstream flooding by assuring that combined flows of Parleys, Emigration, and Red Butte Creeks converging on the 13th South Street conduits downstream will not exceed the conduit capacity of 300 c.f.s. during snowmelt flood conditions. Little Dell Dam would affect the hydrology of project streams by modifying flows from Dell Creek into downstream Mountain Dell Reservoir, and reducing net flows in Emigration Creel; below the points of diversion. The natural flow, up to one cubic foot per second, would be bypassed down Emigration Canyon. Net flows in Parleys Creek below the Little Dell diversion will be reduced only during flood periods. The Parleys Creek diversion \/ill pass natural flows up to 5 c.f.s. downstream for maintenance of the fishery and other dependent resources. The new water supply will meet peak demands and serve anticipated population increases beginning in about 1998, or sooner if needed. Population projections for Salt Lake County, the per capita municipal water use and the total municipal water requirements are shown in the tabulation below for various time frames:

SALT LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL WATER REQUIREMENTS

<» 4* : Municipal Water Requirement Year !: Population : A.P. Per Capita : Acre-Feet

1960 383,000 .24 91,900

1970 459,000 .26 119,300

1980 552,000 .28 154,600

2000 814,000 .32 260,500

2020 1,197,000 .33 395,000

Increased consumption of water is projected based primarily on the increased demands of light industrial and manufacturing development, which are expected to be more reliant on public water supplies in the future, as independent water sources are nearing complete utilization.

It is not likely that the diversion of water from Emigration Creek will have any major effect on ground water In the canyon. Since only flows in excess of one cubic foot per second will be diverted, water would continue to be available for ground water recharge as at present. It does not appear that reducing peak flows in the spring as proposed would have any effect on ground water conditions later in the summer. Chart 6 shows that even when the natural flow at the diversion point is 1.43 cubic feet per second the amount going into the ground water is only .324 cubic feet per second. At times such as this during the summer months when the natural streamflow is in excess of one cubic foot per second, the diversion of water out of the stream will probably reduce the ground water to a minor degree. Periods of critically short ground water, however, historically occurred when the flow has been less than one cubic foot. During such times no water would be diverted from the stream and therefore the project would have no effect. I (2) beneficial and detrimental effects, - Flood protection brought about by the Little Dell Lake project would reduce periodic flood­ ing on about 2,150 acres of relatively highly developed 13th South Stream Group flood plain in Salt Lake City, and 150 acres in the Emigration Creek area. The floodvaters stored would be put to beneficial use for water supply and recreation.

The new water supply will be a beneficial addition to the Salt Lake metropolitan area. Increased consumptive use of stored water after 1993 will reduce total flows into Jordan River, but will increase return flows during periods of withdrawal from storage in the summer months.

Local residents have expressed concern that diversion of water could cause a drop in the underground water table in Emigration Canyon which would reduce the canyon's input to Jordan Valley ground water and which would adversely affect the wells which now provide water supply to canyon residents. However, the contribution of Emigration Canyon ground water to the Jordan Valley ground water amounts to approximately ten acre-feet per year. This ten acre-feet amounts to 0.3% of the ground water from the seven canyons which recharge the main ground water reservoir in the Jordan Valley. (9) Also, diversion is not expected to affect the amount of water available to alluvial canyon wells, as lower Emigration Creek is a gaiuing rather than a losing stream under present conditions (flows become larger in lower reaches).

(3) Protective, remedial, or raitigative measures. - If the effect on ground water in Emigration Canyon should prove to be more significant than anticipated, Emigration Canyon diversions could be decreased. Flexibility of this kind is also possible with the Parleys Creek diversion and its proposed operation.

2.05 Water Quality. - A water quality study for the proposed Little Dell Reservoir was conducted for the Corps by a Colorado environmental con­ sulting firm (9). Further investigations to be carried out by the Corps will expand existing data end define in more, detail the water quality situ­ ation at the sites involved. This includes water quality sampling carried out from March through July of 1974 on all creeks affected. The Salt Lake City Water Department is collecting water samples and the Utah Division of Public Health is testing the samples. A mathematical study will be made by the Corps of Engineers to analyze this data and results will be available in the fall of 1974. When analysis is complete this work will give a more thorough understanding of the impact of the project and the needs for protective, remedial, or mitigative measures. The consultant study was hampered by the lack of sufficient water quality data on the inflowing streams. While some data was available for Emigration Creek, data for Dell Creek was very sparse. The findings and recommendations of this study are given below. a. Present conditions, -

(1) Emigration Creek, - Emigration Canyon above the diversion point is rated high in erosion hazard. Most of the sediment load enters the creek during spring runoff, which occurs mainly from April to June. The creek on occasion has high coliform bacteria counts which exceed State standards for a raw water supply. These coliform populations, along with a certain fraction of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic loads in the creek, have been attributed to the domestic waste disposal methods used in the canyon. If development in the canyon proceeds without changes in the waste disposal methods, these loads can be expected to increase. On a chemical basis, the creek waters have been classified as hard, calcium bicarbonate waters, and the total dissolved solids concentration is, except during low flows, suitable for a water supply. Most of the domestic waste sources are below the diversion site so there will not be an immediate problem of contamination of Little Dell Lake. Future develop­ ment in Emigration Canyon above the diversion could cause a serious pollu­ tion source for Little Dell Lake unless land use and waste disposal methods are carefully implemented.

(2) Dell Creek. - The sparse amount of data on Dell Creek did not allow its characterization other than to say its quality, other than nutrient and coliform concentrations, was probably similar to that of other creeks In the area. Most of the Dell Creek watershed is presently managed to avoid contamination of existing Mountain Dell Lake. Since the land use in the watershed is largely controlled by the Salt Lake Metro­ politan Water District and the U. S. Forest Service, future pollution sources are subject to control.

(3) Parleys Creek. - Parleys Creek is the combined flows of Parleys Creek,- Lambs Canyon and Dell Creek. All three creeks enter into Mountain Dell Reservoir. That portion of the creek below Highway 65 is protected as a terminal water supply source. The water Is classified as hard calcium bicarbonate water, but does not exceed the maximum for dissolved substances in domestic water. In general, turbidity is the greatest at time of flood runoff. Concentration of nitrates, probably caused by nutrient runoff from adjacent Mountain Dell Golf Course, has caused periodic eutrophication problems in Mountain Dell Reservoir. Future development in this watershed could cause a pollution problem in Little Dell Lake; however, much of the land Is managed for municipal water supply by the Forest Service and Metropolitan Water District.

(4) Mountain Dell Reservoir. - Mountain Dell Reservoir receives inflows from both Parleys Creek and Dell Creek. Summer algae blooms have occurred In Mountain Dell Reservoir, mainly from the nutrient input of Parleys Creek. Copper sulfate is used to retard algal growths. Anaerobic conditions often occur in the bottom waters during the summer. Because anaerobic (oxygen depleted) conditions have an adverse effect on water quality, the operators of Parleys Filtration Plant must take summer with­ drawals from a higher elevation in the reservoir, where better quality waters are available. The dam contains withdrawal ports at three different elevations and the selective withdrawal can be accomplished except when the lake is drawn down to low levels during late summer and fall.

Mountain Dell Reservoir undergoes summer stratification and experi­ ences a spring and fall overturn. When the lake is covered with ice in the winter an inverse stratification occurs with coldest water on the top next to the ice and slightly warmer water at greater depths. In the summer, the epilimnion (upper reservoir zone containing warmer water) extends approximately to a depth of ten feet, with the metalimnion (intermediate reservoir zone) below it extending approximately to a depth of forty feet below the surface. Thus, the hypolimnion (colder water) occurs in a layer of up to 60 feet since the deepest point in the lake is about 100 feet.

Mountain Dell Reservoir waters have total dissolved solids concentra­ tions within the limits required for a drinking water supply. The water has a high hardness.

b. Impacts. -

(1) Changes or conversions. -

(a) Dell Canyon. - Little Dell can be expected to undergo the stratification pattern exhibited by Mountain Dell Reservoir. It is anticipated that che epilimnion will extend approximately to a depth of twenty feet, the metalimnion will extend approximately to a depth of fifty feet bclox? the surface, and the hypolimnion will occur in a layer down to 225 feet. Surface temperatures of Little Dell Reservoir should approximate those of Mountain Dell Reservoir. Little Dell should support a cold water fishery.

The inflow from the Emigration Creek diversion tunnel will bring in water-borne constituents from a higlily erodiblc watershed. The constit­ uents of most concern are suspended solids, coliforni, and nutrients. Inflow from Farleys Creek diversion will also increase sediment transport into Little Dell. It is anticipated that algal blooms may occur occasionally.

(b) Emigration Canyon. - Diversions from Emigration Canyon will affect the lower canyon in several ways. The potential for flushing sediment and accumulated debris in lower Emigration Creek will be reduced. Reduced flows will result in higher concentrations of substances entering the creek in the lower reaches, and may also have an impact on biological communities in and along the stream,

(c) Parleys Canyon, - Flushing action in the reach from the diversion to Mountain Dell Reservoir will be substantially decreased. Also nutrient concentrations will tend to increase due. to reduced flows. Dissolved solids will also tend to increase with minimum releases of 3 c • f, s.

(d) Mountain Dell Reservoir. - There are several potential changes which could affect the water quality of Mountain Dell depending upon releases from Little Dell. Cold low-level releases could enter Mountain Dell and occupy the bottom volume there, and depending on the dissolved oxygen content, could either degrade or enhance water quality conditions in the reservoir.

(2) Beneficial and detrimental effects. -

(a) Dell Canyon. - The following effects can be expected:

(1) Emigration Creek diversions due to sediment and colifom loads will transport a poorer quality water into Dell Canyon than currently exists there. Die away of fecal coliforms should be rapid enough to prevent any public health concern. However, increased fecal contamination from future development in Emigration Canyon could pose a more serious problem.

(2) Sediment build up will be accelerated due to inflows from Parleys Creek. On the other hand, the increase in flows will also be beneficial in that it will dilute the lower quality flows from Emigration Creek. The report of the water quality consultants (9) states that anticipated nutrient supplies of inflows to the future Little Dell Lake indicate that algal blooms may be a significant problem. However, the consultant report was prepared during a period when the project plan did not include the Parleys Creek diversion. Thus, adverse water quality effects such as algal blooms anticipated from a diluted nutrient supply would be reduced by a factor of about 2 to 1. Nutrient supplies will come from diversions from Emigration and Lambs Canyon as well as Dell Creek. The quality of Dell Creek and of Parleys Creek above the diversion is good, while quality of Emigration Canyon is less. Average annual flows will be 1,500 acre-feet from Emigration and 1,000 from Parleys Creek, while Dell Creek flows will contribute about 6,000 acre-feet. Thus dilution of poor quality by good quality waters would be about 6 to 1. The water carried by Parleys Creek diversion will limit the nutrient concentrations, and assuming that nutrients are limiting for algae growth will decrease the potential standing algae crop. This, in turn, v?ill have a positive effect in delaying the appearance of hypolimnetic anaerobic conditions (zero dissolved oxygen in the reservoir bottom) until later in the strainer. The transport of Emigration Creek waters to Little Dell will, along with Dell Creek and Parleys Creek waters provide nutrients for the establishment of a food chain. If excessive amounts of nutrients are present, this will allow for algal blooms; algae, upon dic-off and settle- neat; into the hypolimnion, exerts an oxygen demand. If this oxygen demand exceeds the oxygen capacity of the hypolimnion, anaerobic conditions occur with a resulting degradation of quality in hypolimnetic waters. Thus, the quality of water released from Little Dell Lake will depend upon xdiat the hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen conditions or levels of releases are.

(3) Chemical concentrations in the lake will be satisfactory for a drinking water source, and pesticide concentrations are of no concern at this time. Hater quality should be adequate for all types of water recreation.

(A) The inundation of the reservoir site vrith vegeta­ tion and topsoil left in place would be expected to cause some water quality effects problems during the initial years. This would be due to leaching of soil minerals and degradation of site organic materials. However, this initial leaching of soluble sails should noL be significant. Vegetation left in place creates fishery habitatand this trade-off must be considered in placing water quality influences in perspective.

(5) Evaporation of water from Little Dell would be minor except possibly during lower storage conditions.

(0) A high recreational use in tne area could input nutrient and coliform loads into Little Dell if proper waste disposal facilities are not installed. If not prohibited, recreational high speed boating use could also increase erosion potential around the lake and thus cause increased sediment inflow to the lake.

(7) Turbidity could be. increased slightly in Little Dell Lake due to wave action. The high clay content of the soil may make it more susceptible to erosion.

(b) Emigration Canyon. - The following conditions may be expected at or below the point of diversion,

(1) Much of the sediment movement down Emigration Canyon will be reduced because of its entrapment at the diversion structure and diversion to Dell Canyon. However, the reduction of flows will allow less flushing action for sediments and debris which enter the creek below the diversion point.

(2) A reduced flow rate in lower Emigration Creek would result in higher concentrations for given amounts of pollutants which enter the creek from the lower canyon.

« (3) Evaporation from a lesser volume of water in lower Emigration Creek would have more effect in increasing the concentra­ tions of dissolved substances than evaporation from the previously larger volume of water in the lower creek.

(4) (See discussion on ground water in paragraph 2.04b(2)).

(c) Parleys Canyon. - Increased dissolved solids and higher water temperatures resulting from reduced flows will reduce water quality during the periods of diversion.

(d) Mountain Dell Reservoir. -

(1) Ey proper management, releases into Mountain Dell Reservoir from Little Dell Lake will be of a better quality of water than now exists there. The diversion of peak flow via the Parleys Creek diver­ sion will reduce flushing flows now entering Mountain Dell Reservoir. Also, sediment transport from this source will be decreased.

(2) Leaching of soil minerals and degradation of site organic materials in Little Dell Lake could, unless appropriate measures are taken, produce taste and odor problems during initial years in releases entering Mountain Dell.

(3) Ey reducing peak Parleys Creeks flows into Mountain Dell, the sedimentation problem now occurring will be reduced. It is estimated that as much as one half of the sediments now entering the reservoir are from tne combined flows of Lamb and Parleys Creeks. The annual time of flushing of Mountain Dell Reservoir from these flows will, however, be delayed. The reduced flows in Parleys Creek will allow ambient temperatures to warm the water entering Mountain Dell Reservoir. This water will "float" on top of cooler Mountain Dell water. This, in combination with the higher concentration of nutrients anticipated, could lead to‘increased concentration of nutrients in the euphotic zone, thus increasing the algae potential. (3) Protective, remedial, or roitigative measures, -

(a) Dell Canyon. -

(1) A vater quality monitoring program will be established for Little Dell Lake.

(1) The topsoil and vegetation displaced from the borrow sites in the impoundment area will be removed to sites beyond where inundation will occur. This will decrease site leaching and decomposition effects upon water quality that cause taste and color problems during the initial years.

(3) During the detailed studies for the project, consideration will be given to the need for special features such as multi-level intakes or aeration systems to reduce problems associated with poor water quality.

(4) Sanitary facilities will be constructed in such a way as to prevent all unacceptable water quality effects from this source.

(5) A walking trail around the lake will be constructed to aid access by fishermen; this will help to reduce wear on the hillsides by concentrating foot traffic on hard-surfaced, durable routes.

(6) Limitations will be recommended to prevent boat motors of high horsepower and keep boat speeds within acceptable limits or perhaps limit use to non-power boats. This will reduce potential wavewash shore ei'osion and turbidity and iilso limit introduction of motor by-products.

(b) Emigration Canyon. -

(1) Operational flexibility will be included to enable bypassing flows larger than one c.f.s. for short periods when needed to flush out sediment and debris which accumulates in lower Emigration Creek as well as to shift the source of inflow to Little Dell Lake between Emigration and Parleys Creeks,

(2) That degradation of water quality which results from any poor wastewater management practices in the canyon should be corrected by the agencies having jurisdiction in the canyon.

(c) Parleys Creek. -

(1) Operational flexibility will be included to enable bypassing flows larger than five c.f.s. for short periods when needed. (2) Vegetation will be planted on the scarred slopes where the diversion pipeline is installed.

(3) Local interests will be encouraged to institute changes in fertilization or other practices which may be desirable to decrease any troublesome nutrient inflows to Mountain Dell Reservoir.

2.06 Land Use. -

a. Setting. - Salt Lake City, a large highly urbanized area, is the major economic, social, and cultural center for the intermountain region between the Rockies and the Sierra Nevadas. The metropolitan area covers about 110 square miles. Salt Lake County has a population of about 460,000 (1970) of which about 40 percent live within Salt Lake City.

* The 2,150 acres of land in the 13th South Street flood plain includes low to medium residential development (563 acres), commercial and indus­ trial property (515 acres), and 719 acres of public development, including educational facilities, parks, and churches. The fair market value is currently $164 million. The flood plain had a 1970 population of about 10,900 and is expected to increase to 13,900 residents by the year 2028.

A 1965 Master Plan for the Salt Lake Valley (3) indicates that future growth will be a continuation of low to medium density housing on the 13th South Street flood plain with some expanded commercial development near Sugarhouse Park. The Salt Lake City metropolitan area is expected to be urbanized as far south as Sandy and west to Magna. The southern portion of the valley is expected to continue to be utilized for agricultural pursuits.

Most of the western Wasatch Mountains, including that around the future Little Dell Lake, is public land. Of the approximate 1,143 acres of land required in fee for the Little Dell project, 982 acres are owned by the Salt Lake City Corporation. This public land is essentially undeveloped and managed to minimize public use, the intent is to preserve the watershed for municipal water supply management associated with Mountain Dell. Approximately 118 acres are owned by the University of Utah, and are also undeveloped. Approximately 40 acres of the total are part of the Wasatch National Forest and are under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service. The agency manages the land for multiple use, as directed by the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Multiple use is defined by the agency as the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest so that they are utilized in the combination that best meets the needs of the American people. The principal management thrust under the multiple use practiced by the Forest Service along the Wasatch Front is the protection and improvement of the watershed, which is a major source of water for the Salt Lake Valley, All of the above acreage except the 40 acres of Uasatch National Forest is zoned as FR-1 or FR-50, This designation permits development of the canyon areas of Salt Lake County for forestry, recreatiou and other uses, which include agriculture, and single-family dwellings to the extent such development is compatible with protection of the natural and scenic resources of these areas.

Frivately owned land to be acquired in fee is limited to 3.5 acres of subdivided land in Emigration Canyon, and includes 6 unimproved lots. Also, about 35 acres of ncn-Federal land would be acquired under easements, for the Emigration Creek diversion and tunnel. The land to be acquired in fee is zoned R-210 C. The purpose is to provide neighborhoods in the canyon areas in Salt Lake County for low density residential development. Permitted uses include agriculture, single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings.

Most of the land in Emigration Canyon is in private ownership and residential in nature. From the small community of Pinecrest at the head of Emigration Canyon downstream to the- main Emigration Canyon Road there are scattered homes. Below the point of diversion to the canyon mouth there is substantial development alongside Emigration Creek. The 150 acres in the Emigration Creek flood plain currently has a market value of about $20 million. Parleys Canyon is only very sparsely developed. Land to be acquired for the rights-of-way for the Parleys Creek diversion pipeline is steep and rocky and is not used for economically productive purposes.

State Highway 65 and the connection highway to Emigration Canyon is the major transportation link in the project area and is a significant access road into Salt Lake City. Interstate 80 is a six-lane highway which follows the course of Parleys Creek. Below Mountain Dell Reservoir Parleys Creek flows in open channel sections and corrugated pipe, as the highway crosses the creek several times. There is virtually no development next to the freeway.

b . Impact. -

(1) Changes or conversions. - Primary land changes which will result from the project will consist of: loss of 340 acres of agricultural land and wildlife habitat to inundation, and the conversion of about 230 acres of undeveloped land to intense recreational use and development. The remainder of the land within the project area will remain essentially as is. The project is compatible with existing zoning. Real estate on the 13th South Street flood plain has been exten­ sively developed, primarily for residential, industrial and commercial uses. This type of growth is expected to continue until at least 1993 with or without the project, with older residential buildings being replaced with new multiple dwellings and some commercial buildings. Flood protection provided in this area by the Little Dell project is not expected to change the commitments already made for these basic land uses, A portion of Highway 65 now in the proposed reservoir area will be relo­ cated,

(2) Beneficial and detrimental effects. - The flood control provided by the project would make developments in the area to be pro­ tected a better economic risk and therefore encourage a better quality of development. It \;ould also prevent the economic loss and human suffering associated with periodic flooding of existing development. Agricultural land lost to inundation would result in a net loss of hay production in the area. This land is presently leased from Salt Lake City Corporation on a crop-sharing basis rather than for a specified amount of money. The relocation of Highway 65 will not alter land use patterns. Effects of new recreational development are discussed in paragraph 17, Recreation. Wildlife habitat losses resulting from inundation and recreational develop­ ment are discussed in paragraph 18, Natural Resources.

2.07 Aesthetics. -

a. Setting. - Mountain Dell Canyon and Parleys Canyon are both aesthetically pleasing to motorists on the Interstate 80 freeway. The meadow areas, Mountain Dell Golf Course, Dell Creek, Lambs Creek, and the reach of Parleys Creek above Mountain Dell Reservoir with their lush turf, riparian growth and patches of scrub oak on the hillsides all provide a swatch of green to the gray-brown hillsides which are otherwise covered with sagebrush. Belov; Mountain Dell Reservoir channelization of Parleys Creek and the proximity of 1-80 have greatly diminished the aesthetic values of the creek. Other canyon areas in the vicinity are equally or perhaps more beautiful but are not normally seen by cross­ country motorists. All the Wasatch Mountain canyon areas, including Mountain Dell and Parleys Canyon, are strikingly beautiful in September and October when the maples, oaks and other deciduous trees display their fall colors. Dell Creek is a relatively small but aesthetically pleasing stream. Emigration Creek, although surrounded by extensive residential development, provides aesthetic enjoyment to both adjacent homeowners and motorists. The terrain through which the Parleys Creek Diversion pipe­ line would extend consists of sharp, rocky mountain slopes covered in places by sagebrush and scattered scrub oak. Little Dell Pony Express Station in its original setting encircled by a large amount of tree growth (photo 3) is also attractive. Mountain Dell Dam and Reservoir are prominent landmarks to freeway travelers. The dam, built in 1917, is a 100-foot high multiple arch concrete structure. Mountain Dell Reservoir is attractive when it is full, but is usually drawn down for water supply during July and August, The drawdown area is devoid of vegetation and is quite unattractive.

Other than Little Dell Station, there are no buildings or other structures in Mountain Dali Canyon. There are buildings and a maintenance . yard adjacent to Mountain Dell Golf Course at Parleys Canyon.

There is an inactive highway borrow area at the junction of Highway 65 and Emigration Canyon Road, near the proposed Little Dell recreation area. This borrow pit is a scar on the landscape,

b. Impact. -

(1) Changes or conversions. - Construction of the project would impose another large man-made structure, another body of water, about 230 acres containing recreation facilities, and the presence of crowds (8,000 people/design day) on Mountain Dell Canyon. Little Dell Dam would differ considerably from Mountain Dell Dam in size and appearance. Little Dell will be 275 feet high and will be an carthfill dam. During construction there will be a considerable amount of raw earth materials temporarily exposed as the embankment for the dam is placed and as the features discussed below are developed. Upon completion of construction all appropriate areas will be seeded with grasses, trees and shrubs or other vegetation will be provided as landscape treatment for key areas.

Little Dell Lake would be kept as nearly full as possible for recreation during the warmer months. During the early spring months, Little Dell would be drawn down to accommodate snowmelt runoff but should be full or nearly so by 1 June.

Little Dell will change the operation and appearance of Mountain Dell Reservoir. Mountain Dell fluctuates widely now and is virtually dewatered from late summer until it fills again the next spring. After completion of the project, Mountain Dell will be held at or below 2,50U acre- feet of its 3,200 acre-foot capacity to accommodate cloudburst runoff from Parleys and Lambs Creeks.

During the winter months, reservoir pool elevation in either reser­ voir would be unimportant aesthetically since the whole area is normally blanketed with snow. Recreation facilities installed within an area of about 230 acres, including picnic sites, softball diamonds, trails, and landscaping, will supplant meadow land at the upper end of the reservoir. Additional picnic sites will replace sagebrush on the north hillside.

The relocated Highway 65 replacing the present highway, as shown on chart 3, will be a prominent new man-made feature imposed on the sagebrush covered hillside. The relocated highway will parallel the north side of the spillway excavation area, which will vary up to 100 feet in depth. Consideration is being given to decreasing the size of the spillway excavation. The existing terrain will be modified considerably by these features and will be highly visible to the public as landscape scars normally associated with construction of public works such as this.

The reserve borrow area at the left abutment of the dam would be visible from the Interstate 80 freeway and from the Little Dell recreation areas. Borrow areas located below gross pool in the lake will be visible during infrequent heavy drawdown periods. It is anticipated that an addi­ tional borrow area may be needed on the north shore of the lake to produce sufficient material for the dam. With maximum drawdown of 129 vertical feet, approximately 86 acres of the borrow area will be exposed. However, the average drawdown during the recreation season will be 9 feet, which will not expose the borrow area. |

Reduced stable flows of one cubic foot per second or less on Emigration Creek below the diversion would increase vegetation encroachment on the channel. This would alter the meander pattern and would also increase the tree canopy overhanging the stream. Construction of the Parleys Creek diversion structure will impose a man-made structure on a natural stream course. There will be no conversion of the portion of Parleys and Lambs Creeks above the diversion. Also, reduction of peak flows in the 1.5 mile section of Parleys Creek below the diversion will increase vegeta­ tion along the channel. Excavation required for the Parleys Creek diversion pipeline and for the relocation of the oil and gas lines will temporarily scar a portion of the sagebrush covered landscape.

(2) Beneficial and detrimental aspects. - Because of the align­ ment of the 1-80 freeway with Mountain Dell Canyon, Little Dell Dam would be clearly visible to eastbound freeway motorists but would be hidden from view to westbound traffic and would probably go completely unnoticed. The water surface and recreation development would be blocked out by the dam from either direction on the freeway.

Motorists on Highway 65 and the Emigration Canyon Road will have a clear view of the entire project; dam, spillway, water surface, recreation facilities and portions of the Emigration Creek diversion. The Parleys Creek diversion conduit will be visible from 1-80, and will reduce the aesthetics of the creek in a localized area. The increase in vegetation along and within Emigration Creek and l’arleys Creek downstream of the diversions will change the aesthetic setting; however, a determination of beneficial or detrimental effects would largely be a matter of individual perception. Until vegetation covers the excavation scars left by the barleys Creek diversion pipeline and the relocated oil and gas lines, aesthetics will be reduced.

Portions of relocated Highway 65 will be clearly visible from the 1-80 freeway and from the new Little Dell recreation area. This is a replacement for the present highway and will require cuts and fills, as described on page 13, not generally considered to be aesthetically pleasing.

Aesthetics is a subjective matter and it is difficult to qualita­ tively assess the visual impact of man-made structures such as a dam and buildings associated with a recreation area. Come people find these structures attractive in the context of useful services being provided; other people prefer natural values to anything man-made. If the north shore borrow area is developed its appearance would be unattractive without special remedial measures. Little Dell will be attractive when it is full or nearly full. The drawdown zone visible when the reservoir is drawn down for flood control, or later for supplying municipal vater, will be as much as 129 vertical feet in the drier years, and will expose a maximum of 253 acres, including portions of the borrov area below gross pool. This area will be denuded end subject to shoreline erosion. This "bathtub ring" effect is generally unattractive and replaces some of the meadow and riparian values, although certain species of vegetation can be expected to volunteer onto the exposed reservoir lands as has been observed elsewhere.

The appearance of Mountain Dell Reservoir will be improved due to a relatively constant drawdown of about 22 feet, smaller than the current summer dravjdovn. There would always be a visible drawdown area unless the reservoir fills up temporarily with cloudburst runoff; however, vege­ tation will become established during the less frequent inundation periods and this will also assist in improving appearance.

The spillway and left abutment borrow area at Little Dell Dam, without appropriate remedial measures being taken, would detract consider­ ably from the aesthetics of the project area.

(3) Remedial, protective and raitigative measures. - The rest­ rooms, group picnic shelters and other buildings associated with the recreation development will have a pioneer design theme to reflect the historical events which took place In thi3 area and existing remnants from the past such as Little Dell Station (photo 3). Little Dell Lake will be kept at full or nearly full pool during the recreation season when most people will be able to see it. Although this operation is primarily due. to the storage pattern necessitated by hydro- logic events and will benefit recreation, it will also crake the lake more aesthetically pleasing.

Landscaping of the recreation area will make it an attractive "city park" type of development. Vegetation will become established or will be planted in the reservoir drawdown area to reduce the unattractive appear­ ance of these areas when they occur. To improve the appearance of the flood control drawdown area around Mountain Dell, it would be seeded with grasses and other vegetation which could withstand occasional temporary inundation. The spillway and all cuts and fills required for relocated Highway 65 will be seeded with native grasses to improve their appearance. The highway borrow area at the junction of Highway 65 and Emigration Canyon Road will also be reshaped and replanted to improve its appearance. Seeding of drawdown areas, cuts and fills, and borrow areas will also reduce erosion. The spillway and left abutment borrow area will be graded, sculptured, and reseeded to blend with the surrounding vegetation. If it is necessary to borrow from the north shore of the lake, an appro­ priate plan for reshaping, restoring topsoil and installing vegetation will be developed to improve its appearance; a compatible plan for recrea­ tion use of this area would also he developed, Rcrrov? areas were selected so as to have the least adverse environmental or aesthetic effect of any of those considered. The alignment of. the Farleys Creek diversion pipeline will be graded and replanted with native species of grass and shrubs to restore its natural appearance. The ground disturbed by the relocation of the oil and gas lines will also be replanted.

2.OS Archeological and ?istorlcal resources. -

a. Setting. - Western Utah was inhabited in prehistoric times by Indians of the desert cultural tradition of nomadic gatherers. The area around Great Salt Lake was first inhabited shortly after the subsidence of the Pleistocene lake which covered the Bonneville Salt Flats— about 9500 or 9000 B.C. Around 300 A.D. a more stable, advanced culture, the "Sevier-Fremont" culture, developed but died out due to a severe drought about 1,300 A.D. that forced a return to the primitive nomadic ways.

The desert culture type survived in much of the Great Basin until the arrival of Europeans. The Shoshonean-speaking Indians of western Utah, the Utes, Goshutes, arid Western Shoshoni, when encountered by the early white trappers and settlers, still subsisted primarily by gathering vegetable xaaterial and trapping small game. An archeological survey of the proposed Little Dell Lake area has recently been completed (8). This survey was submitted to and approved by the Utah State archeologist and the State historic preservation officer. The survey found that environmental resources available in Mountain Dell Canyon could have sustained only limited numbers of people for short durations. The extent of pre.historic use of the canyon was postulated to have been by hunting groups passing through or fishing the creek. The only site discovered was a small area containing flakes chipped during the making of primitive implements, located just north of Little Dell Station. The site has been destroyed by plowing and only a few scattered artifacts remain on the surface. The survey recommended the site not be excavated cue to its limited scientific value. The only site recommended for preservation was the Little Dell Station, described below.

Only a brief explanation of historical factors in the Salt Lake area is given here. A history of the area around the Little Dell Lake project during the pioneer days can be found in Andrew Hcff's History of Utah, 1847-1869 (4).

The recorded history of the Salt Lake Valley began with the Spanish influence. In 1776 a Spanish missionary and explorer, Silvestre Escalante, entered the valley while seeking a new overland route to California. American influence began when the valley was visited and charted by a military expedition under John C. Fremont of the Corps of Engineers in 1843.

The area was not settled until 1848 when Erighara Young and his followers, using Fremont's ir.ap, established a permanent settlement. Within two years Salt Lake City had a population of 5,000.

Parleys and Emigration Canyons were the main access routes into Salt Lake Valley for all the cross-country traffic starting with the exodus of Mormon Pioneers from Dauvoo, Illinois to western Utah in the 1340's and 1850's. The rush of gold seekers and immigrants to California in the 1850*s and 1860's used essentially the same route through the VJasatch Mountains as did the subsequent Pony Express riders and the Wells Fargo Stage line.

In 1858 Ephraim Hanks built a rest stop and stage station to accom­ modate cross-country travelers entering Salt Lake Valley by way of pre­ cipitous Farleys Canyon, About 1360 a new road was completed which diverted travelers into Emigration Canyon, affording easier passage. At this junction, another rest stop, Little Dell Station, was built in 1860 and used as a Pony Express station and breakfast and supper stop. Little Dell Station, approximately 600 feet southwest of the junction of present Highway 65 and Emigration Canyon Road, is still intact and consists of the original old stone building, a developed spring, .and some large mature trees, including Russian olive and silver maple which were introduced many years ago from other areas. The station is now used as a Girl Scout summer camp facility, and access for the general public is restricted.

Salt Lake City, over the last century, has grown to be a major cul­ tural and commercial center and has served, since it was first settled, as a rest stop for cross-country travelers including the early pioneers, the gold seekers going to California, the Pony Express riders, and, in modern times, motorists on U. S, Highway 40 (now Interstate 80) and railroad and airline passengers.

b. Impact. -

(1) Changes or conversions. - The following historical values would be affected by construction of the Little Dell Lake project:

(a) A 1.5 mile long stretch of the cross-country trail discussed in a. above would be inundated. This trail was, at various times, known as the Horraon, Donner-Reed, Pony Express, Jolinston's Army, 1849 Cold Rush, Wells Fargo Stage Coach, and Glyman Trail.

(b) Little Dell Station, discussed in a. above and situ­ ated at 5,790 feet elevation, would be relocated to avoid inundation.

There are two stone, historical"markers in the project area, the Ephraim Hanks monument which is located at the upper end of the reservoir in an area where recreation facilities would be situated, and the Camp Grant monument, just below the proposed damsite and adjacent to Highway 65. Neither marker will be disturbed by the project. The Camp Grant monument marks the point where the Donner-Reed party left the m i n trail and crossed over to Emigration Canyon on their ill-fated westward trip in 1346. The camp was used later by thousands of emigrants. The Ephraim Hanks monument marks the spot of his station discussed above. The exist­ ing setting in which the markers are located would be changed to a reser­ voir setting.

(2) Eeneficial and detrimental effects. - Little Dell Station, because of its historical significance, was entered into the National Register of Historic Places in August 1971. Even though the station will be carefully relocated upstream and near the trail, there will be a loss of historical value due to the fact that it will have been moved. There will be increased recreational value by making Little Dell area more accessible to the public, and providing an interpretive area to explain the significance of the site. Emigration Canyon was entered as a National Historic Landmark in 1961. However, no landmark boundaries were established, and other than at Pioneer Monument State Park at the mouth of the canyon, It is a fairly heavily developed residential area. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has stated that the project will not affect the status of the area as a national landmark (12).

The Mormon Trail is one of 14 trails designated in the National Trails System Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-543) for study to determine its feasibility and desirability as a part of the National Trails System. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is undertaking the study, and a draft report on the trail is tentatively scheduled for review and comment by other agencies in June of 1974.

Preliminary information provided by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation indicates that approximately 74 trail miles are within the State of Utah. Land ownership is as follows:

Federal lands 1.25 miles 1.72 State lands 39.0 miles 52.62 Private lands 33.8 miles 45.7% Total trail miles 74.05 miles 100.02

Land use includes:

Range lands 30 miles 40.62 Crop lands 3 miles 4.12 Rural developed 2 miles 2.72 Recreation lands 5 miles 6.62 Highway rights-of-way 34 miles 46.02

The trail in the project area parallels State Highway 65 and descends the narrow Mountain Dell Canyon until it reaches Mountain Dell Creek. The trail follows the creek down through wooded hills, which recede as the trails enter Mountain Dell Valley.

The most significant impact on the trail in Utah has been due to construction of highways, either directly over the trail or adjacent to it. The major impact in the future will be from increased residential and commercial development of areas adjacent to the trail. Inundation of a 1.5 mile section of the 1200-mile cross-country trail is a detrimental effect added to other detrimental effects caused elsewhere. The trail in this general location is particularly important since Salt Lake City is the terminus. Continuing coordination is being maintained with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation that measures taken in regard to the trail do not jeopardize its potential for inclusion in the National System. The only other segment of trail previously lost to reservoir impoundment was a small portion Inundated by East Canyon Reservoir (although Mountain Dell Reservoir inundated a portion of trail abandoned by pioneers when the alternate trail of Emigration Canyon was developed).

The historical setting commemorated by the Camp Grant marker has been substantially altered by the alignment of Highway 65. The reservoir setting may be an improvement visually, and should not significantly diminish the historical value. In the case of the Ephraim Hanks marker, the present setting more closely resembles the original environment, and this will be substantially altered visually and psychologically by the reservoir setting.

(3) Protective, remedial, or mitigative measures. - Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-664), the Corps of Engineers has coordinated with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Utah State Liaison Officer to determine the best course of action to prevent or mitigate for inundation of Little Dell Station. A Memorandum of Agreement between the parties pursuant to the requirements of the law ("Section 106 procedure") was approved on 16 August 1974 by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (11) The Council and the State Liaison Officer have advised that proper document­ ation and relocation of Little Dell Station would satisfactorily mitigate any adverse effect. (12) A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement and related correspondence are attached as Appendix E. In accordance with criteria established for the Historic American Building Survey, measured drawings, photographs, and historical documentation will be completed prior to any relocation of the station. The stone building will then be carefully moved to a site about 2,000 feet upstream from its present location. A survey of the existing landscape will also be completed prior to relocation and trees of the same species as found there now will be planted and other measures taken to recreate the present setting. Little Dell Station will be Incorporated into the lake master recreation plan, and if warranted it could be developed in future years as a Pioneer museum and public inter­ pretive facility. This will improve the public benefit from the station since it is not presently accessible to the general public.

The Ephraim Hanks and Camp Grant monuments will be protected or temporarily relocated, if necessary, to prevent damage during construction activities.

Although part of the historical trail is located adjacent to Dell Creek and will be inundated, a replacement trail will be routed around the new lake to reconnect with the original trail below the dam. Provision of accompanying suitable markers, explanatory Information, and increased public access are considered by the Advisory Council and State Liaison Officer to be acceptable mitigation measures. Details of these measures will be developed and included in the Corps of Engineers master recreation plan for the new lake. 2.09 Recreation. -

a. Setting. - The Wasatch Mountains and Salt Lake Valley provide a full range of outdoor recreation opportunities. Most of the land along the Wasatch Front is within the Wasatch National Forest, the second most heavily-used National Forest in the nation. The U. S. Forest Service operates and maintains campgrounds, picnic areas, and trails in the canyon areas. Recreation use for the Salt Lake Ranger District of the Wasatch National Forest, which includes Mill Creek, Big Cottonwood, and Little Cottonwood Canyons, in 1972 was 1,273,100 visitor days, double the 1963 use figure.

The State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has an active program of administration of fishing and hunting and protection of fish and wildlife resources in the area.

Private development in the mountains is limited but includes Brighton, Solitude, Snowbird, and Alta ski areas in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons and scattered recreational home developments where permitted by land ownership.

The expanding population in the Salt Lake Metropolitan area and the growing number of tourists have not been matched by adequate development of urban and non-urban day use facilities within Salt Lake City and the surrounding area. The State Recreation Plan (10) cites a special need for readily accessible water-oriented or associated opportunities in all forms in the densely populated Wasatch Front area. Salt Lake County is described as needing these forms of recreational activities. The State plan further states that the limited picnic, camp and playground develop­ ments close to and within major urban areas are literally being destroyed by overuse. Little Cottonwood and Big Cottonwood Canyons are becoming more crowded every year. The State recreation plan indicates that National Forest lands within an hour drive of metropolitan areas are drastically overused, and sites and facilities are under almost continuous use with turnovers at the rate of three to four each day.

Demand for boating and other water-oriented recreation activities is partly satisfied by public reservoirs such as Strawberry, which is being enlarged, Echo, East Canyon, Deer Creek, and Rockport Lakes in the mountains and Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake on the valley floor. Utah Lake, with a 60-mile shoreline, is plagued with water quality and shore­ line ownership problems but still provides considerable recreation. Great Salt Lake's extreme salinity and shallow depth (average depth is 15 feet), along with its fluctuating shoreline, restrict many types of recreation activities. However, a 2,000-acre tract at the north end of Antelope Island in Great Salt Lake is presently being developed by the State of Utah into a recreation area. Mountain Dell Reservoir and the lowermost parts of Dell and Parleys Creeks, which empty into Mountain Dell Reservoir, are closed to the public, A state law prohibits water contact sports in terminal water supply reservoirs such as Mountain Dell. However, that portion of Parleys Creek above Highway 65 is open to the public for fishing, and the section bordering Mountain Dell Golf Course is a fairly popular fishing spot. The city operates Mountain Dell Golf Course and two group picnic areas nearby, Washington Park Terrace and Mountain Dell Terrace. Both of these group areas receive heavy use throughout the recreation season. Reservations are taken months in advance and sometimes only about 10 percent of those groups applying for reservations can be accom­ modated. Other than this, recreation development in the Mountain Dell watershed is strictly limited to assure good water quality.

The only other public recreation developments in Parleys Canyon or Emigration Canyon are Pioneer Monument State Park and Hogle Zoo near the mouth of Emigration Canyon.

Public recreation development on the flood plain in Salt Lake City Includes the Bonneville Municipal Golf Course on Emigration Creek, and Sugarhouse Park and an adjoining private golf course, The Country Club, on Parleys Creek.

b. Impact. -

(1) Changes or conversions. - The following new recreational facilities would be provided by the Corps of Engineers at the Little Dell Lake project:

(a) 75 family picnic sites.

(b) 7 group picnic areas. Inclusion of youth group camping at one or more of these areas. This use has been suggested by the County of Salt Lake and is presently being studied as to its feasi­ bility. Minor modifications of the plans would be needed to accommodate camping use as well as day use at the group areas.

(c) One two-lane launching ramp.

(d) A 1-1/2 acre sand swimming beach.

(e) A visitor center and Pioneer museum (future develop­ ment if and when warranted).

(f) A two-mile long asphalt bike-hike trail replacing the inundated Mormon Trail. (g) Support facilities such as roads, parking, sanitation facilities, and landscaping.

The County of Salt Lake has expressed its intent to provide cost­ sharing and operation and maintenance responsibilities for the recreation facilities.

The lake would inundate 1.5 niles of recreational trout stream on Dell Creek upstream from Highway 65 and replace it with a lake. Diver­ sion of Emigration Creek water to the new lake could further reduce the recreational fishing already limited by water quality and access problems in Emigration Canyon. While neither of these streams is considered to be a quality trout stream (Class I or II) on a statewide basis, their prox­ imity to Salt hake City makes them important. They receive moderate fishing use during the spring, summer, and fall, especially by children who benefit from the close proximity to Salt Lake City. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has stated that provision of minimum releases of five c.f.s. will prevent any loss to the fishery resources in Parleys Creel; associated with the diversion facility.

(2) Beneficial and detrimental effects. - Little Dell Lake, as a new recreational area, would help alleviate a shortage of day-use and water-oriented recreation opportunities in the Salt Lake City area. Outdoor Recreation for Utah (10) singles out the lack of such opportuni­ ties as among the most pressing recreational needs of the area. The lake would increase the variety of available day-use areas; it would provide lake-oriented recreation in addition to the stream- and forest-oriented uses of the Wasatch Rational Forest. Visitation at the project is expected to reach 960,000 recreation days annually" by the tenth year of operation; development of facilities in the recreation area will be designed to accommodate a maximum of 8,000 daily visitors. Recreation benefits are discussed in paragraph 7.

Without adequate facilities and administration of public use, undesirable impacts on land use, water quality and other resources of the new lake area could be anticipated.

The rationale behind the high day-use figures predicted for Little Dell Lake is apparent when compared with the tremendous use and excessive demand for group picnicking evidenced at nearby Washington Park Terrace and llountain Dell Terrace picnic areas which arc operated by Salt Lake City. The two areas together are designed to accommodate 400 people at one time, yet 1972 use exceeded 45,000 picnickers.

Loss of general recreation use attributable to the project Is insig­ nificant. Recreational hunting and fishing losses are discussed in paragraph 17. Flood protection accruing to the project would reduce damaging snowmelt floods in Bonneville and The Country Club golf courses and in Sugar House Park, all on downstream portions of Emigration and Parleys Creeks.

(3) Protective, remedial or nitigative measures. - Adequate facilities for accomodation of public use will be constructed to prevent adverse effects on land use, water quality and other resources of the new lake. Low water-use flush toilets used in conjunction with septic tanks and an oxidation/evaporation pond would probably be the most feasible method of sewage disposal. Regardless of the methods used no harmful discharge to ground or surface waters will be permitted. A program for construction, administration, operation and maintenance in cooperation with local non-Federal interests is being developed and will be specified in detail in the master plan to be prepared by the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the non-Federal cooperating agency.

2.10 Other natural resources. -

a. Setting. -

(1) Vegetation. - The Wasatch Range at higher elevations is dominated by coniferous forests and aspen groves. Above 6,000 to 7,000 feet in elevation the forests are characterized by stands of alpine fir and Engclmann spruce. At lower elevations these species gradually give way to white fir, Douglas fir and occasional stands of juniper and blue spruce. Aspen is a subclimax association and is generally found in places where the original conifers have been burned or logged off.

Below about 6,000 feet in the western Wasatch Range the coniferous trees disappear and the hillsides are covered with scrub oak and various mixed high desert shrub communities. The shrub communities normally have an understory of grasses and perennial herbs.

Streams in the Wasatch Mountains are generally lined with a thick growth of shrubs and riparian trees. At upper elevations the riparian growth consists mainly of willows, alders, and dogwood trees; below about 6,800 feet, the streamside growth is dominated by narrow-leaf cottonwood trees.

Mountain Dell Canyon, near the proposed Little Dell Lake, is below the coniferous tree line and is characterized by various low-growing plant associations. The north-facing hillside is dominated by scrub oak interspersed with rabbitbrush, sagebrush, and snowberry. The south­ facing slope is primarily a sagebrush and bitterbrush association with I an undergrowth of brome grass- and other grasses and herbs. The center of the proposed reservoir area bordering Dell Creek is a long narrow meadow, all of which has been cultivated at one tirae or another; the upper p3rt of the flat area is presently cultivated to alfalfa and the lower half has gone to mustards and other weed species that volunteer onto disturbed areas.

Dell Creek, emigration Creek, and Parleys Creek are lined with a lush growth of riparian vegetation. The tall, stately narrow-leaf cottonwood dominates the streamside growth, although other trees such as box elder, dogwood, and bigtooth maple occur, along with smaller -growth such as wild rose and chokccherry.

The vegetation of Emigration Canyon and Parleys Canyon is similar to Mountain Dell Canyon; the north-facing slopes are characterized by scrub oak and the south-facing hillsides by sagebrush. Emigration Creek, although there are many homes, has a thick riparian growth of narrow- leaf cottonwoods and other trees.

Vegetative associations occurring within the project boundary are presented in the following tabulation:

Vegetative Associations : Percentage of Total Land Area

Sagebrush/Bitterbrush/Bromegrass 41%

Oak woodland 39%

Riparian '8%

Cultivated 0%

Bromegrass/Mustard (previously cultivated land) 4%

Ornamental trees (introduced species) 2%

To tal 100%

A list of some of the common species of flora and fauna found in the area is given in Appendix B.

(2) Wildlife. - Animal species found in the Wasatch Mountains are generally representative of the middle Rocky Mountains region, although there Is soma representation from the Great Basin desert to the west. The only two big game animals found in the Wasatch Mountains, other than the black bear found at high elevations, arc the Rocky Mountain elk and the mule deer. Upland game such as blue grouse, ruffed grouse, mourning doves, introduced California quail, and cottontail rabbits are found in a variety of habitats in the Wasatch Range. Fur­ bearing animals found in the area include beaver, muskrats, bobcats, coyotes, and wink.

Although waterfowl are rarely found at higher elevations, the complex of marshes along the Jordan River, into which all the western Wasatch streams drain, is located on a major international waterfowl flyway and is an important nesting and stopover place for migrating ducks and geese. The State of Utah manages an important waterfowl area at Farmington Bay on the southeast corner of Great Salt Lake.

Mule deer migrate from higher elevations in the Wasatch Range to wintering areas below about 6,000 feet. Mountain Dell Canyon, the upper part of Parleys Canyon and Alexander Creek provide deer summer and transi­ tional range in the Salt Lake area. Moot of the deer winter west of the project area on the west face of the Wasatch. A few winter in the reser­ voir viicn there are snow-free areas but this is only on an occasional basis. The area is also used on an intermittent basis by a small but stable herd of about fifty Rocky Mountain elk.

The only species on the Federal list of rare and endangered wildlife which might be found in the canyons in the area of the proposed Little Dell Lake is the Prairie falcon. This falcon nests on bare ledges and in the niches of cliffs. There is none of this type of habitat in the vicinity of the project.

(3) Fisheries. - All of the streams on the west slope of the Wasatch.Mountains contain populations of brook, brown, rainbow, or native cutthroat trout. These fish populations are maintained or supplemented by the stocking program of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Lambs Canyon, Farleys Creek and Dell Creek are all considered to be good (Class III) trout streams and contain rainbow, cutthroat, and brook trout. Dell Creek is stocked annually with 2,000 catcliable rainbows in the area from Little Dell Station upstream to the headwaters. Emigration Canyon, because of lover flows, more development, and water quality problems is considered to be a lesser quality (Class IV) trout stream. Information received from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources indicates that Emigration Creek has not been stocked for the last several years as the extensive private development along the lower reaches does not permit public access. The upper reaches of Emigration Creek contain self- supporting populations of cutthroat and brook trout. No creel census data is available for Emigration Creek, but it is probable that the lower reaches support a very minimal game fishery.

b. Impact. -

(1) Changes or conversions. - The following approximate acreages would be Inundated by Little Dell Lake:

(a) 35 acres (1.5 miles) of riparian vegetation and wild­ life habitat along Dell Creek.

(b) 75 acres of scrub oak vegetation on the north-facing hillside of Mountain Dell Canyon and scattered patches on the south­ facing hillside.

(c) 110 acres of sagebrush and bitterbrush high desert shrub vegetation, mostly in the northwestern portion of the proposed lake pool.

(d) 90 acres of previously cultivated or presently cultivated former meadowland on the north side of Dell Creek.

(e) 22 acres of ornamental trees.

(f) 8 acres of roads and other man-made features.

Construction of the Emigration Creek tunnel and diversion facili­ ties, the Parleys Creek diversion and pipeline, relocation of Highway 65 and utilities, construction of recreation facilities and additional land acquired for the project will affect to varying degrees a total of 803 acres of land. The majority of land to be converted to recreation use is now covered by oak woodland with lesser acreages sustaining riparian and sagebrush growth. The oak woodland along the shoreline will be cleared to provide beach areas, and portions of the sagebrush area will be cleared to provide a boat launching ramp. The remaining vegetation in the recreation area will be retained except where clearing for recrea­ tional use and facilities development is required. If the alternative north shore borrow area is developed there will be Increased clearing of vegetation for this purpose. While none of the habitat that would be eliminated or disturbed is considered to be critical to the deer or elk in the area, it is used by these species. Riparian vegetation along and within Emigration and Parleys Canyons can be expected to increase below the diversions due to protection from floodflow disturbance.

The relatively minor evaporation from Little Dell Lake itself would not appreciably affect the amount of water flowing into the Jordan River. Increased consumptive use of the stored water could reduce total flows Into the Jordan River and subsequently into Farmington Bay Wildlife Management Area and other marsh habitat areas. However, an increase in such flows would result from return flow during periods of withdrawal from storage for use. Since such increase would occur during months of low natural flow, the effect would tend to compensate for reduction in total flows.

(2) Beneficial and detrimental effects. - A loss of vegetation habitat usually results in a reduction in the number of animals dependent upon that habitat in whole or in part. A loss of 1.5 miles of riparian growth and 332 acres of various types of wildlife habitat would cause a reduction of the small animals which use these areas as year-round habitat. Generally, loss of habitat for deer results in an overall loss of animals, either through direct losses or reduced births the next season. Since the Little Dell site is considered to be good summer range and receives relatively heavy deer use and some use by elk, loss of habitat could theoretically result in a small loss in the size of these herds; but summer range should not be the limiting factor in this area, so the effect of habitat loss is expected to be minor. The habitat losses mentioned refer to acres Inundated and acres disturbed by development. Public use of the Little Dell Lake project would have an adverse, but unquantlfiable effect on vegetation and wildlife on surrounding public lands. A serious potential impact of the project on deer and elk would be the disturbance by recreationists which could cause these animals to avoid the area. However, measures to be Implemented to manage the watershed for maintaining water quality for the water supply should also result in maintenance of the deer and elk from significant public distur­ bance. The oak woodlands covering the bulk of recreational land are among the roost compatible with public use due to protective deep root structure. The riparian areas will be substantially protected by designated trails and foot bridges crossing the stream. Also, the increase in vegetation along Emigration and Parleys Creeks below the diversion will offer additional wildlife cover.

The overall effect from increased consumptive water use and the altered flow regime in Emigration and Parleys Creeks on the existing Jordan River waterfowl areas will not be known until the vater is used for water supply after project completion. The surface area of Little Dell Lake would provide a resting area for aquatic birds.

The newly created lake fishery is expected to support a good trout population and would be heavily used by anglers. The net effect of reduced flows in Emigration Creek on fish will be negligible. The reduc­ tion of normal flows of more than one cubic foot per second and the resulting decrease in scouring of gravels and in waste assimilative capacity affecting water quality (discussed in paragraph 12) would only be slightly detrimental in view of the limited existing fishery. The five c.f.s. minimum release recommended by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for downstream fishery conservation in Lambs Canyon should he adequate to prevent any significant losses. However, there may be some losses if fish migrating downstream during high flows are diverted into the pipeline extending to Little Dell Lake.

The reservoir itself would inundate 1.5 miles of trout stream (Dell Creek) and replace, it with a 340-acre lake fishery. The new lake would be stocked with trout by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the fishery managed by this agency.

Compared to the neighboring states of Idaho and Wyoming, Utah's trout streams are considered to be in short supply. Any loss of trout stream values in Utah is therefore considered to be a serious loss by fishermen and the fish and wildlife agencies. In terms of overall fishery resources and fishermen accommodated, Little Dell Lake would provide for more angler benefit than would be eliminated from the existing streams,

(3) Protective, remedial and nitigative measures. - A detailed fish and wildlife report was prepared by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in I960 which identified impacts of the project on fish and wild­ life resources. The report recommended that provision be made to release five c.f.h. below the Parleys Creek diversion to mitigate for possible adverse effects. A minimum release was also recommended for the deferred Hill Creek diversion. Ko further mitigation measures were recommended for either fish or wildlife losses. However, continuing coordination is being maintained to assure the best operation ar.d use of the project for all purposes. A minimum flow of one cubic foot per second or the natural ilow of water below tin diversion on Emigration Creek is also included in the project plan and is considered adequate to px*eserve riparian vegetation and most of the minor fishery on that creek.

Adherence to Corps of Engineers standard provisions for environ­ mental construction guidelines would prevent unacceptable discharge of harmful pollutants, including eroded soil, to waterways during construc­ tion.

The need for mitigative or other measures to offset potential waterfowl marsh losses or other losses as a result of the future vaster supply operation after 1993 would be addressed at that time when such losses could be assessed more accurately.

Damage to vegetation in recreational areas will be reduced by providing walking trails and foot bridges, thus limiting heavy pedestrian stress to limited areas. Recreation facilities will be located to elimi­ nate stress on the more sensitive riparian plant communities and to minimize ovei'all physical wear on vegetation. Vegetation will be planted at appropriate locations for improvement of appearance and consideration will be given to species useful to \rfldlife. SECTION III RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS

3.01 The proposed action la not In conflict with the Salt Lake County master plan or zoning regulations now In effect In the Mountain Dell Canyon area. The added flood protection provided by the project will encourage local people to upgrade and improve the extensive developments already placed in the project-protected areas subject to flood damage. The added water supply will assist local people in Implementing their plans for the area dependent upon such new water supply. The added recreation provided by the project will assist In Implementation of the Utah State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan by providing needed water-oriented recreation facilities which are in short supply in the Salt Lake City area. SECTION IV - UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

4.01 The loss of land and features by inundation is an adverse effect which cannot be avoided if the proposed reservoir is built. Land to be Inundated includes 32 acres of cultivated acreage and 300 acres of wildlife habitat, including 1.5 miles of riparian wildlife habitat and stream fishery. This could cause a minor reduction in the migratory deer herd and the elk herd, but any measurable decreases are not likely. Degradation of the limited fish habitat in Emigration Creek will also result from lack of flooding flows due to diversion. Wildlife habitat would also be lost by construction and maintenance of recreation facilities. Approximately 8 acres of roads and other man-made features would be inundated and the features replaced. Other features to be Inundated Include 1.5 miles of the historic cross-country trail and the original setting of Little Dell Station, although this effect will be ameliorated by definite offsetting actions as described. Conversion of portions of scenic Mountain Dell Canyon to reservoir development is a tradeoff that will diminish somewhat the aesthetics of the area. This would be most pronounced during infrequent periods of heavy drawdown. SECTION V - ALTERNATIVES

5.01 Multiple purpose plans. - On the basis of Corps of Engineers studies, the authorized Little Dell Dam project Is the only economically feasible alternative which could provide water supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation benefits and still give the degree of flood protection desired in the area of 13th South Street in Salt Lake City. Variations of the multipurpose plan were investigated to find the best all-around damsite and pool size.

The project was authorized as a 50,000 acre-foot, 450-acre reser­ voir with diversions from Emigration Canyon, Mill Creek Canyon, and Lambs Canyon. After advance planning studies were conducted, the Mill Creek Canyon diversion was deferred, until after the 1990's when it may be considered further if there is a need for this water supply. If constructed, the facility on Mill Creek would be similar to the diversion planned for Emigration Creek. The exact location of this has not been determined but would be generally as shown on chart 2.

The most significant impact of this diversion could be the effect on fisheries resulting from reduced flows in Mill Creek below the diver­ sion. Mill Creek could be affected for about 5 miles of its length from the diversion to the mouth of the canyon. This reach supports very heavy fishing use. The flow in this reach generally stays above 10 cubic feet per second much of the year and the diversion, with a minimum flow pro­ vided, would reduce this to as little as 2 or 3 cubic feet per second depending on the specific plan adopted, resulting in some unavoidable losses to the fishery. This was one of the factors considered in deferring the Mill Creek portion of the authorized plan. With the Mill Creek diver­ sion, there would be higher flows entering a 1.5 mile section of Lambs Canyon, which also supports a trout fishery. This would alter the char­ acteristics of the channel and possibly increase erosion and turbidity until the channel was stabilized. There would be no significant impact on Parleys Creek below the Parleys Creek diversion site. The addition of Mill Creek diversion would have no significant social or economic impacts except for the possible assistance to urban growth that the additional water supply would permit in the Salt Lake City area. Flood control benefits would be minor. Before the diversion could be constructed, new engineering and environmental studies would have to be conducted and an additional or supplementary environmental impact statement prepared.

With only two diversions remaining in the plan, a smaller pool size would be adequate. Any pool size between 8,000 and 50,000 acre-feet would be justified economically but the multipurpose development has been limited to the 30,000 acre-foot, 340-acre pool on the basis of net maxi­ mization of benefits; larger sizes are not economically justified on an incremental basis. The 20,000 acre-foot pool size was seriously con­ sidered because it would provide the minimum desired flood protection and about the same recreation benefits as the 30,000 acre-foot size. The 30.000 acre-foot pool was selected, however, because for a slight extra cost, more carryover space would be provided for the water supply function; extra flood control storage would be provided beyond minimum needs to handle peak flows; and, should the deferred Mill Creek diversion be developed in the future, the larger pool size would better accommodate the extra flows without major dam reconstruction. With the larger reser­ voir sizes, more of the Mormon Trail would be Inundated, as well as addi­ tional riparian and wildlife habitat and Little Dell Station. With the 20.000 acre-foot reservoir, the effect on Mormon Trail would be the same as the proposed reservoir, but Little Dell Station would remain in its present location. The larger reservoir sizes would cause a greater loss of wildlife resources.

Two other damsltes in Mountain Dell Canyon were considered for the multipurpose reservoir; an intermediate site 2,500 feet downstream from the authorized site, and a "New Mountain Dell" site which would occupy the upper part of the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir. A 30,000 acre-foot pool was used to evaluate these sites.

The intermediate downstream damslte would provide the same recrea­ tion benefits as the proposed site since there would be desirable gentle contour meadow land at the upper end of the lake for recreation develop­ ment. It also would not require relocation of Little Dell Station. Although this alternative is economically justified, construction costs are substantially higher than for the proposed site. Proximity to the Mountain Dell Reservoir and Parleys Creek Water Treatment Plant also poses a problem in that local interests prefer a larger restricted use area above the reservoir to prevent potential health and pollution problems. The Camp Grant monument would be inundated, as would a slightly larger portion of the Mormon and Pony Express Trail. Other than those differ­ ences, the environmental impact of a dam at this site would be similar to the selected plan.

The "New Mountain Dell" damsite was rejected for a number of reasons including necessity to keep Mountain Dell empty for two years during construction, disruption of traffic on the 1-80 freeway, partial inundation of Mountain Dell Golf Course, and the fact that according to State policy recreation in such a lake would have to be restricted since it would be a terminal water supply reservoir. Such a restriction does not apply to the other two alternatives since Mountain Dell is retained for terminal storage. The environmental effects of a dam at this site would be similar to the selected plan, except that the Camp Grant Monument would be Inundated, the Mormon Trail (except for a short portion) and Little Dell Station would not be affected. The above alternatives are variations of the authorized multi­ purpose reservoir plan. Reservoirs at any of the three sites could be built as single-purpose flood control, water supply, or recreation alternatives with little variation in cost. There does not appear to be an advantage in this since it would preclude the other desired functions that can be Included in a multipurpose reservoir. There are various other separate alternative methods and plans by which each of the three functions of Little Dell Lake could be supplied and these are discussed in the following paragraphs.

5.02 Flood control. - Two economically feasible structural alternatives were considered for flood control, as described below:

a. Enlargement of the existing storm drain and conduit system along 13th South Street by construction of a collector system and a new conduit paralleling 2700 South Street to the Jordan River. This enlarged system would have a capacity of about 470 cubic feet per second to give the same level of protection against snowmelt floods to the 13th South Street flood plain as the proposed Little Dell Lake plan. This plan would provide some protection from rainfloods, particularly those origi­ nating below Mountain Dell Dam and Emigration Creek diversion; however, it would not provide protection comparable to the Little Dell Lake project from rainfloods originating above Mountain Dell Dam. No water supply or recreation benefits would accrue from this plan. However, the main disadvantage is that a new conduit system would require enlargement of the lower Jordan River system to prevent adding to the existing flood problem along the Jordan River, since Increased peak flows would be dis­ charged compared with either the present situation or with a reservoir storage plan. This plan would have significant environmental impact associated with enlargement of the lower Jordan River and with disruption of the urban environment during the construction period.

b. Enlargement of existing Mountain Dell Dam to Increase the present reservoir capacity from 3,200 to 30,000 acre-feet. Although con­ struction costs would be slightly less than the proposed plan, it was rejected for essentially the same reasons as the "New Mountain Dell" plan discussed above. The environmental effects would be essentially the same as for a multipurpose project at this site.

The following single-purpose flood control reservoirs were investi­ gated but rejected early in the planning process because they were not economically feasible:

a. A new dam and reservoir in Parleys Canyon downstream from and inundating the existing Mountain Dell Dam and Reservoir. The diversions would be similar to those proposed for Little Dell. This alternative would require relocating the 1-80 freeway and the water treatment plant and it would not allow for water-contact recreation. b. A small reservoir at the mouth of Hatch Canyon, which is tribu­ tary to Dell Creek.

c. A 2,340 acre-foot reservoir at the mouth of Parleys Canyon.

Neither b. nor c. could be developed economically to provide the capacity for desired flood control nor would they control snowmelt runoff in Dell or Emigration Creeks.

Other non-reservoir structural alternatives for flood control which were investigated are discussed below:

a. Channel improvements downstream from the area of the selected project. This would include a concrete-lined channel for 6,600 feet on Emigration Creek and a 48-inch conduit pipe to convey a portion of Emigration Creek flows to the Parleys Creek underground conduit near 21st South Street.

b. Other channelization alternatives, alone and in conjunction with upstream storage, were investigated as alternatives during pre­ authorization studies of the original plan mentioned in paragraph 20. Besides being economically infeasible, channel measures would be the most damaging environmentally of all the measures which were investigated. Channel improvement measures are strongly opposed by the Department of Interior, State conservation agencies and local environmental interests.

c. Another non-reservoir structural alternative which was studied in detail is the 13th South Street floodway plan. This plan calls for turning 13th South Street into a flood channel from 700 East Street to the Jordan River by constructing floodwalls or curbs one to 2.5 feet high to serve as low levees. A low-flow channel would be provided in the middle of the street. Side streets and driveways would be plugged and traffic evacuated if a flood were deemed imminent. Expensive protection for underground utilities would be needed. Although this alternative was found to economically feasible, and would eliminate flood damage along the 13th South Street flood plain, it would not alleviate problems upstream from the conduits. The floodway would also add to the flood problems along the lower Jordan River.

The following non-structural alternatives were investigated:

a. Flood plain zoning to restrict future development on the flood plain, coupled with gradual evacuation of the flood plain by not allowing new buildings to be built as old ones are vacated. This alternative would have to be Implemented by local Interests and could ultimately result in an undeveloped flood plain through Salt Lake City which would not be subject to flood damage. This plan would net provide flood pro­ tection to existing development. Such a plan would have some environmental benefits from the standpoint of providing open space and recreation land In the Salt Lake metropolitan area. This alternative would probably be opposed by local Interests, since 857 acres of the flood plain is now developed with an estimated fair market value of $250,000,000 and has a population of 15,000 people. The costs of Implementation in terms of dollars and social costs would be extremely high.

b. Floodproofing of structures. This would involve either raising existing buildings, constructing dikes around them, providing special construction features to floodproof buildings such as sitting buildings on mounds or sealing basement windows, placing habitable or valuable portions of structures above the flood plain, protection of underground utilities and other methods. This could be combined with the flood plain zoning alternative. Floodproofing alternatives were studied but none were found to be economically feasible.

c. In areas where the flood plain is essentially undeveloped, it Is possible for Congress to authorize use of Federal funds to buy up the flood plain on a cost-sharing basis with local interests. Ceneral authorization, and specific authorization In connection with Chatfield Dam In Colorado, for this type of alternative has been approved. (5) This type of plan would not be feasible in Salt Lake City, however, where the flood plain is already highly developed.

5.03 Water supply. - Alternatives studied are listed below:

a. A single-purpose water supply reservoir at the Argenta site on Big Cottonwood Creek was considered. Although costs are ultimately higher than at Little Dell, this plan is economically feasible and would supply water of a similar quality to that from Little Dell. The 30,000 acre-foot size which was investigated would inundate 3.5 miles of Big Cottonwood Creek, 2.3 miles of tributary streams, and "The Spruces" campground located in the Reynolds Flat area. Also, 2.7 miles of Highway 152 would have to be relocated. The Big Cottonwood treatment plant would be used to treat the water supply developed. The 30,000 acre-foot Argenta Reservoir would have a surface area of about 310 acres at gross pool.

b. The Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project, a project of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, as discussed on page 5, would include the Strawberry Aqueduct Collection System, the diking of Utah Lake, Jordanelle Reservoir and the Jordan Aqueduct to provide water to the Salt Lake Valley. The initial stage of Jordan Aqueduct has been completed and provides additional delivery capacity permitting greater utilization of water from the Provo River Project. Increased use of this present source and anticipated availability of Bonneville Unit water is expected to guarantee an adequate water supply until the 1990's, when Little Dell Lake would be available as a source of supplemental water supply. Enlargement of the current Bonneville Unit plan to bring in more water would be an alternative to the water supply function of Little Dell Lake, but such an enlargement would be less economical than Little Dell. Although this enlargement may ultimately be needed anyway, it could have some adverse environmental impacts such as damage to stream fisheries and waterfowl habitat, and increased salinity in the lower Colorado River. It should also be pointed out that recent studies of the Colorado River Basin indicate that water shortages in that basin will occur by about the year 2000.

c. The authorized project presentation has been based on the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project being utilized before Little Dell, since the Bonneville Unit is currently under construction. Completion of the Bonneville Unit could be delayed or deferred beyond the presently planned schedule. In that event, the water supply from Little Dell Lake could be placed in beneficial use sooner than presently planned. As discussed in paragraph 5b, Little Dell Lake has been credited with supplying about 3,200 acre-feet annually after about 1998, based on supplies to meet demands up to that time being provided by the Bonneville Unit. If the Bonneville Unit supply were deferred or delayed, Little Dell Lake could increase the area's water supply by 8,900 acre-feet and could be utilized beginning in 1980. This would Increase the benefits creditable to the Little Dell Project but would not change the physical features. Increasing water needs would require additional sources after full utilization of Little Dell, in about 1982. An additional water supply of 3,200 acre-feet could be provided with the Mill Creek Diversion included, but this would only satisfy the estimated demand for one more year, until 1983. The Bonneville Unit can begin supplying some water to the Salt Lake Valley in 1974, if needed. Little Dell Lake could not begin to supply water to Salt Lake City until 1980, even without possible unforeseen delays. Since the Bonneville Unit can provide water in larger quantity and sooner than Little Dell Lake, and would be needed within 4 years after construction of Little Dell, the alternative of utilizing Little Dell water supply first does not appear desirable. Trade-offs of environmental impacts have not been fully evaluated for this alternative. Serious objections over impacts that would accompany the Mill Creek Diversion are known and suggest that this diversion is not desirable at this time, reducing the potential initial supply from Little Dell. Environmental impacts of the Bonneville Unit are covered in a separate environmental statement prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is understood that some of these impacts may be serious and are objected to by various interests. However, although some impacts of the Bonneville Unit could be deferred or delayed if the Unit were deferred or delayed, those impacts would inevitably have to occur if the water supply from the Bonneville Unit is eventually made available as planned. It is presently estimated that demands will be in excess of supplies from both projects after the year 2000.

d. Other storage sites for water supply were Investigated on Little Cottonwood Creek, City Creek, and at the Little Dell site, but were found to be more costly. The impact from inundation would be similar to that for the Little Dell or Argenta sites.

e. A ground water study of Salt Lake Valley was made during the 1963-70 period as an integral part of a comprehensive study of the water resources of Salt Lake County. The study was conducted by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with other Federal, State and local agencies. The study has been summarized in Technical Publication No. 34, State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, 1971. In the publication continuous withdrawal from ground water by pumping has been estimated at between 150,000 and 200,000 acre-feet annually. This would be the maxi­ mum allowable to preclude intrusion and possible contamination from adjacent poor quality sources. Present withdrawals are estimated to average about 125,000 acre-feet annually. Assuming 175,000 acre-feet as the ultimate level of development, there can be about 50,000 acre-feet of additional ground water developed, of which it is estimated that 30,000 acre-feet would be of adequate quality for meeting future municipal needs. Of this, 12,000 acre-feet has been estimated to be developed concurrently with the Bonneville Unit water supply and 18,000 acre-feet following Bonneville Unit. Ground water development will primarily occur in suburban areas. These outlying areas, served primarily by independent systems, hold water rights which have not been fully utilized. Future growth in these areas will result in more complete utilization of existing wells up to the extent of the water rights. In comparison, the larger water districts are approaching full utilization of their water rights to ground water supplies and do not anticipate additional ground water development to meet future needs. Little Dell municipal water supply is being developed for Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, and this district has essentially fully developed its rights to the use of ground water. Thus, the Little Dell water supply studies recognize and reflect additional ground water development in independent system areas and in accordance with water rights and current plans but have eliminated ground water development as an alternative consideration to the Little Dell municipal water supply.

3.04 Recreation. - The anticipated heavy recreation use and benefits attributed to Little Dell Lake are a result of the new water resource to be created and the day-use nature of the recreation facilities to be provided in such close proximity (13 miles) to Salt Lake City. Any such body of relatively clear, fresh water provided for recreation close to Salt Lake City would be used to the maximum extent of its available resources and facilities. a. In addition to the alternative recreation-only project con­ sidered at the Little Dell site, the Argenta site on Big Cottonwood Creek was investigated for a single-purpose recreation reservoir. In order to provide recreational benefits similar to Little Dell Reservoir, the single-purpose reservoir at this site would have to provide 55,000 acre- feet of storage.17 Based on the cost of such a reservoir, water supply requirements and the increase in travel time, costs at this reservoir would be about 25 percent higher than similar costs at the Little Dell site. Big Cottonwood Canyon presently receives heavy recreation use on U. S. Forest Service land without a reservoir. For all these reasons, this alternative was rejected. Environmental effects would be similar to those mentioned with the Argenta water supply reservoir.

b. Another recreation alternative which was considered was pur­ chase and development of additional public access and recreation use facilities at Utah Lake. The lake is shallow and muddy most of the time due to wave action. It is used extensively for warmwater fishing, but conditions are not favorable for the establishment of a desirable trout fishery. Also, the lake is located about 35 miles south of Salt Lake City in a different recreation market demand area centered in Provo, Utah. On the basis of the unfavorable factors mentioned above it was concluded that the provision of recreation facilities at Utah Lake would not serve the public use needs anticipated at the Little Dell site.

c. Alternative amount of development. - Recreation development at Little Dell Lake was also evaluated from the standpoint of alternative amounts to be provided. Since there is such a large need in the Salt Lake City area for this type of recreation opportunity, the scale of development proposed is based on accommodating as much use as practical. Smaller scales of recreation development and correspondingly reduced use levels are possible without affecting the project's economic feasibility.

5.05 Do action. - One other alternative to the authorized multipurpose project would be to take no action. This would in effect leave the existing problems of snowmelt flood protection on the 13th South Street flood plain unsolved; future shortages of municipal and industrial water would occur; and shortages of water-oriented and day-use recreation areas would not be assisted by the proposed additional resources. Environmental concerns associated with the Little Dell Dam site would not occur.

1 A preliminary evaluation of flood control benefits at the Argenta site revealed insufficient benefits to justify a dual purpose flood control and recreation reservoir. SECTION VI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

6.01 The use of scored water in Little Dell Lake for increasing recrea­ tion and municipal water supply is of a short-term nature. Priorities could be shifted, if authorized by Congress, to use this water for other purposes. The inundation of land and resources by Little Dell Lake is a long-term commitment. Flood protection provided by the project would not precipitate any long-term commitment of resources on the flood plain since this development is underway and in the absence of local constraints, appears to be inevitable with or without the Little Dell Project. Loss of a small amount of stream fishery is recognized as a minor long-term adverse effect of the project, and it is further recognized as adding to the cumulative losses in a state which has a short supply of such resources. SECTION VII - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE CONSTRUCTED

7.01 Resources listed as being lost to inundation, 1.5 miles of the Mormon/Pony Express Trail, 340 acres of agricultural land and wildlife habitat and 1.5 miles of Dell Creek, as well as the materials used in building the dam and facilities are permanently committed to the project.

Since the flood protection provided to the downstream flood plain is not expected to stimulate added development, there would be no coranit- ment of resources occasioned by the project to future downstream develop­ ment. SECTION VIII - COORDINATION AND COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

8.01 Public participation. - During the pre-authorization stage of the project, before the Review Report was issued in 1966, public hearings were held in Salt Lake City to explain the original project. The last such public hearing was held in August 1965. Another public meeting was held on 13 February 1974 to encourage maximum input by agencies and individuals, with particular consideration of environmental aspects, before arriving at any final conclusions, decisions and/or reconmendatlons on proceeding with the project. At all meetings, all agencies and individ­ uals were given full opportunity to express their views. Information and views of others obtained at this and the earlier meetings have been utilized in preparing this statement.

During the current advance planning stage, the project has been reformulated to a somewhat smaller project than that authorized by Congress, although serving the same functions. Informal contact has been maintained with local officials and Federal and State agencies to keep them abreast of the current status of the project. In December 1972 an Information Paper was formally sent out to officials, agencies, and members of the Citizens Environmental Advisory Committee to explain the current project.

The Citizens Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) was established in 1972 as a cooperative effort to exchange information and provide advice regarding water resources development in Utah and the Salt Lake City area. Such groups as the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Wasatch Mountain Club, and League of Women Voters are represented on CEAC. In addition to providing information on the Little Dell Lake project, CEAC will also be requested to comment on other proposed Corps of Engineers projects in the area, such as the potential Jordan River project now being investigated.

One of the main environmental issues raised during the meeting on 13 February 1974 was the quality and quantity of Emigration Creek water. Comments were offered indicating in the opinion of some that the diversion of water away from Emigration Canyon would lower the water table and disturb water rights along the creek. Further information has been added in the final environmental statement (paragraph 2.05) as a result of additional studies which indicate clearly that the diversion would have little or no adverse effect on availability of existing water rights/water supply from either groundwater or surface water in Emigration Canyon. 8.02 Governmental agencies. - An environmental working paper containing much of the material in the draft EIS was coordinated informally at the staff working level with the Government agencies listed below. Their comments were utilized in revising the working paper information and preparing the draft environmental statement. The draft environmental statement has been sent to these and other agencies formally for their review and comments. Resulting comments and the response of the Corps of Engineers are discussed in paragraphs 8.03 through 8.07.

a. Federal agencies:

(1) U.S. Department of Interior

(2) U.S. Department of Agriculture

(3) Environmental Protection Agency

(4) Department of Housing and Urban Development

(5) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

b. State Agencies:

(1) State Planning Coordinator

(2) Division of Highways

(3) Department of Natural Resources

(4) Division of Wildlife Resources

(5) Division of Parks and Recreation

(6) Division of Health

(7) Division of Water Resources

(8) State Forester

c. Local Entitles:

(1) Board of Salt Lake County Commissioners

(2) Salt Lake County Planning and Zoning Department

(3) Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation Department (4) Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake

(5) Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Department

(6) Salt Lake City Parks Department

(7) Salt Lake City Water Department

8.03 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. -

(1) Comment. - Recognizing that the proposed reservoir will be vulnerable to non-point pollution, various efforts should be initiated to minimize these possible impacts including the application of appropriate land-use controls in the upper watershed area. Emphasis should be placed on controls to reduce sedimentation, nutrients and coliform contributions to the proposed Little Dell Lake.

Response. - The possibility of non-point pollution has been added to the EIS. It should be noted, however, that the watersheds involved are largely owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Salt Lake City Corporation with water quality protection as the primary objective.

(2) Comment. - It is questionable if powered boats should be permitted, considering the size of the impoundment, the Intensity of use, safety factors, proximity to Salt Lake City and the increased bank erosion that would result. Further detracting from the overall recrea­ tion experience would be the aesthetic impairment created during periods of extensive reservoir drawdown and resulting exposed mud flats in the headwaters of the reservoir.

Response. - As indicated in the environmental statement, it is planned that high speed boating will not be allowed in order to avoid conflicts with other uses on the small surface area of the lake. The aesthetic impairment resulting from drawdown is recognized in the EIS.

(3) Comment. - If the use of copper sulfate is contemplated to reduce algal growths, concentrations should be kept below toxicity levels for trout. Maximum acceptable levels to protect the cold water fisheries would be lower than that required to protect domestic water supplies (taste).

Response. - Concur.

(4) Comment. - The statement indicates that the ultimate recrea­ tion design capacity will be 8,000 people per day. If the quality of the environment is to be maintained, careful consideration must be given to the design, location and adequacy of facilities to support this level of use. Of particular concern to our agency would be the adequacy of sanitation facilities and controls to minimize non-point pollution problems in the vicinity of the reservoir. The parallel between the proposed Little Dell Lake and the established Mountain Dell Reservoir in regard to the possible water quality impacts appears realistic. Even with diluted waters, some algal blooms can be anticipated in Little Dell Lake, particularly for the first few years after waters are impounded, with some decrease in the frequency of algal blooms once a nutrient balance is achieved. The potential for intense algal blooms would be greatest during periods of substantial reservoir drawdown when the concentrations of nutrients would be the highest. Spring and fall overturns would increase the availability of nutrients to plant life.

Response. - Adequate sanitation facilities will be designed to accommodate recreation use at the lake without discharge to either surface or ground waters. The possibility of non-point pollution has been added to the EIS and is discussed under EPA Comment (1). Algal bloom problems are discussed in paragraph 2.05 of the EIS.

(Subsequently, the Environmental Protection Agency has advised that the responses to their comments as noted above are appropriate.)

8.04 U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. -

(1) Comment. - The title of the proposed project, as used throughout the Draft Environmental Statement and other recent documents, is Little Dell Lake. The facility is to be operated as a fluctuating reservoir with considerable drawdown during very dry years. Using the title of Little Dell Lake could be somewhat misleading to the public expecting to find a natural lake in a native setting.

Response. - On 11 February 1971, the Corps of Engineers revised its policy to designate bodies of water impounded by dams as lakes, in lieu of reservoirs as had been prior practice. A Congressional committee report expressed the view that more people would avail themselves of the opportunity to enjoy the project recreational facilities if the term "lake" is used. It was concluded that the use of the term "lake" in the project title is one means of accomplishing this objective. Furthermore, it has been observed that the public generally uses the term "lake" to describe Corps reservoirs regardless of the official name.

(2) Comment. - The picnic sites, as shown in the "General Design Memorandum," are too close to the stream and reservoir. The impact of heavy recreation use will result in a deterioration of the sites adjacent to the major attraction— water. Also, that use will compound the problem of protecting water quality. The picnic sites should be located farther from the stream with access to the stream by foot trails only.

Response. - The problems of intensive recreation use adjacent to water areas is recognized. Generally, developments are provided to concentrate use in selected areas and undeveloped areas are protected to retain their natural character. This policy together with proper management should adequately control recreation use.

(3) Comment. - Is it logical to construct a visitor center and Pioneer museum here when both facilities are already planned on a much larger scale at "This Is The Place" monument?

Response. - These future facilities, to be provided at Little Dell Lake when and if found to be needed, would be to interpret historical and other resource values of the immediate area. (See also response to State of Utah comment (3).)

(4) Comment. - Page 7. It states that "Little Dell Lake would provide a new fresh water lake resource with much needed day-use picnic areas, nonpower boating, a lake fishery and related outdoor activities. High speed boating would be prohibited to avoid conflicts with other uses on the small surface area of the lake." On Page 27, the following is stated "(5) Limitations will be employed to prevent boat motors of high horsepower and keep boat speeds within acceptable limits or perhaps limit use to non-power boats." We recommend these two references be correlated as to planned allowable boating on the reservoir.

Response. - The matter has been clarified in paragraph 1.05c.

(5) Comment. - Page 7,c. A reference is made here concerning "960,000 recreation days annually." On page 49, we find "visitation at the project is expected to reach 960,000 people annually." In reading these descriptions of levels of estimated recreation use, we are unable to tell if the 960,000 figure is recreation days or visits. Most agencies consider a visitor day to be 12 hours or more and a visit to be anything from one minute to 12 hours. Some definition of recreation days and visitation would be helpful.

Response. - The term recreation day means one person visiting the project for recreation purposes for all or any part of a day. This is the definition contained in Supplement No. 1 to Senate Document No. 97 and is the standard definition for use by the Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies in connection with water resources developments. (6) Comment. - The estimated volume of use on a small reservoir subject to drawdown during part of the recreation season seems extremely high. That volume is close to the use we have tallied in any single canyon on the Wasatch National Forest. The following table shows the 1973 use figures for three of the most heavily used canyons:

CAifYONS VISITS NON-REC. VISITOR DAYS

Mill Creek 1,139,200 3,000 208,800 Big Cottonwood 1,081,600 69,500 754,600 Little Cottonwood 424,100 47,300 304,800

Response. - The estimated recreation-day use for Little Dell Lake is based on use observed at Corps of Engineers lakes with similar recreation facilities located adjacent to a large population center. Comparatively large volumes of recreation use occur at lake areas.

(7) Comment. - Page 11. The following statement is presented in the third paragraph: "Estimated annual fishing benefits amount to $40,000." It is assumed a "put and take" fishery will be developed. No indication is given as to whether or not the cost of stocking has been included as a cost of the project.

Response. - The cost of stocking has not been included as a specific item in the project cost estimate. As with other waters in the State, stocking of Little Dell Lake would be provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

(8) Comment. - Page 24. The brief description of multiple use may be expanded as follows: The Forest Service manages the National Forests for Multiple Use as directed by the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Multiple Use means the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest so that they are utilized in the combination that best meets the needs of the American people. The principal management thrust under Multiple Use along the Wasatch Front Is the protection and improvement of the watershed which is the major source of water for the Salt Lake Valley.

Response. - Concur. Language added to paragraph 2.06.

(9) Comment. - The high day-use figures predicted for Little Dell Lake raise several concerns pertaining to water quality. With swimming, boating, fishing, and the large recreation complex which are proposed, an impact upon water quality appears to be unavoidable. Response. - Significant adverse impact on water quality will be avoided by providing effective sanitary facilities and other develop­ ments such as ground cover in the recreation areas and enforcement of sanitary practices.

(10) Comment. - One area of concern is the disposal of waste from the proposed recreation facilities. The obvious alternatives appear to be a severline the length of Parley's Canyon to tie into the Salt Lake City system, a lagoon system to be constructed and operated in the immediate area, or sealed vaults to be pumped and the waste hauled to the Salt Lake City system. If flush-type toilets are planned, it would appear the sealed vaults would be prohibitive from a maintenance stand­ point. On Page 74 of the General Design Memorandum, reference is made to flush-type restrooms with septic tanks and leaching fields. That disposal method would be completely unacceptable in a municipal waterhsed.

Response. - Information has been added to paragraph 2.09. The GDM is being revised to indicate that low-water-use flush toilets, used in conjunction with an oxidation/evaporation pond, would be used for sewage disposal.

(11) Comment. - Another area of concern is the effect of the concentrated recreational use upon water quality. It would be desirable to provide for water quality standards that are consistent with other uses and activities. The establishment of physical, biological, and chemical parameters which must be maintained would seem essential if the facility is to provide municipal and industrial water to Salt Lake City. The degree of recreational development and use of Little Dell Project should logically be keyed to the established water quality parameters. The attached chart, which was prepared for Little Cottonwood Canyon, shows the relationship between volume of recreation use and water quality. (See page D-9 for table.)

Response. - See response to Forest Service Comments (2) and (10).

(12) Comment. - Pages 24 and 25. Emigration Canyon. We have some concerns about the effect of this diversion on groundwater and wells in the canyon that are not answered by this brief discussion. On page 17, reference is made to more detailed studies of the groundwater situation in Emigration Canyon, but there is no information available now on which we can base any comments.

Response. - Information on this has been added in paragraph 2.04. (13) Comment, - We also are concerned about what effects the lower flows in the creek may have on the riparian vegetation. There could be adverse impacts on the aesthetics of the canyon and also an increase in the already extremely hazardous fire situation by the creation of more dry fuels.

Response. - As stated in paragraph 2.07, the change in flow pattern is expected to result in an increase in vegetation in Emigration Creek.

(14) Comment. - Page 29. The impression is given that the approximately 20 acres of National Forest land required for the Little Dell Project is zoned as FR-1 or FR-50 by the County Commission. National Forest lands are not part of the County Zoning. The plan of use of these National Forest lands is the responsibility of the Wasatch National Forest under the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. However, we do honor county zoning, and we are no less restrictive on public lands than the county is on adjacent private land.

Response. - Concur. Paragraph has been revised to exclude forest lands zoning as FR-1 or FR-50.

(15) Corznent. - Page 35 and Page 38. "Excavation required for the Lambs Creek Diversion pipeline will temporarily SCAR a portion of the sagebrush covered landscape." Several existing gas pipelines in the same vicinity give evidence that scars resulting from excavation are more than temporary. Seeding the area with grasses to be followed by planting with browse species may help restore a natural appearance sooner and provide food for wildlife.

Response. - Concur. Paragraph 2.07 has been expanded to include seeding and plantings.

(16) Comment. - Relocation of the two crude oil, three natural gas, and one underground telephone line will create additional disturbances and unnatural lines through the native vegetation.

Response. - These relocations will also be seeded and planted.

(17) Comment. - Page 50. Paragraph 3 refers to discussions with the State Division of Parks and Recreation concerning administration, operation, and maintenance of the recreation facilities and use after completion of the construction phase. Considering the large number of planned recreation facilities and huge volumes of predicted visits per day, it would appear to be important that necessary agreements or memoranda for operation and maintenance responsibilities be firmed up with the State, City or County before the final environmental statement is submitted.

Response. - Concur.

(18) Comment. - Page 53. A reference is made to "bitterbrush and saltbrush" being found in the proposed Little Dell Lake area. We cannot recall ever having seen saltbrush in this area and are wondering if the author intended to refer to bitterbrush and mountain mahogany.

Response. - Concur. This has been revised.

(19) Comment. - Pages 56 and 60. The discussions on these pages pertaining to deer and elk, their habitat, and the effect of the project on both raise some questions. The opinion is given on page 56 that the habitat impacted by the project is not "considered to be critical to the deer or elk which use the area." Later on the same page it is indicated that "loss of habitat could result in a small loss in the size of the migratory deer herd. We believe any habitat, which the loss thereof will result in a reduction in the size of the herd, should be considered to be critical. On page 60 it is indicated "a possible decrease in the elk herd" could result from the loss of habitat. This possibility is not evaluated on page 56 under beneficial and detrimental effects.

Response. - This has been clarified in paragraph 2.10.

(20) Comment. - Pages 77 and 78. There is no indication given that the utility or oil companies who own the two crude oil lines, three natural gas lines, and one underground and one overhead telephone line have been requested to participate in the preliminary planning or review the draft environmental statement and submit their comments. It would have been helpful to us in our review of the proposed Little Dell Lake project to have some data available as to what specific segments of the various lines are involved, and where the various companies proposed to seek alternate routes. Many of the alternate routes could significantly impact National Forest lands, resources, and their use.

Response. - The utility and oil companies were not asked to review the draft environmental statement because their relocations are an integral part of the project. Such relocations will be on lands acquired for the Little Dell project and will not disrupt National Forest lands. (21) Comment. - General. On pages 23 and 24 of the attached Impact Survey report by the Forest Service, December 1967, there is a discussion of Fire Protection, particularly in connection with the construction phase of the project. Fire protection measures should also be an integral part of the planning for recreation sites and trail systems in the vicinity of this project. Parley's and Dell drainages are high hazard fire areas. A large fire in either drainage would cause serious impacts from the standpoint of erosion, flooding, water quality, and aesthetics. The Forest Service would be pleased to cooperate in planning special fire protection measures for this area.

Response. - Planning for fire protection measures will be accomplished later in the planning process as a part of the master plan for the project and advice will be sought on this matter from the Forest Service. »

8.05 Department of Housing and Urban Development. -

(1) Comment^ - Several aspects of the proposed project will affect the urban area, Salt Lake City, but they are primarily beneficial. The proposal will also require the moving of roadways, utility lines, and will affect future land use in certain areas, as well as require local financing for some proposed activities. In view of our areas of responsibility we suggest (1) that close coordination be maintained with the local governing bodies and planning agencies and (2) that methods of minimizing the adverse environmental effects which are inherent with the construction and long term use of such a facility be considered; i.e. water pollution, noise pollution, air pollution, etc.

Response. - Concur.

8.06 Department of the Interior. -

(1) Comment. - Page 1 : Reference is made to continuing discussions with the State Division of Parks and Recreation concerning the possibility of its assuming requirements of cost sharing and operation and maintenance for recreation costs. It is imperative that a firm obligation for operation and maintenance of the proposed recreation facilities be consummated prior to establishment of the facilities. A realization of the projected 960,000 recreational days annually at the area (8,000 people per day) will place a tremendous stress on the reservoir, fish and wildlife resources, sanitation facilities, picnic areas, and surrounding lands. These resources and facilities will have to undergo continual management and upkeep to remain appealing and safe to the public. The cost of providing recreation facilities and the operation and maintenance costs for 960,000 annual visits should be presented. If the State is the administering agency, it will have to assume one-half the specific costs of such development, plus all the operation and maintenance costs.

Response. - Concur.

(2) Comment. - Page 4 : A more thorough discussion should be presented as to why the Little Dell Dam and Lake were designed to provide greater than the standard project flood protection.

Response. - The standard project snowmelt flood, with Emigration and Parleys Creek diversions, can be controlled with a 23,400 acre-foot reservoir project. A capacity of 30,000 acre-feet was selected to provide additional water supply benefits and minor additional flood control benefits; to permit greater flexibility for storing possible future diversions; and to allow greater operational flexibility for both flood control and water supply. If and when a diversion from Hill Creek is made, the additional capacity will be needed to control the standard project snowmelt flood on that stream. With the adopted capacity the project can control a flood larger than the standard project flood, by the use of snowmelt predictions, without impairing the additional water supply benefits.

(3) Comment. - Page 5: In referencing the Bonneville Unit, it is felt that a more detailed definition of the Bonneville Unit should be presented. The "pre-Bonneville" conditions considered, which show a "preproject system yield" of 158,400 a.f. per year, are not correct "pre-Bonneville" conditions; but are present conditions with Jordan Aqueduct and Jordan Narrows Treatment Plant in operation. The above Bonneville Unit facilities have removed capacity limitations in Little Cottonwood Treatment Plant and Salt Lake Aqueduct, making additional Provo River Project water and available local waters usable.

Response. - Concur. The statement has been revised.

(4) Comaent. - Page 7: There is an apparent inconsistency regarding the type of boats that will be permitted on the reservoir. In one instance, it states that nonpower boating will be provided, and later in the section it states that high-speed boating will be prohibited. One could conclude from the latter statement that low-horsepower boating would, in fact, be permitted. In view of the large number of people that would be participating in the various reservoir-related activities, it would be extremely hazardous and annoying to permit any motorized boating. Response. - The Corps of Engineers recommends that high speed boating be prohibited. The term "non-power boating" was inadvert­ ently used in the draft statement. It appears at this time that low speed motor boating would accommodate fishing and other uses without conflicting with other recreation activities. This matter will be closely coordinated with the local sponsors of the recreation function of the project in developing the final recreation plans to be specified in the master plan.

(5) Comment. - Page 8: Reference is made to the simulated reservoir studies based on historical flows from 1930 to 1968 which show that water supply releases and resulting lake drawdown would be made during only six of the 39 years studied. A review has been made of charts prepared from the simulated reservoir studies, and it has been concluded that it would be appropriate to include them as part of the final statement. Upon review of these charts, one would see that the reservoir is drawn below 30,000 a.f. during more than six of the 39 years studied. One would also observe that from 1941-1946 and 1961-1965, the reservoir was drawn down to less than 10,000 a.f., and that it took five and four years, respectively, to refill. This is significant in view of the fact that much of the project justification is based on recreation benefits. One could question how appealing the proposed reservoir will be for recreation if it is drawn down for such extensive periods.

Response. - The information presented in paragraph 1.06 has been revised to clarify the water supply releases and lake drawdown anticipated. Exclusive of short term flood control drawdown, the reservoir would be below 30,000 acre-feet in 14 of the 39 years of record studied. Complete drawdown to the inactive storage pool would have occurred only twice during the 1930 to 1968 period, in 1941 and 1961. Major drawdown periods would have occurred in 1934-35, 1940-41, and 1961. The charts referred to are published in the Phase I General Design Memorandum.

(6) Comment. - The final statement should also include a topo­ graphic map of the reservoir site showing how much bottom area will be exposed when the reservoir is drawn down to various levels.

Response. - Information of this kind is presented in the Phase I General Design Memorandum and is discussed in paragraph 2.07.

(7) Comment. - Page 11: The draft environmental statement indicates that, "... general recreation benefits, computed at a unit value of $1.50 per day of recreation use, are estimated at $1,360,000 per year." This means general recreation visitation is expected to be slightly over 900,000 per annum, which amounts to more than 2,500 visits per water-surface acre. Our review of the project indicates that assigning the maximum value of $1.50 per recreation visit is too high, especially since some of the more desirable water activities, such as high-speed boating, are prohibited. These many visits at a relatively small area could result in degradation of the site unless intensive management is applied. In addition, many of the visitors will be sightseeing or involved in other day-use activities, and such activities do not warrant such a high recreation-day value.

Response. - Although $1.50 per recreation day value is the maximum for the previous schedule of values established in 1962 which ranged from $0.50 to $1.50, the new schedule established in 1973 by the Water Resources Council now ranges from $0.75 to $2.25. Criteria utilized in establishing the value per recreation day include proximity to metropolitan areas, availability of high quality facilities and comparison to other similar opportunities; application of the criteria to Little Dell Lake indicates that $1.50 per recreation day is appropriate.

(8) Comment. - Page 12: We suggest that a map showing the loca­ tion and extent of borrow material would be helpful in understanding the impact of this activity. The estimated volumes of borrow should be presented along with a discussion of riprap source, or whatever other means are to be employed to protect the face of Little Dell Dam from wave action.

Response. - The borrow areas are shown on Chart 3 and the volumes of borrow and riprap source are discussed in paragraph 1.04.

(9) Comment. - We believe that for completeness, the environmental statement should, under "Geology" or "Natural Resources," include a brief description of the mineral resources of the area. It should also point out that changing geologic concepts and new technologies may result in the finding of new mineral resources at depth. Known mineral resources within the reservoir site and surrounding area consist of sand and gravel and limestone. No known producing facilities are located in the area, but two crude oil and three natural gas pipelines cross the site. The draft environmental statement indicates an awareness of the pipelines, and states (page 3) that they will be relocated. It also states (pages 12, 34-35, and 38) that borrow areas will be Inundated or regraded and planted. An examination of file data, without benefit of field investigation, shows that during 1971, mineral deposits in Salt Lake County yielded copper, molybdenum, gold, silver, lead, cement, zinc, sand and gravel, salt, lime, and stone valued at about $318.9 million.

Response. - Information in paragraph 2.02 has been expanded. (10) Comment. - In a 1964 review of a report on this project, engineers of the Bureau of Mines concluded that construction of the Little Dell Project would have no adverse effect on mineral resources in the specific area, or on the general industry in the Salt Lake area west of the project site. We believe these conments remain valid.

Response. - No reply necessary.

(11) Comment. - The project is in a seismic risk zone where earthquakes may cause moderate to major damage to man-made facilities. The final environmental statement should discuss the susceptibility of the proposed facilities to earthquake damage, what design features the facilities will have to resist potential damage, and what secondary impacts would occur downstream if the dam should fail.

Response. - Seismic information has been added to paragraph 2.. 02

(12) Comment. - Page 13: The mitigation and remedial measures for revegetation of areas disturbed in the construction of the project should be described in more detail.

Response. - More detail on revegetation plans is presented in paragraph 2.07. Specific planting plans will be developed in later design phases.

(13) Comment. - Page 16; In referring to the May 1952 flood, we feel that it is important to explain what "year" occurrence a 580 c.f.s. flow represents; specifically, where the flow occurred, and what the sources of the flood waters were.

Response. - This information has been added in paragraph 2.04a.

(14) Comment. - There needs to be a more detailed description of the population projections, as well as a reference to where the figures presented in the draft environmental statement were obtained. Reference should be made as to how the population figures compare with the projections of the Office of Business Economics, Department of Commerce, and the Economic Research Service, Department of Agriculture.

Response. - The population projections for Salt Lake County were obtained from the State of Utah, Division of Water Resources ("Projection of Population by County and Hydrologic Area," January 28, 1972). The special task force on population projections assumed a growth rate of about 2.0 percent per year, which is conservative by historical trends. Population in Salt Lake County lias increased from 274,895 in 1950 to 458,607 in 1970, or at a compound annual rate of about 2.6 percent. The growth rates used in this EIS generally concur with projections to 2020 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (formerly OBE) of the Department of Commerce for the Salt Lake area comprising the following eight counties: Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber. No significant difference in results would occur if the 1970 to 2020 rate of growth from the OBE projections for the eight counties had been used in this particular analysis.

(15) Comment. - The progressive Increase from per capita use of water during the next 50 years may be excessive. If the present trend for the construction of multiple dwelling units (apartments) relative to single dwellings continues in the area, the per capita use of water will remain stable, or it may possibly decrease. An increase in the price of water would certainly result in a decrease in per capita use.

Response. - Explained in paragraph 2.04b(l).

(16) Comment. - Page 17: We do not feel that an adequate discussion of the diversion of Emigration Canyon water, as related to its effect on groundwater, is presented to justify the conclusion that no Impact would occur. The final environmental statement should describe the results of studies presently underway that are referred to in the draft environmental statement.

Response. - Additional information has been included in paragraph 2.04.

(17) Comment. - Page 18: Present uses of both surface and underground water supplies in Emigration Canyon should be presented in the environmental statement.

Response. - Information has been added in paragraph 2.04a.

(18) Comment. - Page 21: The expected impacts on water quality of Little Dell Lake, by diverting Emigration and Lambs Canyon Creeks into it, should be presented. The statement regarding impact on water quality of Mountain Dell Reservoir as a result of releases from Little Dell Lake, ". . . could either degrade or enhance water quality. . .," appears inadequate and evasive. A detailed analysis of expected water quality from Little Dell Lake by season and resultant Impact on Mountain Dell Reservoir water quality should be quantified in order to determine the effect of municipal water suitability from Mountain Dell Reservoir. Response. - A water quality sampling program was initiated in March of 1974 for Emigration, Dell, and Parley-Lamb Creeks. Informa­ tion from this program, plus the sparse amount of water quality data previously available, will allow a better quantification of the quality inputs to Little Dell Lake. The data currently being obtained is information on the nitrogen series (ammonia, nitrate and organic nitrogen), dissolved and total phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand, alkalinity, pU, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, suspended solids, fecal coliform, and total coliform. Quality versus flow rate curves will be prepared from the above data, to determine the dilutional, buffered, and runoff effects to be expected from each stream. The data will then serve as input to a mathematical lake water quality model, where dry, normal, and vet year conditions will be modeled. The weather data and inflow- outflow hydrology for these years has been obtained and will be used in the modeling. The modeling results will give predictions of water qualities, including temperatures, throughout the water column at selected time increments for each year. These qualities will be compared to the beneficial uses to be made of the water, both in the lake and its releases. Predictions of the release qualities and temperatures will allow a determination of its expected effects on the water quality of Mountain Dell Reservoir.

(19) Comment. - Page 22; There is no analysis of Lambs Canyon water quality. It is therefore difficult for a reviewer of the draft environmental statement to understand how nutrients in Little Dell Lake will be diluted at the 2 to 1 ratio by Lambs Canyon water. What does the term "good" represent in terms of coliform count, dissolved oxygen, sediments, and nutrients as a description of water quality of Dell and Parleys Creeks?

Response. - Water quality data is being obtained from a site just below the confluence of Parley and Lambs Creeks. The data obtained will be compared to that needed to satisfy the beneficial uses to be made of Little Dell water (Class CR). Only in this context can the terms "good" and "bad" be used. The water quality data from each stream will be compared as to its expected effects upon Little Dell Lake. The use of ratios such as "2 to 1", etc., is applicable only as regards conservative constituents (salts, suspended Inorganics, etc.). It is not applicable for non-conservative substances (nutrients, organic loads, biological growths, etc.), as these are subject to decay and generation depending upon the environmental conditions prevailing.

(20) Comment. - Page 23: A discussion of the operation of Mountain Dell Reservoir is presented on page 20 as related to water quality changes by elevation during the various seasons. The quality of water released from Little Dell Lake will have a significant effect on the quality of water in Mountain Dell Reservoir; therefore, a more indepth presentation of Little Dell Lake water quality and related elevation of outlet is required in order to determine what effect Little Dell Lake water releases will have on Mountain Dell Reservoir water quality.

Response. - The mathematical model will first be run for the three simulation years using a single, low-level outlet. The predictions of dissolved oxygen concentrations (and thus the possibility of the resolubilization of iron and manganese, hydrogen sulfide from anaerobic digestion, etc.) and water temperatures in the hypollmnion and in the lake releases will determine the quality effects to be expected in Mountain Dell Reservoir. The enhancements that could be gained by bubble aeration can be evaluated once the above is determined. The model will also be run using a multi-level intake to determine its effect upon water quality conditions in the lake's hypollmnion and in the releases.

(21) Comment. - Page 24: What is the expected Increase in sediment in Little Dell Lake as a result of diversions from Emigration Canyon and resultant decrease in storage capacity in Little Dell Lake over the life of the project.

Response. - Adequate allowance for sedimentation has been included in the plans and designs for Little Dell Lake. A preliminary determination indicates that as much as two acre-feet annually of sediment could be diverted to Little Dell Lake from Emigration Creek.

(22) Comment. - Page 26 and Item 3 of Page 27: What does the phrase "proper management" mean with respect to improving quality of water released from Little Dell Lake to Mountain Dell Reservoir? The Water Quality section fails to evaluate the impact of recreation use at Little Dell Lake on water quality at both Little Dell Lake and Mountain Dell Reservoir. Apparently, no impact is expected; however, we could not agree with such an assessment, and would, in fact, have to conclude, even though detailed information is not specifically available to support such a conclusion, that significant water pollution will occur from the high intensity of recreation use predicted at Little Dell Lake. Studies funded by the Salt Lake County Commission, Forest Service, and the University of Utah on the quality of water in Little Cottonwood Canyon have shown that even with proper sanitation facilities, significant water pollution occurs from intense human recreational use of that canyon. The actual "use" figures in Little Cottonwood Canyon are far less than those predicted at Little Dell Lake. Another important consideration to water quality of Little Dell Lake, which is not a factor in Little Cottonwood Canyon recreation activities, is that water contact sports will be allowed at Little Dell Lake. Response. - The term "proper management" means to prevent acceleration of eutrophic conditions in Little Dell Lake. The best available technique will be used to minimize pollutional inputs to the lake. Plant fertilization will be carefully controlled, and waste disposal facilities for the recreational population will be adequately designed. Another method of "proper management" is to maintain aerobic conditions in the hypolimnion by bubble aeration if it is needed, or to use post-aeration on reservoir releases to oxidize impurities and to carry oxygenated water to the hypolimnion of Mountain Dell. Mountain Dell Reservoir currently has summer algal blooms (probably accelerated by the runoff from fertilization of the golf course turf adjacent to this lake) which, upon die-off, settle to the bottom to be consumed by bacteria. This has sometimes depleted the oxygen in the reservoir's bottom water in the past, allowing a resolubilization of iron and manganese, a taste and odor problem, and an increase in the chlorine demand during process disinfection. During such times the treatment plant operators have withdrawn their lake water from higher elevations. (This multiple Intake capacity at Mountain Dell Reservoir would also be considered in determining what the "system" output of the two reservoirs will be for municipal and industrial use.) Oxygenated inflows from Little Dell Lake could help alleviate this situation, thereby making more of the volume of Mountain Dell Reservoir suitable for a drinking water supply with minimal treatment. As discussed in paragraph 2.05, suitable sanitary facilities will be constructed at the recreation areas to prevent waste loads from this source from reaching the lake. Certainly this can be achieved. Additional waste loads will emanate from hikers or boaters who do not avail themselves of these facilities, or from pollutional loads from other than human waste sources. The effect of most sources of pollution would be to enrich the lake with nutrients so that it becomes a larger algal generator from primary productivity. This in turn would lead to a larger demand upon the oxygen sources of the hypolimnion as the algae die off and are consumed. The ultimate effect upon the quality of the water supply then may be to require aeration, or more aeration, of the hypolimnion, or selective with­ drawal from a multilevel intake structure. The results of the mathematical modeling will allow the evaluation of, and need for, some of the "management" techniques discussed above.

(23) Comment. - Page 30: The amount of land area required and subsequent land use changes for each feature should be shown for a project this size. How many acres for Little Dell Lake? How much area for Parleys Creek diversion pipeline, etc.? What is the length of Highway 65 that will be inudated? What is the length of the relocation, and how much land will be required for relocation? Response. - Most of this information is included in the statement in various places and is summarized as follows:

Fee title acquisition: Dam and reservoir 700 acres Emigration Creek diversion 3 acres Parleys diversion 10 acres Recreation areas (not needed for 130 acres other project purposes) Borrow area (outside project) 300 acres

Highway 65: a) length to be inundated 1.2 miles b) length to be relocated 1.7 miles c) length after relocation 2.8 miles d) land required for relocation 30 acres

(24) Comment. - Page 36: The relocation of Highway 65 may result in significant circle slips on adjacent hillsides due to road cut. This situation has been demonstrated by recent construction of 1-80 in Parleys Canyon. Unless the geology is significantly more stable than 1-80, efforts to prevent land movement causing significant esthetic impairments will occur. The entire subject of geology and stability of the land masses in the Little Dell Reservoir area has not been adequately documented nor discussed.

Response. - Cuts in the hillside required for the relocation of Highway 65 will be made using stable slopes with benches. This method will improve the appearance of the large cut required by the road. This, along with vegetation, will control erosion and slips. Natural slopes in the reservoir will be stable when inundated. Construction slopes will be graded to provide stability under reservoir operating conditions.

(25) Comment. - Page 38: The proposed project does not have an adverse effect upon any studied or established units of the National Park System. Moreover, no eligible sites for registration as National, Natural, or Environmental Educational Landmarks are involved.

Response. - No response necessary.

(26) Comment. - We note, however, that the Little Dell Lake Project will have a direct effect upon Emigration Canyon, which is a Registered National Historic Landmark on Utah 65. Diversion of water- flow from Emigration Creek will alter the historic natural scene and can be expected to have some adverse effect upon the ecology of the area. The actual results are not possible to fully calculate. Response. - As stated in paragraph 2.08b(2), coordination with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation indicates that the project will not adversely affect the status of the area.

(27) Comment. - Furthermore, the inundation of 1.5 miles of the Mormon/Pony Express Trail is to be regretted. Page 43 of the draft environmental statement suggests that since there are 1200 miles of trail, this little segment does not matter; the location of the segment gives it added significance, and this fact has been overlooked.

Response. - Concur that, since this segment is near the termi­ nus of the trail at Salt Lake City, it is of significance. As explained in paragraph 2.08, the affected portion of trail will be relocated and made available for public use as a part of the Little Dell Lake project. It is believed that the loss of the remaining traces of the original trail in this location will be compensated by the historical information to be made available to the public.

(28) Comment. - We note that Little Dell Station is to be relocated. This structure is presently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Such action will invalidate the present listing. The present location of this structure is of primary historical importance in the original justification in support of its nomination.

Response. - We do not consider that moving the station about 2,000 feet will invalidate its historical status. The relocation and other measures planned for Little Dell Station have been concurred in by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Liaison Officer. This is discussed fully in paragraph 2.08(3).

(29) Comment. - The environmental impact statement mentions an archeological survey of the proposed Little Dell Lake area. We believe the final statement should identify the archeologist who made this investigation, describe the extent of it, and include the archeologist’s report of findings. The final statement should also verify consultation with Utah State Archeologist, Dr. David D. Madsen, 603 East South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102, and reflect his comnents in support of the assertions in this statement. The final environmental statement should also reflect consultation with the National Register of Historic Places and contain evidence of consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Mr. Milton L. Weilenmann, Executive director, Department of Development Services, 312 State Capitol Building, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. The draft environmental statement gives no indication either of these offices were contacted.

Response. - The referenced study is cited in Appendix C and the coordination of these matters is fully explained in paragraph 2.03. Since the statement is only a summary of environmental aspects, it is not considered appropriate to include details such as the archeology report as suggested.

(30) Comment. - The natural scene is bound to suffer severe environmental effects from a project of this scope. In this connection, we note the alternatives cited. Other considerations notwithstanding, ve believe it appropriate to suggest further consideration of the "New Mountain Dell" damsite as a satisfactory alternate to the proposed Little Dell Lake. We are interested in minimizing to the maximum extent possible the loss of irretrievable, cultural, historical, and natural resources. We urge that no effort be spared to accomplish this objective.

Response. - As explained in paragraph 5.01, implementation of the New Mountain Dell alternative would eliminate most of the recrea­ tional values that would be obtained by the Little Dell site and would require emptying Mountain Dell Reservoir for two years. Other environ­ mental effects would be similar at both locations, except that inundation and relocation of Little Dell Station and about one mile of the Mormon Trail would not be necessary, and the Camp Grant site would be inundated. It was concluded that the proposed Little Dell Lake plan is the best plan in the overall public interest.

(31) Comment. - Page 56: The statement is made that, ". . .While none of the habitat, which would be eliminated or disturbed, is considered to be critical to the deer or elk which use the area, it is used by these species. . ." We do not consider this to be an adequate assessment of the value of this vegetation to the big-game animals which inhabit the project area. The habitat which would be eliminated or disturbed is, in fact, critical to the deer and elk, and will become increasingly important in future years. As mentioned later in this section of the statement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife) did not recomnend mitigation measures in its 1966 report to offset this loss of winter feeding habitat; however, since the time that agency's report was prepared, development within the Salt Lake Valley has increased, and encroachment on winter range along the Wasatch Front has proceeded at an unprecedented rate. Availability of adequate winter range during severe winters has become so limited that the animals are being forced into crowded residential areas where they are subjected to human disturbance and heavy auto traffic. To ensure the conservation and perpetuation of these herds in the project area, it is necessary that adequate measures be taken to mitigate losses of critical winter range lost to Little Dell Lake inundation.

Response. - Amplifying information received from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources indicates that the Little Dell site is not considered a good winter range. It receives relatively heavy use during the summer, but since summer range should not be the limiting factor in this area, there should be only minor effect on the herd. Additional information that may be received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources will be taken into account in future planning for specific features of the project, including the Master Plan.

(32) Comment. - Page 59: There needs to be a summary table showing all of the project environmental costs and benefits in non­ monetary terms, miles of stream, acres of open and green space, miles of open conduit, loss of fishery and wildlife, etc., to assist reviewer in balancing environmental costs (losses) versus benefits.

Response. - Guidelines prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality for the preparation of environmental impact statements contain no requirement for such a "summary table." Environmental costs and benefits in non-monetary terms are covered throughout the statement, and particularly in Section II. The entire environmental statement, as well as the Phase I General Design Memorandum, is used to assist the decision-maker in balancing environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits in reaching a decision. A summary table might tend to be incomplete and misleading in some respects, since the concepts are somewhat subjective, and it was not considered necessary or desirable in this case.

(33) Comment. - Page 61: The deferment of the Mill Creek Canyon diversion needs to be fully explained earlier in the report. The final environmental statement should state whether it will serve as the NEPA compliance for Mill Creek Canyon features of the Little Dell Project.

Response. - Mill Creek diversion was not included in the project description since it is not proposed for construction. It has been included under alternatives as is appropriate. Another statement or supplement would be prepared and coordinated if the Mill Creek Diversion were to be proposed for construction in the future.

(34) Comment. - Page 66: A map showing alternative damsites would be helpful.

Response. - All of the alternatives are explained in Section IV. Further detailed information is included in the Phase I General Design Memorandum. (35) Comment. - Page 69; The alternative planning relating to the total potential water supply development of the Salt Lake City streams considered in the Secretary of the Army's 1967 Review Report is not clearly presented. An examination of project water supply potential, pre-Bonneville Unit, should be discussed in nontechnical language that can be easily understood by the general public. Both Strawberry Collection System and diking of Utah Lake are needed to develop M&I imports to Salt Lake County. Jordanelle and Jordan Aqueduct cannot do it alone.

Response. - The 1967 report indicated an increased yield of 36,000 acre-feet annually associated with the Little Dell Project. About 25,000 acre-feet of this amount results from increased use of presently available supplies. Construction of the Jordan Aqueduct of the Bonneville Unit Project prior to Little Dell permits greater utiliza­ tion of such local supplies as a pre-Little Dell project condition. Strawberry and Utah Lake features are discussed in paragraph 5.03.

(36) Comment. - Page 70: Assuming (as stated) that 175,000 a.f. per year of groundwater is the ultimate level of development (withdrawals during the past 11 years have averaged 113,000 a.f. per year, with a maximum annual figure of 129,000 a.f.), this would leave a minimum of 46,000 a.f. per year available for additional development, and not 30,000 as stated.

Response. - Assuming a present use of about 125,000 a.f. per year and an ultimate use of about 175,000 a.f. per year indicates an increased use of 50,000 a.f. per year is expected. However, part of this future use, 20,000 a.f., is estimated to be low quality water on which use would be restricted to heavy industrial uses not requiring a high quality supply. Therefore, 30,000 a.f. of high quality water supply was used as being applicable for meeting general needs.

(37) Comment. - A breakdown and discussion of the quality of underground water quality should be presented.

Response. - The discussion on underground water has been expanded in paragraph 2.04.

(38) Comment. - General Comments. There is a lack of quantifying Information throughout the draft environmental statement which is necessary to (1) describe the present environment and (2) assess adequately the present environmental impacts. Specific areas of concern where quantification data are lacking are description of physical changes proposed through construction of project, water quality conditions, big-game, and fishery resources. Without detailed infor­ mation of present conditions, an adequate assessment of the impact of the proposed project on these environmental conditions cannot be made. Response. - Additional quantifying information has been added to the report to assist the reader in understanding environmental conditions.

(19) Comment. - We find that there was essentially no effort to assess secondary impacts of actions proposed in the Little Dell Lake Project. The "Specific Comments" section of this letter will point out where we consider secondary impacts would occur, but were not presented.

Response. - The discussion of secondary impacts on the various environmental resources has been expanded in the statement.

8.07 State of Utah. -

(1) Comment. - It would be helpful if you could further clarify the distance between Mountain Dell Reservoir and Little Dell Lake. Under location in Section I of the project description you say "the damsite would be 1.5 miles upstream from the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir." Does this mean Little Dell Lake will be located 1.5 miles upstream from Mountain Dell Dam, or the end of the Reservoir?

Response. - The sentence in paragraph 1.01 has been revised to clarify the distance between Mountain Dell Dam and Little Dell Dam.

(2) Comment. - Also under the heading of Project Description under paragraph three, you say that "discussions are continuing with the State Division of Parks and Recreation concerning the possibility of their assuming requirements of cost-sharing and operation and maintenance for recreation costs." It should be pointed out that the State Legislature is charged with the responsibility of making this determination.

Response. - Salt Lake County has decided to assume cost-sharing responsibilities for the recreation portion of the project.

(3) Comment. - In light of similar developments in the general area of Little Dell Lake, the State Division of Parks and Recreation recommends that a visitor center and Pioneer museum not be developed at the present time.

Response. - Concur. The development has been designated as a future facility rather than being scheduled for initial construction. See also response to U.S. Forest Service Comment (3).

(4) Comment. - You are probably aware that the Bureau of Reclamation may be forced to redesign the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. In light of the possibility of this occurring we would like some clarification as to why water for municipal and industrial water supply will not be available until 1990. Perhaps this area of the project needs further consideration.

Response. - Development of municipal and industrial water as presented in the Phase I General Design Memorandum assumes use subsequent to and following the Bonneville Unit. While the analysis is based on the economic feasibility and use of Little Dell water supply following Bonneville Unit, should delays or modifications of the Bonneville Unit occur, Little Dell water could physically be made avail­ able for use in the mid 1980's, upon completion of the project and when the water is needed.

(5) Comment. - On Page seven under Item C, Recreation, you recommend that high speed boating be prohibited to avoid conflict with other uses on the lake. The final draft statement should point out that upon recommendation of the Boating Advisory Council the Board of Parks and Recreation is the body ultimately responsible for making this decision.

Response. - Paragraph 1.05c has been revised to clarify this relationship.

(6) Comment. - At the top of Page nine it would be helpful if you would include an additional column equating average storage to average surface size.

Response. - The table has been expanded to include average surface area.

(7) Comment. - Item Number seven on Page ten indicates you plan an economic life of 100 years for the project. Is this an accurate indication of the life of the planned recreation facilities and of the project itself?

Response. - An economic life of 100 years is used in developing and comparing total costs on an annual basis. In actual practice, it may be expected that the dam and other substantial features will physically remain for longer than 100 years, while less substantial features will require repair or replacement after shorter periods. The annual costs for recreation, based on other similar Corps of Engineers work, includes costs for maintenance, operation and replacement of facilities. The operating agency would repair or replace worn or damaged recreation facilities as needed. (8) Comment. - At the top of Page 13 you point out that borrow excavation will have no impact on geology. This may be true, however, the impact on aesthetics, vegetation, wildlife, etc., may be significant. Perhaps this section of the statement should further discuss the impact of borrow excavation.

Response. - Impact on aesthetics is discussed in paragraph 2.07 and on vegetation and wildlife in paragraph 2.10.

(9) Comment. - Frankly, the possibility of a lake oriented recreation experience which would accommodate an estimated 8,000 daily visitors is a little frightening. It is our hope that if recreation continues to be an integral part of this project, that adequate measures will be taken to accommodate a population of this size.

Response. - In response to this comment, a meeting was held with Mr. Grover Thompson and representatives from various state agencies. It was mutually agreed that demands for such use in the general area are very high and that such intensive use is likely to occur if recrea­ tion facilities are developed to adequately acconmodate the use as planned.

(10) Comment. - The Corps of Engineers might consider purchasing an additional 200-300 feet of land on the south shore of the lake boundaries to insure that the area will be protected from encroachment by private developers.

Response. - In addition to lands needed for specific project needs, Federal policy for acquiring lands at water resources developments includes acquisition of lands either five vertical feet above the gross pool elevation or 300 horizontal feet distance from gross pool elevation, whichever is greater in land area in order to provide general public access to the lakeshore and to enable surcharge reservoir operation. Plans Include acquisition of at least 300 feet horizontally from the gross pool along the south shore.

(11) Comment. - It would be helpful if you would create a map similar to Chart 3, Indicating the northern boundary of the project.

Response. - Chart 3 has been expanded to include the northern boundary of the project.

8.08 Citizen groups. - The environmental working paper was furnished to the groups listed below and their comments were utilized in preparing the draft environmental statement. Citizens' Environmental Advisory Committee Utah Audubon Society Wasatch Mountain Club Sierra Club, Uinta Chapter* Utah Wildlife Federation Utah Environment Center* Stanley Mulaik* National Wildlife Federation*

The draft environmental statement was also sent to these groups for comment and the comments of those who responded (those marked by asterisk above) are given below together with the Corps responses.

8.09 Sierra Club, Uinta Chapter. -

(1) Comment. - At this point in time we have two major concerns. First, it is difficult to understand the justification of Little Dell solely as a flood control project. The benefits to flood control seem highly inflated, and the project appears to be inadequate to prevent damages from flooding which occurs from heavy and rapid runoff from the Wasatch Front adjacent to the city. That type of flood represents the greatest threat to the city, and Little Dell seems irrelevant to the problem. Those difficulties seem to be better handled by enlargement of the capacity of storm drains at lower elevations. That alternative seems to be dealt with in a superficial and inadequate manner.

Response. - Primary flood damage reduction benefits consist of physical damages prevented and costs of emergency work and business losses which are averted. Flood losses or damages considered were physical damage caused by inundation, flood emergency losses or costs incurred in fighting or preparing for flooding and business or other financial losses resulting from decreased production, loss of wages, and increased cost of normal operations.

Construction of conduits was considered as a possible means of alleviating flood problems on the 13th South Street stream group area, in the Emigration Canyon area, and in the Mill Creek flood-prone area. The serious flood situation along 13th South Street could be alleviated by constructing an underground conduit to convey high floodflows to the Jordan River. Two routes were considered i*\ the 1966 Review Report. One of the routes followed 21st South Strei: westward from 13th East Street and the other followed 27th South Street westward from 13th East Street. Both routes included collector conduits to Emigration and Mill Creeks. The 27th South Street conduit plan was the more economical of the two alignments studied and thus was analyzed in more detail in advanced planning studies. The conduit plan would eliminate the majority of flood damages and related problems along the project streams but would add to the flood problem on Jordan River. Addition of nearly 500 c.f.s. of snowmelt runoff to the Jordan River would result in an increased flood hazard to developments in the Jordan River flood plain. Construction of the conduit system would also result in closure of portions of 27th South Street and 13th East Street during construction, severely affecting traffic and local businesses for about one year. Also, numerous underground utilities would be affected during construc­ tion and would make future underground utilities maintenance and expansion more difficult. Additional discussion of conduit construction as an alternative is presented in paragraph 5.02.

(2) Comnent. - An even more serious problem in the statement surrounds the treatment of the potential for municipal and industrial water supply that could be developed from the Little Dell Project. As I pointed out at the meeting held in Salt Lake City on February 13, 1974, Little Dell was originally designed to provide an increase of 36,000 acre-feet of firm yield for MAI purposes in Salt Lake County. In addition, the April, 1974 Design Report on Little Dell points out that there is 30,000 a.f. available from ground water, 10,000 a.f. from East Canyon Reservoir, and 20,000 a.f. from the Cottonwood Creeks. That adds up to 96,000 af of MAI water which could be supplied to Salt Lake County.

Response. - The 36,000 acre-feet yield (1967 report) includes about 25,000 acre-feet cf increased utilization of local supplies. Since Jordan Aqueduct and the Jordan Narrows Treatment Plant are constructed, increased utilization of these local supplies can be realized independently from Little Dell. The 30,000 acre-feet of groundwater will be used primarily in the rural areas where vested rights to groundwater have not been fully utilized. The Salt Lake City urbanized area has essentially utilized groundwater rights and is looking to Little Dell, Bonneville Unit and other sources to meet future needs. Development of a water supply from the Cottonwood Creeks and East Canyon is more costly than Little Dell or Bonneville Unit water and, accordingly, is not anticipated to be developed until full use is made of these other sources.

(3) Comment. - It has become obvious why the M A I potential of Little Dell has been minimized by your organization: it will compete with the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. Instead of assuming that the outrageously expensive and environmentally disastrous Bonneville Unit will be completed as planned, the Corps should be thoroughly exploring all of the very attractive possibilities of the Little Dell Project as an alternative to the Bonneville Unit. It is cheaper, environmentally more acceptable, and subject to less opposition from groups such as ours, if it is approached in a reasonable way. Without such consideration of that alternative, the Final Statement will be woefully inadequate. Response. - The municipal and industrial potential of Little Dell has changed primarily as a result of changed conditions. Construc­ tion of Bonneville Unit features (Jordan Aqueduct and treatment plant) prior to construction of Little Dell permits more complete utilization of local water supplies prior to Little Dell. Other features of Bonneville Unit are planned and appear to make delivery of Bonneville Unit water in the area possible in advance of the Little Dell supply. This must be taken into account in the economic analysis. If the Little Dell supply were to be placed in beneficial use prior to 1990 as we have estimated as an alternative economic analysis, additional benefits would accrue to the Little Dell project. If desired by the water users, Little Dell can be used for water supply as soon as constructed, subject to appropriate repayment arrangements.

8.10 Utah Environment Center. -

(1) Comment. - If the Utah Department of the State Parks and Recreation (DSPR) is unable to assume necessary costs (page 1, para­ graph 3), will the Corps of Engineers assume the developmental costs? Or will the recreation potential be left undeveloped?

Response. - Salt Lake County has forwarded a letter of intent to assume the cost-sharing and administration responsibilities for recreation at Little Dell Lake.

(2) Comment. - We recommend that you discuss the following: A. How long will it take to complete the project, once that it has begun. B. The rate at which the newly-created basin will be flooded. C. The expected lifespan of the reservoir (as a consequence of sediment inflows).

Response. - The anticipated construction period is three years, depending on available funds. Initial filling of the reservoir could take about five years based on average flows observed in the past. Average sedimentation is estimated at about 6 acre-feet per year. Accordingly, the reservoir would have an extremely long life as far as sedimentation is concerned.

(3) Comment. - Geology - Paragraph nine contains no discussion of possible impact of the reservoir on geologic stability of land masses in the region, which is only a few miles from the Wasatch Fault.

Response. - The impact of reservoirs on geologic stability is not considered to be a problem in projects as small as Little Dell. On a world-wide basis, no seismic action has been related to a reservoir this size. At the present time, there are no methods available to predict the effect of a new reservoir on geologic stability. (A) Comment. - Water quality A. We are disappointed at the general lack of numerical water quality data in the report. If these are existent, they should be given in the report (if in only an appendix); if not, we think they should be obtained, before the final statement, for Dell Creek (above and below the reservoir site) and for Emigration and Lambs Creek above the projected diversions. Of particular importance would be data on coliform bacteria, nitrates, total and ortho-phosphates, and total dissolved and suspended solids. B. Without water quality data, the statement (page 22) "The quality of Dell Creek and Parleys Creek above the diversion is good, while quality of Emigration Canyon is less," is virtually meaningless. If data for Dell Creek is "sparse," (Pages 18-19) how can you infer that the quality is good? (page 22) C. We are pleased to see that the statement recognizes the possibility of occasional algal blooms (pg 21 lines 3-4) but believe this possibility is too arbitrarily dismissed later in the statement (pg 22-23). As stated above, the discussion of "dilution of poor quality by good quality waters" is meaningless without numerical data. D. We question the basis for the statement (pg 23, line 5) "however, this initial leaching of soluble salts should not be significant". What constitutes "significance"? Additionally, specific data on the soils at the construction site would be helpful to us. E. On page 23, lines 17-19: we suggest you outline in the final report what you expect the levels of releases to be (approximately). F. We believe that possible adverse water quality impacts on Mountain Dell of reducing the flushing flows (pg 26, lines 3-4) in Mountain Dell Reservoir are inadequately considered here. G. In light of the possibility of algal blooms, at least during the first few years of operation, we think the statement (pg 57, lines 14-15) that the newly created lake fishery is expected to support a "good" trout population should be qualified. Although some elevation in the reservior’s primary productivity will help trout, too much will deplete benthic oxygen and, coupled with the fluctu­ ating nature of the reservoir, may lower somewhat its value to trout. H. Similarly, the occurrence of nuisance algal blooms could lover aesthetic and recreational values of the proposed reservoir. We suggest that the report recognize this possibility.

Response. - The consultant study (reference 9, Appendix C) provides the basis for the conclusions contained in the statement; this study is available for inspection. To obtain additional data, the Corps of Engineers has initiated a water quality monitoring program. The Salt Lake City Water Department is collecting water samples and the Utah Division of Public Health is testing the samples. A mathematical study will be made of this water quality data by the Corps of Engineers and results should be available late in the fall of 1974. The report will consider water quality problems listed in this letter. Levels of releases will be variable depending upon flood conditions, demand for the water supply and other factors. Anticipated reservoir operation, including releases, is displayed on Chart 5 of the Phase I General Design Memorandum and this is available for inspection if desired. With respect to a good trout population, this conclusion has been drawn from the detailed report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (See Department of Interior Comment 21 and response for additional discussion of water quality.)

(5) Comment. - Land Use - We hope you could discuss possibilities of the project encouraging or accelerating secondary, "satellite" land developments in the surrounding area.

Response. - Land surrounding the Little Dell Dam and Lake area is owned primarily by Salt Lake City Corporation with other large holdings belonging to the U.S. Forest Service. The area is regulated as a municipal watershed. Local interests do not allow development and land use is restricted. Development in the watershed has taken place only along an upstream reach of Lambs Canyon on private land. Accordingly, the project is not expected to increase development in the watershed area. See new added Section III - Relationship of Proposed Action to Land Use Plans.

(6) Comment. - Recreation - The report makes no mention of increased litter and noise as a result of the project.

Response. - The discussion in paragraph 2.09 on recreation impacts is intended to include all related impacts, of which litter is one specific example. Except for temporary, localized noise resulting from construction operations, there is no evidence or basis that adverse effects from noise will result from the project. One ordinary noise influence that results from high speed boat operation at many lakes would not occur at Little Dell if the recommended prohibition on high speed boating is approved.

(7) Comment. - Costs, Benefits - (pg 10-11) While outlining in reasonable detail the financial benefits of the project, this section wholly ignores any financially-detailed discussion of the costs other than citing a figure of $1,547,000 per annum. Does this figure take into account the costs of: 1) deterioration of downstream water quality, 2) loss of the existing stream fishery, 3) lowered recreation and fishery values as a result possible algal blooms, 4) loss of present agricultural production on the lands to be inundated, 5) loss of linited wildlife habitat, 6) cost of relocating the road and historic sites. We recommend that each of these costs be quantified at least as thoroughly as the "benefits" are.

Response. - Costs have been presented in more detail than suggested by this comment; for example, costs of relocations are specified at $1,470,000— see paragraph 1.07. Detailed cost figures are presented in the Phase I General Design Memorandum. Many environ­ mental costs are non-quantifiable, and a new Appendix A has been added to the statement to summarize the type of cost information suggested in this comment. The cost of relocating the historic sites has been estimated at less than $100,000 and is included in the overall reloca­ tions costs cited in the statement.

(8) Comment. - Natural Resources A. Appendix A ("Flora and Fauna of the Little Dell Project Area") contains no list of the fishes, aquatic macrophytes, aquatic insects, or algae of the project area. Since the project is obviously aquatic, these would seem at least as important as lists of terrestrial organisms. B. Although unlikely, it is not stated whether any of the streams affected by the project contain any rare or endangered species or subspecies of fish. Was this checked into, or merely assumed not to be the case? C. We would find it helpful if Appendix A contained a brief note of the current status (e.g. "common", "occasional") of each species, followed by the projected impact ("increase", "decrease", "no change"). D. Although no prairie falcon habitat would be lost due to the construction of the project (pg 54, lines 1-5) the disturbance created by 8000 visitors per day could be excessive to any falcons which might frequent the area. We suggest you mention this. E. The golden eagle is another species which would lose out from excessive human disturbance. While not an officially endangered species, it is not a common one and it has high esthetic value. It regularly rests in adjacent canyons, so it is virtually certain to use the project area (as noted in Appendix A) and consequently could be affected by the project. We recommend this species be more thoroughly discussed along with the prairie falcon.

Response. - A. The appendix (Appendix B) has been expanded to include a list of fishes. Ho listing is considered necessary for aquatic macrophytes, insects or algae. B. There are no endangered or rare species of fish in the affected creeks. Coordination on this was carried out with the Utah State Wildlife Resources Division. C. This information is included in the expanded appendix. D. ,E. The effect of the project on the prairie falcon and the golden eagle will be the same as on other species of birds. Increased use of the area will decrease their use of the project but not eliminate it.

8.11 Stanley B. Mulaik. -

(1) Comment. - Runoff trends historically are variable and probably related to improved watershed management.

Response. - Improved management of the watersheds has undoubtedly had a favorable effect on smoothing out the runoff from the watershed areas. However, as evidenced by runoff cycles typified by the hydrograph of Great Salt Lake, the 1898 to 1932 period was a wet cycle while the 1932 to 1963 period represents a dry period. Thus, comparisons of these periods do not necessarily reflect the effect of watershed improvements. Since 1964 the stage of Great Salt Lake has been on the uptrend and verifies the possibility of other wet cycles occurring. As evidenced by the 1952 flood, and situations in more recent years, floodflows of a damaging nature can be expected to occur in the future.

(2) Comment. - Watershed improvement and increased absorpt.ion is beneficial.

Response. - Watershed terracing and trenching was considered as a possible flood control alternative to the Little Dell development. However, it was eliminated in the early stages of plan formulation because (a) terracing would be required over 50 percent of the watershed to provide a reasonable degree of protection, (b) scars from terracing would impact on the natural watershed environment and (c) terracing and trenching was not considered to provide adequate protection to the downstream urban area. In the larger floods, possible overtopping and breaking of the trenches have potential for releasing ponded water to the stream and creating a situation more critical than if no action were taken.

(Note: Mr. Mulaik's lengthy comments are shown verbatim in his letter included in Appendix D. Shown here are paraphrased summary topics of these comments, and the detailed response of the Corps of Engineers.) (3) Comment. - There have been a number of different figures stated on flood damages and benefits.

Response. - Flood damages for the 1952 flood have been documented at $2,570,000 including physical damages or losses, emergency costs, and business or financial losses, based upon 1952 price levels. The Deseret News estimate of half a million dollars appears to represent only part of the overall flood damage figure. The 1952 flood for the 13th South Stream Group peaked at 580 c.f.s., which is presently estimated to be about a 1 in 80 to 1 in 100 year event. By comparison, the standard project snowmelt flood is estimated to have a peak of about 700 c.f.s.

The difference in flood control benefits associated with the project to which you referred resulted from the updating of benefits to reflect changes in price level and also to reflect differences in the degree of protection provided. As an example, the $1,082,000 benefit was based on 1971 price levels and 1978 economic conditions and it excluded the Parleys Creek Diversion. The $1,324,000 benefit was based on 1973 price levels and 1978 economic conditions and also excluded the Parleys Creek Diversion facility. The $1,350,000 benefit estimate was based on 197^ price level and 1980 economic conditions, and includes the Parleys Creek Diversion. Thus, the benefits have been modified to reflect more recent price levels, various degrees of pro­ tection and updated conditions expected at the time the project is placed in operation. About 90 percent of the flood control benefits are associated with the 13th South flood plain. The 96 percent figure stated in the July 1973 informal draft of the environmental statement was apparently a typographical error.

Flood control benefits were derived from developed relationships of flow-frequency curves and stage-damage relationships. Flood damages for a flood similar to the 1952 flood would approach 20 million dollars based on today's price levels and existing development in the flood plain. Average annual benefits were based on average annual flood damage reductions for all damaging floods, both less frequent and more frequent than that of the 1952 flood. In addition, the benefits reflect continued development in the flood plain. However, a preliminary evaluation indicated that modification of benefits to reflect restricted future developments within the 100-year flood plain would not change project formulation or scope and would still show strong economic justifi­ cation for the flood control function.

(4) Comment. - Mountain Dell Dam was already full in the 1952 flood, and full dams are not effective for flood control. Response. - Flood control reservations are based on runoff forecasts for snowmelt type floods and a 1,000 acre-foot permanent reservation for rain-type floods. On this basis Standard Project Flood (SPF) protection can be provided for snowmelt floods and the permanent reservation at Little Dell and Mountain Dell will provide protection against a 1 in 100-year rain flood event. While it is possible for two storms of greater than the SPF or the 1 in 100-year event to occur within a short period, the likelihood is extemely remote.

(5) Comment. - Questions amount of runoff to be controlled and points out continuing damage from uncontrolled runoff.

Response. - Runoff at the project diversion points has been measured since 1964. These measurements serve as a basis for establishing the percentage of monthly runoff occurring above project facilities. In 1952 records were maintained on Parleys Creek at the Salt Lake City gage; in addition, records of the storage at Mountain Dell Reservoir were also maintained. Before the reservoir filled, the records show that about 70 percent of the natural flow at the canyon mouth was being held in the Mountain Dell Reservoir. It may be that more than 70% of the flow actually occurred above Mountain Dell Reservoir, since the records do not indicate the amount of additional water whicy may have been simultaneously released from the reservoir. With respect to downstream flood damage, as specified in the authorizing report, the project will not alleviate damages from ralnfloods originating below project facilities. However, this problem is under consideration by the county and will be significantly alleviated as the detention basins planned by the county are constructed. Our latest report and draft contract with Salt Lake County relating to flood control clearly identifies residual rain flood damages and spells out the need for local government to inform local interests of the situation. The proposed project is expected to eliminate all significant snowmelt damage associated with watershed runoff.

(6) Comment. - Culverts at 13th South Street have been improved since 1952.

Response. - Since 1952 Salt Lake City has constructed an additional storm drain along 13th South. The new conduit is a 60-inch concrete pipe, which parallels the 5-foot by 12-foot concrete box culvert from State Street to Jordan River. This addition adds about 60 c.f .s. of capacity to the system making the total capacity about 300 c.f.s. Comparing this capacity with the 1952 peak of 580 c.f.s. or the Standard Project Flood of 700 c.f.s. indicates the inadequacy of the present system. While additional capacity would help alleviate the situation, such action is inconsistent with local plans to eliminate construction of additional storm drains discharging to the Jordan River. Additional storm drains would require costly improvements on the Lower Jordan River to convey such inflow. It would necessitate implementing channelization on the Lower Jordan River and could preclude or impair the parkway concept presently under study.

(7) Comment. - Recommends Surplus Canal be improved.

Response. - Studies of the Surplus Canal extension have been identified as an additional flood control need and will be studied follow­ ing resolution of the Lower Jordan River problem, to which the county has given priority.

(8) Comment. - Involvement of Jordan River improvements should be discussed.

Response. - Two reservoirs on the Jordan River south of 94th South are under consideration by Salt Lake County. While these reservoirs will help reduce downstream flood problems, they will not control inflow from Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks and Mill Creek and do not have sufficient capacity to completely regulate the large volume of water spilled from Utah Lake during high runoff years; and they are essentially independent of the Parleys-Emigration-Red Butte Creeks flood problem.

(9) Comment. - Recreation use estimates appear high and there would be a problem with many cars added to the highway use.

Response. - Recreation development outlined for the project is based on day-use facilities making optimum use of the area. The most recent analysis indicates a maximum design peak day of 8,000 visitors and an estimated accumulative use of 960,000 recreation days per year. Based on this we would expect 1,500 to 2,000 cars maximum in a day of peak use. The facilities have been designed for a park-like effect that could handle heavy use. Design incorporates support facilities to avoid pollution of the water resource and overuse of the area. The development would be similar to the Utah Lake State Park near Provo. Use of that area has exceeded a day-use of 5,000 people in 1974. Appropriate modifications of recreation facilities, use and benefits will be incorporated into the project as deemed advisable by the operating agency.

(10) Comment. - Questions whether water contact sports will be permitted and whether sanitary wastes will be disposed of properly.

Response. - Contact has been made with the State Department of Environmental Health regarding water contact activities on the Little Dell Lake. We have been informed that water contact activities would definitely be prohibited on Mountain Dell Reservoir as it is a terminal reservoir for municipal water supply. Although final policy on water contact use at Little Dell has not been obtained, we have been informed that such use will be consistent with current policy. Water contact sports are allowed on Deer Creek Reservoir, which is a municipal water supply source. Use is prohibited immediately upstream of the outlet works. With Mountain Dell Reservoir downstream, and about 1 mile of open channel between Little Dell Dam and Mountain Dell Reservoir, water activities at Little Dell appear to be consistent with the State Health Board policy. It is recognized that the water activities and other recreation would require sanitation and other support facilities which have not been specifically designed, but costs for such measures have been included in the project cost estimate. It is anticipated that the design will provide for no discharge of waste water to either surface or ground water.

(11) Comment. - Questions only 300 acre-feet of evaporation per year from Little Dell Lake.

Response. - Evaporation at Little Dell Lake has been estimated at 34 inches per year based on the rate experienced at Deer Creek Reservoir. Allowing for a net gain to present runoff (net effect of precipitation and changes in soil evaporation and consumptive use) in the reservoir area averaging 22 inches per year, the net overall loss would be about 12 inches per year. The 300 acre-foot loss is based on this net rate applied to the average water surface area.

(12) Comment. - Points out need to comply with water rights.

Response. - Diversions from Emigration Canyon would be made consistent with vested water rights. The project water right held by Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City lias a priority of 31 January 1963. Accordingly, the project would divert only flows available to that right. Our studies show that diversion would be made only during the spring runoff months of March through June. In exceptionally dry years such as occurred in 1961 there would be no diversion made. To maintain a live stream a minimum bypass of 1 c.f.s. or the natural flow, whichever is less, has been provided to support streamside vege­ tation.

(13) Comment. - Questions adequacy of wildlife impact and vegetation impact discussion in draft statement.

Response. - The environmental statement contains a full discussion of all known impacts on wildlife and vegetation which have been fully coordinated with the State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies. See paragraph 2.10, and also response to the comment of the National Wildlife Federation, paragraph 8.12. (14) Comment. - Questions the applicable interest rate and changes in costs and benefits since survey report.

Response. - The 3-1/4 percent interest rate was fixed in accordance with a procedure established by the Water Resources Council and accepted by the Congress for use in reporting costs and benefits of authorized projects. At the time the procedure was established, the interest rate was fixed at the rate in effect immediately prior to 24 December 1968 (3-1/4 percent for Little Dell). This provision was formally adopted by Congress in Section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which also provides that the fixed rate shall continue to be used for the project until construction has been completed, unless otherwise provided by a future statute.

Changes in costs and benefits have resulted from inflation, continued developments in the area, and modifications to the project plan brought about by changes in conditions or criteria since the feasibility (survey) investigation.

8.12 National Wildlife Federation. -

(1) Comment. - The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require federal agencies to quantify and mitigate for wildlife and fish losses that will occur from federal projects. The affected wildlife include deer and elk; the fisheries losses appear largely to be trout. No estimate is made in the Little Dell DEIS for the losses which will occur. No mitigation is planned for the general decrease in wildlife that the statement conceded will occur. The losses are nowhere quantified. Without these estimates no decisionmaker can be in a position to decide whether the overall balance of benefits and losses favors project construction.

Response. - The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires Federal construction agencies to consult with and obtain information and recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish and wildlife agency on fish and wildlife affected by the construction. The advice provided by the two responsible agencies indicates that there will be minor losses of stream fisheries and game habitat and that the new lake will provide a beneficial new fishery. In their detailed report of 14 March 1966, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made five specific recommendations. Two of these pertain to the deferred Mill Creek Diversion work and would be imple­ mented if the deferred work becomes necessary. The other three pertain to including fish and wildlife as a project purpose, bypassing a flow of two cubic feet per second below the Parleys Creek Diversion and providing a means to control high speed boating to prevent conflicts with fishing use; these are incorporated in the project plans. Coordination with the two agencies is continuing as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Accordingly, as reported in this statement and other pertinent reports of the Corps of Engineers, fish and wildlife resources affected by the project are believed to have been sufficiently assessed and impacts have been taken fully into account in the decision made to proceed with construction.

APPENDIX A

ECONOMIC DATA EXTRACTED FROM U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PHASE I GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM, LITTLE DELL LAKE, SALT LAKE CITY STREAM, UTAH Complete document is available at U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, California 95814

SUMMARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (July 1974 price level, 3-1/4 interest rate, 100-year life)

Average Annual Project Purposes First Cost Cost : Benefits B-C Ratio

Flood control, water supply & (1) recreation $36,750,000 $1,720,000 $2,965,000 1.7 to 1

(1) Based on post-Bonneville Unit conditions. Pre-Bonneville Unit water supply conditions result in an increase of $355,000.

Non-quantifiable environmental benefits and costs not reflected in benefit-to-cost determination:

Adverse:

1. Emigration Creek diversion due to sediment and coliform loads will transport a poorer quality water into Dell Canyon.

2. Wildlife habitat, including some meadow and riparian vegetation, will be inundated by the new lake.

3. Project construction will result in some scarring of the landscape.

4. Diversion of Emigration Creek waters to the new lake would diminish the limited fishery in this reach.

5. The aesthetic quality of the Dell Creek area will be diminished by lake appearance during infrequent heavy drawdown periods. Beneficial:

1. Formation of a lake to be used for fishing and outdoor recreation in an area that has few lakes.

No effect:

1. Relocation of Little Dell Station and 1.5 miles of the Mormon Trail. APPENDIX B

FLORA AND FAUNA OF THE LITTLE DELL PROJECT AREA

This appendix contains a partial list of important plants and animals that are commonly found in the general vicinity of the project. While intended to be representative of the types of plants and animals likely to be found in the project area, this is not presented as containing every species that occurs.

The list is intended to give an overall view of the biological makeup of the area. It is further intended to describe the impact of the project on wildlife, and describe the vegetation in the immediate area and its importance. PLANTS

Common and Scientific Names Abundance Occurrence Importance

Narrowleaf cottonwood Common Riparian Aesthetic Populus augustifolia

Bigtootbed maple Common Riparian Aesthetic Acer grandidentatum

Aspen Sparse Riparian Aesthetic Populus tremuloides

Box elder Common Riparian Aesthetic Acer negundo

River birch Common Riparian Wildlife habitat Betula occidentalis Aesthetic

Willow Common Riparian Aesthetic Salix sp.

Chokecherry Common Riparian Wildlife Prunus virginiana habitat

Sedge Common Riparian Wildlife Carex geyeri habitat

Orchard grass Common Riparian Wildlife Dactylis glomerata habitat

Wild rose Common Riparian Wildlife Rosa woodsii habitat

Dandelion Common Riparian Wildlife Taraxacum officinale habitat

Wild pea Common Riparian Wildlife habitat Lathyrus utahensis Aesthetic

Scrub oak Common Hillside Wildlife habitat Quercus gambelii Aesthetic Common and Scientific Names Abundance Occurrence Importance

Serviceberry Common Hillside Wildlife habitat Amelanchler utahensis

Antelope brush Uncommon Hillside Wildlife habitat Purshia tridentata

Sagebrush Common Hillside Wildlife habitat Artemisia tridentata

Rabbitbrush Common Hillside Wildlife habitat Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus

Snowbrush Common Hillside Wildlife habitat Symphorlcarpos oreophilus

Mountain mahogany Common Hillside Aesthetic Cerocarpus ledifolius Wildlife habitat

Oregon grape Unconanon Hillside Wildlife habitat Berberls repens

Currant Common Hillside Wildlife habitat Ribes spp.

Cheat grass Common Hillside Wildlife habitat Bromu8 tectorum

Mustard Common Uncultivated Wildlife habitat Arabis sp. meadow

Elm Uncommon Introduced Aesthetic Ulmus sp. ornamental

Russian olive Uncommon Introduced Aesthetic Elaegnus augustlfolia ornamental

Silver maple Common Introduced Aesthetic Acer saccharum ornamental BIRDS

Common and Seasonal Abundance Project Scientific Names Status in Region Impact

Turkey vulture Migrant Rare Minimal Cathartes aura Sumner resident

Red-tail hawk Permanent Common Minimal Buteo lamaicensis resident

Swainson's hawk Migrant Uncommon Minimal Buteo swainsoni Summer resident

Sparrow hawk Migrant Uncommon None Falco sparverius

Goshawk. Permanent Rare None Accipiter gentilis

Sharpshinned hawk Permanent Common None Accipiter striatus

Cooper'8 hawk Permanent Rare Minimal Accipiter cooperii

Ferruginous hawk Permanent Rare Minimal Buteo regalis

Golden eagle Permanent in Rare Minimal Aquila chrysaetos general area

Great homed owl Permanent Common None Bubo virginianus

Screech owl Permanent Rare None Otus asio resident

Sawwhet owl Semi- Rare None Aegollus acadicus permanent

Mourning dove Migrant Common None Zenaidura macroura Summer resident

Blue grouse Permanent Rare None Dendragapus obscurus Common and Seasonal Abundance Project Scientific Names Status in Region Impact

Ruffed grouse Migrant Uncommon Minimal Bonasa umbellus

California quail Permanent Common None Lophortyx californlcus

Ringneck pheasant Permanent Common Minimal Phasianus colehlcus

Spotted sandpiper Migrant Rare None Actitus macularia Sumner resident

Poor will Migrant Uncomnon None Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Summer resident

Night hawk Migrant Uncommon None Chordelles minor

White-throated swift Migrant Common Minimal Aeronautes saxatails

Common snipe Migrant Uncommon Minimal Capella gal^inago Summer resident MAMMALS

Conxion and Seasonal Abundance Project Scientific Names Status in Region Impact

Rocky Mountain mule deer Migrant Common during Minimal Odocoileus hemionus summer hemionus

Rocky Mountain elk Migrant Uncommon Minimal Cervus canadensis during summer nelsonl

Coyote Permanent Uncommon Minimal Canis latrans

Bobcat Permanent Uncocsnon None Lynx taxus

Badger Permanent Uncommon Minimal Taxidea taxus

Weasel Permanent Uncommon Minimal Mustela frenata

Mink Permanent Uncommon Minimal Mustela vison

Striped skunk Permanent Common None Mephitis mephitis

Spotted skunk Permanent Common None Spilogale gracilis

Jackrabbit Permanent Common Moderate Lepus callfomicus

Cottontail rabbit Permanent Common Moderate Sylvilagus nuttalli

Porcupine Permanent Uncommon None Erethizon erethiron

Beaver Permanent Unconmon Moderate Castor canadensis Common and Seasonal Abundance Project Scientific Names Status in Region Impact

Muskrat Permanent Uncommon Minimal Ondatra zibethica

Deer mouse Permanent Common Minimal Peromyscus maniculatus

Meadow mouse Permanent Common Moderate Microtus montanus nexus

Vagrant shrew Permanent Common None Sorex vagrans FISHES

Common and Scientific Names Abundance Project Impact

Cutthroat trout Uncommon The project will Sal mo clarki create a large habitat for these Brown trout Common coldwater fish, but Salmo trutta it will be partially offset by the Brook trout Common inundation of some Salvelinus fontinalis spawning gravels.

Rainbow trout Common Salmo gairdneri APPENDIX C

REFERENCES CITED

1. Utah Task Force on Population Projections, 1972.

2. Municipal and Industrial Water Requirements, Utah Counties. 1960-2020. March 1966, Department of Business Regulations, University of Utah.

3. Salt Lake Valley. 1985 - A Master Plan for Salt Lake County. Salt Lake County Planning Commission, 1963.

4. History of Utah, 1847-1869. Andrew Love Neff, Deseret News Press, Salt Lake City, 1940.

3. The Water Resources Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-231, approved by the President 7 March 1974 (see Sections 83 and 88.)

6. Water Resources of Salt Lake County. Technical Publication No. 31, State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, 1971.

7. Wayman vs. Murray City Corporation, Supreme Court of Utah (No. 11211), September 17, 1969.

8. "Little Dell Archeological Survey", Berge, Dale, July 1973.

9. "Investigation of the Effects of Little Dell Reservoir on Water Quality in Emigration Creek, Parleys Creek and Mountain dell Reservoir, Utah," Ecology Consultants, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, August 1973.

10. Outdoor Recreation for Utah, 1965-1975. Staffs of Department of Fish and Game and Park and Recreation Commission, 1965.

11. Letter of advice from Compliance Officer of National Historic Preservation Council dated 23 August 1974 noting approval of Memorandum of Agreement and completion of Section 106 process.

12. Letter dated 11 January 1972 from Mr. Bill W. Dean, Assistant Director of Cooperative Activities, National Park Service, Midwest Region; and letter dated 20 March 1973 from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 20240, signed by Mr. Ken Topman, Compliance Officer. 13. Ground-water Hydrology of Emigration Canyon. Salt Lake County. Utah. Jack Arnold Barnett, Masters thesis, University of Utah, Department of Geology, August 1966.

14. Great Basin Region Framework Study, 30 June 1971, Pacific Southwest Inter-agency Committee, Water Resources Council. APPENDIX i)

LETTERS RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Pa^e

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency L>-1

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service I>-5

Department of Housing and Urban Development D-12

Department of the Interior D-13

State of Utah D-22

Sierra Club, Uinta Chapter D-25

Utah Environment Center D-26

Stanley 3. Mulaik D-29

National Wildlife Federation D-34 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VIII I860 LINCOLN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203

JUN 2 5 1974

Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr. District Engineer Department of the Army Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Colonel Rockwell:

The following comments constitute our review of the draft environmental impact statement for the authorized Little Dell Lake Project in Utah. Project purposes include flood control, M and I water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife.

The area that would be affected by the project is an important, environmentally sensitive component of the resource base of the greater Salt Lake area. Planning programs for the Salt Lake area should stress those plan elements that protect or enhance the environmental resources of the area. Further, the adequacy of mitigation measures should be carefully eva­ luated for those impacts which are unavoidable.

Water quality discussions provided in the statement reflect, for the most part, the type of water quality response which can be anticipated with the project. Some additional or supportive comments on water quality are offered for your consideration.

Recognizing that the proposed reservoir will be vulnerable to non-point pollution, various efforts should be initiated to minimize these possible impacts including the application of appropriate land-use controls in the upper watershed area. Emphasis should be placed on controls to reduce sedimentation, nutrients and coliforra-contributions to the proposed Little Dell Lake. The statement indicates that the ultimate recreation design capacity will be 8,000 people per day. If the quality of the environment is to be maintained, careful consideration must be given to the design, location and adequacy of facili­ ties to support this level of use. Of particular concern to our agency would be the adequacy of sanitation facilities and controls to minimize non-point pollution problems in the vicinity of the reservoir. The parallel between the proposed Little Dell Lake and the established Mountain Dell Reservoir in regard to the possible water quality impacts appear realis­ tic. Even with diluted waters, some algal blooms can be anticipated in Little Dell Lake, particularly for the first few years after waters are impounded with some decrease in the frequency of algal blooms once a nutrient balance is achieved. The potential for intense algal blooms would be greatest during periods of substantial reservoir drawdown when the concentrations of nutrients would be the highest. Spring and fall overturns would increase the availability of nutrients to plant life.

If the use of copper sulfate is contemplated to reduce algal growths, concentrations should be kept below toxicity levels for trout. Maximum acceptable levels to protect the cold water fisheries would be lower than that required to pro­ tect domestic water supplies (taste).

It is questionable if powered boats should be permitted, considering the size of the impoundment, the intensity of use, safety factors, proximity to Salt Lake City and the increased bank erosion that would result. Further detracting from the overall recreation experience would be the aesthetic impairment created during periods of extensive reservoir drawdown and resulting exposed mud flats in the headwaters of the reservoir.

The project would impact fish and wildlife resources in the project area and in peripheral areas as well. We defer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Utah the technical evaluation of fish and wildlife impacts.

The statement has been classified as category 2 with environmental reservations. A copy of the criteria used in evaluating impact statements is enclosed. If we can be of any further assistance to your agency in finalizing the subject statement, please advise us.

SincereJy yours,

xrdohn A. Green Regional Administrator CHAPTER ‘3 •PREPARATION, APPROVAL, AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS ON REVIEW OF FEDERAL ACTIONS , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS IMPACTING THE ENVIRONMENT

Environmental Impact of the Action LO--Lack of Objections

EPA has no objections to the proposed action as described in the draft impact statement; or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.

ER— Environmental Reservations

EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain aspects of the proposed action. EPA believes that further study of suggested alternatives or modifications is required and has asked the originating Federal agency to reassess these aspects.

EU— Environmentally Unsatisfactory

EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of its potentially harmful effect on the environment. Furthermore, the Agency believes that the potential safe­ guards which might be utilized may not adequately protect the environment from hazards arising from this action. The Agency recommends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further (including the possibility of no action at all).

Adequacy of the Impact Statement

Category 1— Adequate

The draft impact statement adequately sets forth the environmental impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. Category 2— Insufficient Information

EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not contain sufficient information to assess fully the environmental impact of the proposed project or action. However, from the information submitted, the Agency is able to make a preliminary determination of the impact on the environment. EPA has requested that the originator provide the informa­ tion that was not included in the draft statement.

Category 3— Inadequate

EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not adequately assess the environmental impact of the proposed project or action, or that the statement inadequately analyzes reasonably available alternatives. The Agency has requested more information and analysis concerning the potential environmental hazards and has asked that substan­ tial revision be made to the impact statement.

If a draft impact statement is assigned a Category 3, no rating will be made of the project or action, since a basis does not generally exist on which to make such a determination. U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o p A g r i c u l t u r e FOREST SERVICE

V»s*tch National Forest <1311 Federal tullding, 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138

May 8, 1974

Mr. Lee J. McQuivey Department of the A m y Corps of Engineers 135 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138

Dear Lee:

We are forwarding our comments on your draft environmental impact statement on the Little Dell Project proposal for your use in pre­ paring the report to the Council on Environmental Quality.

Also enclosed is a copy of the Forest Service Impact Survey Report for the Little Dell Project (Proposed) which was prepared in 1967. Since this report was written, the capacity of the proposed Little Dell Resevoir has been reduced from 50,000 acre-feet to 30,000 acre-feet and the Mill Creek diversion and tunnel deferred. Although a considerable part of the report is directed at the deferred Mill Creek diversion and tunnel, we feel it will be of value to you in evaluating the impacts that the other proposed features will have on the uses, facilities, services, and management of the Wasatch National Forest. We recommend this report be included in the appendix of your final statement.

If we can be of further assistance to you in the planning for this project, please let us know.

Sincerely,

CHANDLER P. ST. JOHN Forest Supervisor FOREST SERVICE COMMENTS

RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF LITTLE DELL LAKE, SALT LAKE CITY STREAMS UTAH

Prepared by

The Department of Agriculture

U. S. Forest Service

Region 4 SECTION 1 - Project Description

The title of the proposed project, as used throughout the Draft Environmental Statement and other recent documents, is Little Dell Lake. The facility is to be operated as a fluctuating reservoir with considerable dravdown during very dry years. Using the title of Little Dell Lake could be somewhat mis­ leading to the public expecting to find a natural lake in a native setting.

Page 2 (4d) Recreation Development

The picnic sites, as shown in the "General Design Memorandum," are too close to the stream and reservoir. The impact of heavy recreation use will result in a deterioration of the sites adjacent to the major attraction— water. Also, that use will compound the problem of protecting water quality. The picnic sites should be located farther from the stream with access to the stream by foot trails only.

Is it logical to construct a visitor center and Pioneer museum here when both facilities are already planned on a much larger scale at "This Is The Place" monument?

Page 7. It states that "Little Dell Lake would provide a new fresh water lake resource with much needed day-use picnic areas, nonpower boating, a lake fishery and related outdoor activities. High speed boating would be prohibited to avoid conflicts with other uses on the small surface area of the lake." On Page 27, the following is stated "(5) Limitations will be employed to pre­ vent boat motors of high horsepower and keep boat speeds within acceptable limits or perhaps limit use to non-power boats." We recommend these two references be correlated as to planned allowable boating on the reservoir.

Page 7,c. A reference is made here concerning "960,000 recreation days annually." On page 49, we find "visitation at the project is expected to reach 960,000 people annually." In reading these descriptions of levels of estimated recreation use, we are unable to tell if the 960,000 figure is recreation days or visits. Most agencies consider a visitor day to be 12 hours or more and a visit to be anything from one minute to 12 hours. Some definition of recreation days and visitation would be helpful.

That estimated volume of use on a small reservoir subject to drawdown during part of the recreation season seems extremely high. That volume is close to the use we have tallied in any single canyon on the Wasatch National Forest. The following table shows the 1973 use figures for three of the most heavily used canyons:

CANYONS VISITS NON-REC. VISITOR DAYS Mill Creek 1,139,200 3,000 208,800 Big Cottonwood 1,081,600 69,500 754,600 Little Cottonwood 424,100 47,300 304,800 Page 11. The following statement is presented in the third paragraph: "Estimated annual fishing benefits amount to $40,000." It is assumed a "put and take" fishery will be developed. No indication is given as to whether or not the cost of stocking has been included as a cost of the project.

Page 24. The brief description of multiple use may be expanded as follows: The Forest Service manages the National Forests for Multiple Use as directed by the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Multiple Use means the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest so that they are utilized in the combination that best meets the needs of the American people. The principal management thrust under Multiple Use along the Wasatch Front is the protection and improvement of the water­ shed which is the major source of water for the Salt Lake Valley.

Reference is made to fact that "a high recreational use in the area could input nutrient and coliform loads into Little Dell if proper waste disposal facilities are not installed." On Page 27 it states: "Sanitary facilities will be constructed in such a way as to prevent all unacceptable water quality effects frcm this source."

The high day-use figures predicted for Little Dell Lake raise several concerns pertaining to water quality. With swimming, boating, fishing, and the large recreation complex which are proposed, an impact upon water quality appears to be unavoidable.

One area of concern is the disposal of waste frcm the proposed recreation facilities. The obvious alternatives appear to be a sewerline the length of Parley's Canyon to tie into the Salt Lake City system, a lagoon system to be constructed and operated in the immediate area, or sealed vaults to be pumped and the waste hauled to the Salt Lake City system. If flush-type toilets are planned, it would appear the sealed vaults w u l d be prohibitive frcm a maintenance standpoint.

On Page 74 of the General Design memorandum, reference is made to flush-type restrooms with septic tanks and leaching fields. That disposal method would be completely unacceptable in a municipal watershed.

Another area pf concern is the effect of the concentrated recreational use upon water quality. It would be desirable to provide for water quality standards that are consistent with other uses and activities. The establish­ ment of physical, biological, and chemical parameters which must be maintained would seem essential if the facility is to provide municipal and industrial water to Salt Lake City. The degree of recreational development and use of the Little Dell Project should logically be keyed to the established water quality parameters. The attached chart, which was prepared for Little Cottonwood Canyon, shows the relationship between volume of recreation use and water quality. Table INDEX OF WATER POLLUTION VERSUS CANYON USAGE

Annual Avg. Coliform Count Average Daily Traffic Annual Visitor Davs Annual Skier Year MNP/100 ml Index Count Index Thousands Index Thousands

1967 8 100 746 100 165 100 119

1 96S . 7 . 86 862 116 163 99 156

1969 14 162 1,105 148 245 148 172 1970 34 404 ' 1,160 155 ' 270 163 197

1971 59 698 1,393 187 ■ 282 171 182 1972 67 793 2,233 299 413a . 250 310

Sources: Suit Lake City Water Supply &'Waterworks Utah State Department of Highways U.S. Forest Service Alta and Snowbird Resorts LeBlanc & Company Pages 24 and 25. Emigration Canyon. We have some concerns about the effect of this diversion on groundwater and wells in the canyon that are not answered by this brief discussion. On page 17, reference is made to more detailed studies cf the groundwater situation in Emigration Canyon, but there is no information available now on which we can base any comments.

We also are concerned about what effects the lower flows in the creek may have on the riparian vegetation. There could be adverse impacts on the aesthetics of the canyon and also an increase in the already extremely hazardous fire situation by the creation of more dry fuels.

Page 29. The impression is given that the approximately 20 acres of National Forest land required for the Little Dell Project is zoned as FR-1 or FR-50 by the County Commission. National Forest lands are not part of the County Zoning. The plan of use of these National Forest lands is the responsibility of the Wasatch National Forest under the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. however, we do honor county zoning, and we are no less restrictive on public lands than the county is on adjacent private land.

Page 35 and Page 38. "Excavation required for the Lambs Creek Diversion pipeline will temporarily SCAR a portion of the sagebrush covered landscape." Several existing gas pipelines in the same vicinity give evidence that scars resulting from excavation are more than temporary. Seeding the area with grasses to be followed by planting with browse species may help restore a natural appearance sooner and provide food for wildlife.

Relocation of the two crude oil, three natural gas, and one underground tele­ phone line will create additional disturbances and unnatural lines through the native vegetation.

Page 50. Paragraph 3 refers to discussions with the State Division of Parks and Recreation concerning administration, operation, and maintenance of the recreation facilities and use after completion of the construction phase. Considering the large number of planned recreation facilities and huge volumes of predicted visits per day, it would appear to be important that necessary agreements or memoranda for operation and maintenance responsibilities be • firmed up with the State, City or County before the final environmental state­ ment is submitted.

Page 53. A reference is made to "bitterbrush and salthrush" being found in the proposed Little Dell Lake area. We cannot recall ever having seen salt- brush in this area and are wondering if the author intended to refer to bitterbrush and mountain mahogany. Pages 56 and 60. The discussions on these pages pertaining to deer and elk, their habitat, and the effect of the project on both raise some questions. The opinion is given on page 56 that the habitat impacted by the project is not "considered to be critical to the deer or elk which use the area." Later on the same page it is indicated that "loss of habitat could result in a small loss in the size of the migratory deer herd. We believe any habitat, which the loss thereof will result in a reduction in the size of the herd, should be considered to be critical.

On page 60 it is indicated "a possible decrease in the elk herd" could result from the loss of habitat. This possibility is not evaluated on page 56 under beneficial and detrimental effects.

Pages 77 and 78. There is no indication given that the utility or oil companies who own the two crude oil lines, three natural gas lines, and one underground and one overhead telephone line have been requested to participate in the preliminary planning or review the draft environmental statement and submit their comments. It would have been helpful to us in our review of the proposed Little Dell Lake project to have some data available as to what specific segments of the various lines are involved, and where the various companies propose to seek alternate routes. Many of the alternate routes could signi­ ficantly impact National Forest lands, resources, and their use.

General. On pages 23 and 24 of the attached Impact Survey report by the Forest Service, December 1967, there is a discussion of Fire Protection, parti­ cularly in connection with the construction phase of the project.

Fire protection measures should also be an integral part of the planning for recreation sites and trail systems in the vicinity of this project. Parley's and Dell drainages are high hazard fire areas. A large fire in either drainage would cause serious impacts from the standpoint of erosion, flooding, water quality, and aesthetics.

The Forest Service would be pleased to cooperate in planning special fife protection measures for this area. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL BUILDING. 19th AND STOUT STREETS DENVER, COLORADO 80202

May 9, 19T1*

Mr. F. G. Rockwell, Jr. Colonel, C. E. District Engineer Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 9581h

Dear Mr. Rockwell:

Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement Little Dell Lake Salt Lake City Streams, Utah

We have reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Statement transmitted to the HUD Environmental Clearance Officer, Washington, D. C., by your March 27, 197*+ letter. As you were advised by Mr. Richard H. Broun in his April 10, 197^* letter the draft was forwarded to this office for review.

All future documents relative to Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah should be sent directly to the Denver Regional Office.

As you know, HUD is primarily concerned with (l) the effect of a pro­ posed action on the urbem environment, and (2) the consistency of such actions with the comprehensive planning for the area.

Several aspects of the proposed project will effect-the -urban area, Salt Lake City, but they are primarily beneficial. The proposal will also require the moving of roadways, utility lines, and will effect future land use in certain areas, as well as require local financing for some proposed activities.

In view of our areas of responsibility we suggest (l) that close coordin­ ation be maintained with the local governing bodies and planning agencies, and (2) that methods of minimizing the adverse environmental effects which are inherent with the construction and long term use of such a facility be considered: i.e. water pollution, noise pollution, air pol­ lution, etc.

If you have any questions on the above comments do not hesitate to contact us.

Sinaarelv. -

jteeyi. uuxurixj. Director, Community Evaluation and Standards Division United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MISSOURI BASIN REGION DENVER, COLORADO 80225

car ism Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr. District Engineer Department of the Army Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Colonel Rockwell:

This letter is in response to your request of March 27, 1974, for the Department of the Interior's comments on the draft environmental statement on Little Dell Lake Project, Salt Lake City Streams, Utah. We appreciate your cooperation in extending the review period for the Department of the Interior.

General Comments

There is a lack of quantifying information throughout the draft envi­ ronmental statement which is necessary to (1) describe the present environment and (2) assess adequately the present environmental impacts. Specific areas of concern where quantification data are lacking are description of physical changes proposed through con­ struction of project, water quality conditions, big-game, and fishery resources. Without detailed information of present condi­ tions, an adequate assessment of the impact of the proposed project on these environmental conditions cannot be made.

We find that there was essentially no effort to assess secondary impacts of actions proposed in the Little Dell Lake Project. The "Specific Comments” section of this letter will point out where we consider secondary impacts would occur, but were not presented.

Specific Comments

Page 1 : Reference is made to continuing discussions with the State Division of Parks and Recreation concerning the possibility of its assuming requirements of cost sharing and operation and maintenance for recreation costs.

It is imperative that a firm obligation for operation and maintenance of the proposed recreation facilities be consummated prior to estab­ lishment of the facilities. A realization of the projected 960,000 recreational days annually at the area (8,000 people per day) will place a tremendous stress on the reservoir, fish and wildlife resources, sani­ tation facilities, picnic areas, and surrounding lands. These resources and facilities will have to undergo continual management and upkeep to remain appealing and safe to the public. The cost of providing recre­ ation facilities and the operation and maintenance costs for 960,000 annual visits should be presented. If the State is the administering agency, it will have to assume one-half the specific costs of such development, plus all the operation and maintenance costs.

Page 4: A more thorough discussion should be presented as to why the Little Dell Dam and Lake were designed to provide greater than the standard project flood protection.

Page 5: In referencing the Bonneville Unit, it is felt that a more detailed definition of the Bonneville Unit should be presented.

The "pre-Bonneville" conditions considered, which show a "preproject system yield" of 158,400 a.f. per year, are not correct "pre-Bonneville" conditions; but are present conditions with Jordan Aqueduct and Jordan Narrows Treatment Plant in operation.

The above Bonneville Unit facilities have removed capacity limitations in Little Cottonwood Treatment Plant and Salt Lake Aqueduct, making additional Provo River Project water and available local waters usable.

Page 7 : There is an apparent inconsistency regarding the type of boats that will be permitted on the reservoir. In one instance, it states that nonpower boating will be provided, and later in the section it states that high-speed boating will be prohibited. One could conclude from the latter statement that low-horsepower boating would, in fact, be permitted. In view of the large number of people that would be participating in the various reservoir-related activities, it would be extremely hazardous and annoying to permit any motorized boating.

Page 8 : Reference is made to the simulated reservoir studies based on historical flows from 1930 to 1968 which show that water supply releases and resulting lake drawdown would be made during only six of the 39 years studied.

A review has been made of charts prepared from the simulated reservoir studies, and it has been concluded that it would be appropriate to include them as part of the final statement. Upon review of these charts, one would see that the reservoir is drawn below 30,000 a.f. during more than six of the 39 years studied. One would also observe that from 1941-1946 and 1961-1965, the reservoir was drawn down to less than 10,000 a.f., and that it took five and four years, respectively, to refill. This is significant in view of the fact that much of the project justification is based on recreation benefits. One could ques­ tion how appealing the proposed reservoir will be for recreation if it is drawn down for such extensive periods.

The final statement should also include a topographic map of the reser­ voir site showing how much bottom area will be exposed when the reser­ voir is drawn down to various levels.

Page 11: The draft environmental statement indicates that, "...general recreation benefits, computed at a unit value of $1.50 per day of recre­ ation use, are estimated at $1,360,000 per year." This means general recreation visitation is expected to be slightly over 900,000 per annum, which amounts to more than 2,500 visits per water-surface acre.

Our review of the project indicates that assigning the maximum value of $1.50 per recreation visit is too high, especially since some of the more desirable water activities, such as high-speed boating, are pro­ hibited. These many visits at a relatively small area could result in degradation of the site unless intensive management is applied. In addition, many of the visitors will be sightseeing or involved in other day-use activities, and such activities do not warrant such a high recre­ ation-day value.

Page 12: We suggest that a map showing the location and extent of borrow material would be helpful in understanding the impact of this activity. The estimated volumes of borrow should be presented along with a dis1- cussion of riprap source, or whatever other means are to be employed to protect the face of Little Dell Dam from wave action.

We believe that for completeness, the environmental statement should, under "Geology" or "Natural Resources," include a brief description of the mineral resources of the area. It should also point out that chang­ ing geologic concepts and new technologies may result in the finding of new mineral resources at depth.

Known mineral resources within the reservoir site and surrounding area consist of sand and gravel and limestone. No known producing facilities are located in the area, but two crude oil and three natural gas pipe­ lines cross the site. The draft environmental statement indicates an awareness of the pipelines, and states (page 3) that they will be relocated. It also states (pages 12, 34-35, and 38) that borrow areas will be inundated or regraded and planted.

An examination of file data, without benefit of field investigation, shows that during 1971, mineral deposits in Salt Lake County yielded copper, molybdenum, gold, silver, lead, cement, zinc, sand and gravel, salt, lime, and stone valued at about $318.9 million.

In a 1964 review of a report on this project, engineers of the Bureau of Mines concluded that construction of the Little Dell Project would have no adverse effect on mineral resources in the specific area, or on the general industry in the Salt Lake area west of the project site. We believe these comments remain valid.

The project is in a seismic risk zone where earthquakes may cause moder­ ate to major damage to man-made facilities. The final environmental statement should discuss the susceptibility of the proposed facilities to earthquake damage, what design features the facilities will have to resist potential damage, and what secondary impacts would occur down­ stream if the dam should fail.

Page 13: The mitigation and remedial measures for revegetation of areas disturbed in the construction of the project should be described in more detail.

Page 16; In referring to the May 1952 flood, we feel that it is impor­ tant to explain what "year" occurrence a 580 c.f.s. flow represents; specifically, where the flow occurred, and what the sources of the flood waters were.

There needs to be a more detailed description of the population pro­ jections, as well as a reference to where the figures presented in the draft environmental statement were obtained. Reference should be made as to how the population figures compare with the projections of the Office of Business Economics, Department of Commerce, and the Economic Research Service, Department of Agriculture.

The progressive increase from per capita use of water during the next 50 years may be excessive. If the present trend for the construction of multiple dwelling units (apartments) relative to single dwellings continues in the area, the per capita use of water will remain stable, or it may possibly decrease. An increase in the price of water would certainly result in a decrease in per capita use. Page 17; We do not feel that an adequate discussion of the diversion of Emigration Canyon water, as related to its effect on groundwater, is presented to justify the conclusion that no impact would occur. The final environmental statement should describe the results of studies presently underway that are referred to in the draft environmental state­ ment .

Page 18: Present uses of both surface and underground water supplies in Emigration Canyon should be presented in the environmental state­ ment.

Page 21: The expected impacts on water quality of Little Dell Lake, by diverting Emigration and Lambs Canyon Creeks into it, should be pre­ sented. The statement regarding impact on water quality of Mountain Dell Reservoir as a result of releases from Little Dell Lake, "...could either degrade or enhance water quality...," appears inadequate and evasive. A detailed analysis of expected water quality from Little Dell Lake by season and resultant impact on Mountain Dell Reservoir water quality should be quantified in order to determine the effect of municipal water suitability from Mountain Dell Reservoir.

Page 22: There is no analysis of Lambs Canyon water quality. It is therefore difficult for a reviewer of the draft environmental state­ ment to understand how nutrients in Little Dell Lake will be diluted at the 2 to 1 ratio by Lambs Canyon water. What does the term "good" represent in terms of coliform count, dissolved oxygen, sediments, and nutrients as a description of water quality of Dell and Parleys Creeks?

Page 23: A discussion of the operation of Mountain Dell Reservoir is presented on page 20 as related to water quality changes by elevation during the various seasons. The quality of water released from Little Dell Lake will have a significant effect on the quality of water in Mountain Dell Reservoir; therefore, a more indepth presentation of Little Dell Lake water quality and related elevation of outlet is required in order to determine what effect Little Dell Lake water releases will have on Mountain Dell Reservoir water quality.

Page 24; What is the expected increase in sediment in Little Dell Lake as a result of diversions from Emigration Canyon and resultant decrease in storage capacity in Little Dell Lake over the life of the project.

Page 26 and Item 3 of Page 27: What does the phrase "proper management" mean with respect to improving quality of water released from Little Dell Lake to Mountain Dell Reservoir? The Water Quality section fails to evaluate the impact of recreation use at Little Dell Lake on water quality at both Little Dell Lake and Mountain Dell Reservoir. Apparently, no impact is expected; however, we could not agree with such an assessment, and would, in fact, have to conclude, even though detailed information is not specifically avail­ able to support such a conclusion, that significant water pollution will occur from the high intensity of recreation use predicted at Little Dell Lake. Studies funded by the Salt Lake County Commission, Forest Service, and the University of Utah on the quality of water in Little Cottonwood Canyon have shown that even with proper sanitation facilities, significant water pollution occurs from intense human recreational use of that canyon. The actual "use" figures in Little Cottonwood Canyon are far less than those predicted at Little Dell Lake. Another impor­ tant consideration to water quality of Little Dell Lake, which is not a factor in Little Cottonwood Canyon recreation activities, is that water contact sports will be allowed at Little Dell Lake.

Page 30: The amount of land area required and subsequent land use changes for each feature should be shown for a project this size. How many acres for Little Dell Lake? How much area for Parleys Creek diver­ sion pipeline, etc? What is the length of Highway 65 that will be inun­ dated? What is the length of the relocation, and how much land will be required for relocation?

Page 36: The relocation of Highway 65 may result in significant circle slips on adjacent hillsides due to road cut. This situation has been demonstrated by recent construction of 1-80 in Parleys Canyon. Unless the geology is significantly more stable than 1-80, efforts to prevent land movement causing significant esthetic impairments will occur. The entire subject of geology and stability of the land masses in the Little Dell Reservoir area has not been adequately documented nor discussed.

Page 38: The proposed project does not have an adverse effect upon any studied or established units of the National Park System. Moreover, no eligible sites for registration as National, Natural, or Environmental Educational Landmarks are involved.

We note, however, that the Little Dell Lake Project will have a direct effect upon Emigration Canyon, which is a Registered National Historic Landmark on Utah 65. Diversion of waterflow from Emigration Creek will alter the historic natural scene and can be expected to have some adverse effect upon the ecology of the area. The actual results are not possible to fully calculate. Furthermore, the inundation of 1.5 miles of the Mormon/Pony Express Trail is to be regretted. Page 43 of the draft environmental statement suggests that since there are 1200 miles of trail, this little sement does not matter; the location of the segment gives it added significance, and this fact has been overlooked.

We note that Little Dell Station is to be relocated. This structure is presently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Such action will invalidate the present listing. The present location of this structure is of primary historical importance in the original justification in support of its nomination.

The environmental impact statement mentions an archeological survey of the proposed Little Dell Lake area. We believe the final statement should identify the archeologist who made this investigation, describe the extent of it, and include the archeologist's report of findings. The final statement should also verify consultation with the Utah State Archeologist, Dr. David D. Madsen, 603 East South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102, and reflect his comments in support of the assertions in this statement.

The final environmental statement should also reflect consultation with the National Register of Historic Places and contain evidence of con­ sultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Mr. Milton L. Weilenmann, Executive Director, Department of Development Services, 312 State Capitol Building, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. The draft environmental statement gives no indication either of these offices were contacted.

The natural scene is bound to suffer severe environmental effects from a project of this scope. In this connection, we note the alternatives cited. Other considerations notwithstanding, we believe it appropriate to suggest further consideration of the "New Mountain Dell" damsite as a satisfactory alternate to the proposed Little Dell Lake. We are inter­ ested in minimizing to the maximum exter*- possible the loss of irretrieva­ ble, cultural, historical, and natural resources. We urge that no effort be spared to accomplish this objective.

Page 56: The statement is made that, "...While none of the habitat, which would be eliminated or disturbed, is considered to be critical to the deer or elk which use the area, it is used by these species...."

We do not consider this to be an adequate assessment of the value of this vegetation to the big-game animals which inhabit the project area. The habitat which would be eliminated or disturbed is, in fact, critical to the deer and elk, and will become increasingly important in future years. As mentioned later in this section of the statement, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife) did not recommend mitigation measures in its 1966 report to offset this loss of winter feeding habitat; however, since the time that agency's report was prepared, development within the Salt Lake Valley has increased, and encroachment on winter range along the Wasatch Front has proceeded at an unprecedented rate. Availability of adequate winter range during severe winters has become so limited that the animals are being forced into crowded residential areas where they are subjected to human disturbance and heavy auto traffic. To ensure the conservation and prepetuation of these herds in the project area, it is necessary that adequate measures be taken to mitigate losses of critical winter range lost to Little Dell Lake inundation.

Page 59: There needs to be a summary table showing all of the project environmental costs and benefits in nonmonetary terms, miles of stream, acres of open and green space, miles of open conduit, loss of fishery and wildlife, etc., to assist reviewer in balancing environmental costs (losses) versus benefits.

Page 61: The deferment of the Mill Creek Canyon diversion needs to be fully explained earlier in the report. The final environmental state­ ment should state whether it will serve as the NEPA compliance for Mill Creek Canyon features of the Little Dell Project.

Page 66: A map showing alternative damsites would be helpful.

Page 69: The alternative planning relating to the total potential water supply development of the Salt Lake City streams considered in the Secre­ tary of the Army's 1967 Review Report is not clearly presented. An exami­ nation of project water supply potential, pre-Bonneville Unit, should be discussed in nontechnical language that can be easily understood by the general public.

Both Strawberry Collection System and diking of Utah Lake are needed to develop M&I imports to Salt Lake County. Jordanelle and Jordan Aqueduct cannot do it alone.

Page 70: Assuming (as stated) that 175,000 a.f. per year of groundwater is the ultimate level of development (withdrawals during the past 11 years have averaged 113,000 a.f. per year, with a maximum annual figure of 129,000 a.f.), this would leave a minimum of 46,000 a.f. per year avail­ able for additional development, and not 30,000 as stated. A breakdown and discussion of the quality of underground water quality should be presented.

We appreciate the opportunity afforded us to review the draft environ­ mental statement on the Little Dell Lake Project.

Sincerely,

Special AssistaAc to the Secretary Calvin L. Rampton Burton L. Carlson Governor State Planning Coordinator

STATE OF UTAH Office of the STATE PLANNING COORDINATOR 118 Su m Capitol Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 (801) 328-8248

May 6, 1974

Sacramento District Corps of Engineers Sacramento, California

Subject: Little Dell Lake

Gentlemen:

The State Division of Parks and Recreation has assisted us in reviewing the above Environmental Impact Statement.

It would be helpful if you could further clarify the distance between Mountain Dell Reservoir and Little Dell Lake. Under lo­ cation in Section I of the project description you say "the damsite would be 1.5 miles upstream from the existing Mountain Dell Reser­ voir." Does this mean Little Dell Lake will be located 1.5 miles upstream from Mountain Dell Dam, or the end of the Reservoir?

Also under the heading of Project Description under paragraph three, you say that "discussions are continuing with the State Division of Parks and Recreation concerning the possibility of their assuming requirements of cost-sharing and operation and maintenance for recreation costs." It should be pointed out that the State Legislature is charged with the responsibility of making this determination.

In light of similar developments in the general area of Little Dell Lake, the State Division of Parks and Recreation recommends that a visitor center and Pioneer museum not be developed at the present time.

You are probably aware that the Bureau of Reclamation may be forced to redesign the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. In light of the possibility of this occurring we would like some clarification as to why water for municipal and industrial water supply will not be available until 1990. Perhaps this area of the project needs further consideration.

On Page seven under Item C, Recreation, you recommend that high speed boating be prohibited to avoid conflict with other uses on the lake. The final draft statement should point out that upon recommendation of the Boating Advisory Council the Board of Parks and Recreation is the body ultimately responsible for making this decision.

At the top of Page nine it would be helpful if you would include an additional column equating average storage to average surface size.

Item Number seven on Page ten indicates you plan an economic life of 100 years for the project. Is this an accurate indication of the life of the planned recreation facilities and of the project itself?

At the top of Page 13 you point out that borrow excavation will have no impact on geology. This may be true, however, the impact on aesthetics, vegetation, wildlife, etc., may be signifi­ cant. Perhaps this section of the statement should further discuss the impact of borrow excavation.

Frankly, the possibility of a lake oriented recreation experience which would accommodate on estimated 8,000 daily visitors is a little frightening. It is our hope that if recreation continues to be an integral part of this project, that adequate measures will be taken to accommodate a population of this size.

The Corp of Engineers might consider purchasing an additional 200-300 feet of land on the south shore of the lake boundaries to insure that the area will be protected from encroachment by private developers.

It would be helpful if you would create a map similar to Chart 3, indicating the northern boundary of the project. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the above EIS.

Sincerely,

Grover Thompson Environmental Coordinator SIERRA CLUB | UINTA CHAPTER NOT BljNI) OPPOSITION TO PROGRESS... I BUT OPPOSITION TO BUM ) PROGRESS

j I865 Herbert Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah PA 108 April 28, 197A

F.G. Rockwall, Jr., District Ehgineer Department of the Army Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers 6 5 O Capitol Kail Sacramento, California 95P*1A

Daar Colonal Rockwall:

Tkis latter is to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Statement on tha Tittle Dali Lake Project. Before proceeding with those comments, ve wish to taka tkis opportunity to express our dismay at bain*; required to provide comments within only 30 days fro* tk# time of receipt of the DES. Normally, A5 days are provided for the comment period on a draft statement, and the public cannot be expected to do a thorough and adequate job without the necessary time to review the statement. Therefore, these comments are bein' filed with the understanding that they are Incomplete and additional concerns and objections may be raised at some later point in the process.

At this point in time we have two major concerns. First, it is difficult to understand the justification of Little Dell solely as a flood control project. The benefits to flood control seetm highly inflated, and the project appears to be inadequate to prevent damages fro* flooding which occurs from heavy and rapid runoff from the Wasatch Front adjacent to the city. That type of flood represents the greatest threat to the city, and little Dell seems irrelevant to the problem. Those difficulties seem to be better handled by enlargement of the capacity of storm drains at lower elevations. That alternative seems to be dealt with in a superficial and inadequate manner.

An even more serious problem in the statement surrounds the treatment of the potential for municipal and Industrial water supply that could be developed from the Little Dell Project. As I pointed out at the meeting held in Salt Lake City on February 13, 197A, Little Dell was originally designed to provide an increase of 3*>,000 acre-feet of fir* yield for MAI purposes in Salt Lake County. In addition, the April, 197^ Design Report on Little Dell points out that there is 30,000 af available from ground water, 10,000af from East Canyon Reservoir, and 20,000af fro* the Cottonwood Creeks. That adds up to 96,000af of M A I water which could be supplied to Salt Lake County.

It has become obvious why the M & I potential of Little Dell has been minimized by your organization: it will compete with the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project? Instead of assuming that the outrageously expensive and environmentally disastrous Bonneville Unit will be completed as plinned, the Corps should be thoroughly exploring all of the very attractive possibilities of the Little Dell Project as an alternative the Bonneville Unit. It is cheaper, environmentally more acceptable, and subject less opposition from groups such as ours, if it is approached in a reasonable way. OWithout such consideration of that alternative, the Final Statement will be woefully inadequate. livid C. Raskin, Fh.D. Vice Chairman ’utaV) CQLriroiyrpctyt ca rter 1247 u>i 11771 r^tor) cwyVe-salt lake cjty *vtal) eMo

April 2(5, 197^

Department of the Army Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers b50 Capitol Kail Sacramento, CA 9581**

Dear Sirs:

Following are our comments on the draft envirnmental impact statement on the Little Dell Lake Project: bection 1 - Project description 1. If the Utah Department of the State Parks and Recreation (DSPR) is unable to assume necessary costs (page 1, para­ graph j), will the Corps ot Engineers assume the develop­ mental costs? Or will the recreation potential be left undeveloped0

2. We recommend that you discuss the following: A. How Long will it take to complete the project, once that it has begun. B. The rate at which the newly-created basin will be flooded. C. fne expected lifespan 01 tne reservoir (as a consequence of sediment inflows.)

Section II - Existing resources and environmental impact J. Geology - Paragraph nine contains no discussion of possibl impact of the reservoir on geologic stability of land masses in the region, which is only a few miles from the Wasatch Fault. li. Water quality A. We are disappointed at the general lack of numerical water quality data in the report. If these are existent, they should be given in the report (9f in only an appendix); if not, we think they should be obtained, before the final statement, for Dell Creek (above and below the reservoir site) and for Emigration and Laubs Creek above the projected diversions. Of particular importance would be data on coliform bacteria, nitrates, total and ortho—phosphates, and total dissolved and suspended solids. B. Without water quality data, the statement (page 22) "The quality of Dell Creek and Parleys Creek above the diversion is good, while quality of Emigration Canyon is less," is virtually meaningless. If data for Dell Creek is "sparse," )Pages 18-19) how can you infer tha the quality is good? (page 22) D -26 C. We are pleased to see that the statement recognizes the possibility of occasional algal blooms (pg 21 lines 3-z») but believe this possibility is too arbitrarily dismissed later in the statement )pg 22-23) As stated above, the discussion of "dilution of poor quality by good quality waters" is meaningless without numerical data. D. We question the basis for the statement (pg 23» line 5) "However, this initial leaching of soluble salts should not be significant". What constitues "signi­ ficance"? Additiona, specific data on the soils at the construction site would be helpful to us. E. On page 23, lines 17-19: we suggest you outline in the final report what you expect the levels of re­ leases to be (approximately). F. We believe that possible adverse water quality impacts on Mountain Dell of reducing the flushing flows (pg 26, lines 3-^) in Mountain Dell Reservoir are inadequately considered here. G. In light of the possibility of algal blooms, at least during the first few years of operation, we think the statement (pg 57 < lines 1*1-1 5 ) that the newly created lake fishery is expected to support a "good" trout population should be qualified. Although some elev­ ation in the reserviour's primary productivty will help trout, too much will deplete benthic oxygen and, coupled with the fluctuating nature of the reserviour, may lower somewhat its value to trout. H. Sirailarily, the occurance of nuisance algal blooms could lower aesthetic and recreational values of the proposed reserviour. We suggest that the report recognize this possibility. 5« Land Use - We hope you could discuss possibilites of the project encouraging or accelerating secondary, "satellite" land developments in the surrounding area. 6 . Recreation - The report makes no mention of increased litter and noise as a result of the project. 7. Costs, Benefits - (pg 10-11) While outlining in reason­ able detail the financial benefites of the project, this section wholly ignores any financially-detailed discussion of the costs, other than citing a figure of 5l,5^7*000 per annum.. Does this figure take into account the costs of V l) deterioration of downstream water quality, 2) loss of the existing stream fishery, 3 ) lowered recreation and fishery values as a result possible algal blooms k) loss of present agricultural production on the lands to be inundated, 5 ) loss of limited wildlife habitat, 6) cost of relocating the road and historic sites. We recommend that each of these costs be quantified at least as throughly as the "benefits" are. 8 . Natural Resources A. Appendix A ("Flora and Fauna of the Little hell Project Area") contains no list of the fishes, aqua­ tic macrophytes, aquatic insects, or algae of the project area. Since the project is obviously aquatic* these would seem at least as important as lists of terrestrial organisms. D. Although unlikely, it is not stated whether any of the streams affected by the project contain any rare of endangered species or subspecies of fish. Was this checked into, or merely assumed not to be the case? C. We would find it helpful is Appendix A contained a breif note of the current status (e.g. "common", "occasional") of each species, followed by the pro­ jected impact("increase", "decrease", "no change") D. Although no prairie falco habitat would be lost due to the construction of tne project (pg 5'11 lines 1-5) the disturbance created by 8000 visitors per day could be excessive to any falcons which night frequent the area. We suggest you mention this. E. The golden eagle is another species which would lose out from excessive human disturbance. While not an officially endangered species, it is not a common one and it has high esthetic value. It regularily nests in adjacent canyons, so it is virtually certain to use the project area (as noted in Appendix A) and consequantly could be affected by the project. We recommend tnis species be more tnoroughly discussed along with the prarie falcon.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this importnnt area.

Sincerely,

Paul R. Adamus, Contributing Biologist Utah Environment Center To Axyjjr Corps of Engineers P?j£rr Stanley E. liulaik Concerning Little Dell Dam Project

I am Stanley 5. Mulaik who has had a long interest in human ecology and some of the historical elements which have entered into the development of Utah. The Little Dell project as proposed must be placed into historical perspective. All of the higher reaches of the canyons, and that of course is true of Emigration and Dell Canyons, were heavily timbered when the first settlers came into the area. The removal of the tree cover opened the forest floor to the sun, and excellent grass and brouse developed. Sheepa and cattle were turned into this lush growth, and with the lack of knowledge of how to husband western mountain lands, too many sheepa and cattle boot denuded the earea. Even normal rains earnout of the canyons in flood. In a study of the water runoff since the guaging stations were placed at the mouths of the canyons, there it. revealed an interesting trend. In the years from 1898 to 1932 there were ten annual runoffs greater thah 23,200 acre feet in Parleys Canyon. In a like period from 1932 to 1963 there were only two such heavy runoffs. One of these was the runoff which contributed to the 1952 flood. A similar trend is found in Emigration Canyon. In the first third century there were three annual runoffs of less than 12,000 acre feet while in the next third century there were twelve such runoffs. This is accounted for by the gradual stabilization of the watersheds. Brushand trees add a reduction of grating increased the absorptive ground surface to greatly smooth* out the annual flew of the water. There has been great advantage in improving the absorption of water on such watersheds as that of Chalk Creek and on the Davis Watershed above Farmington. This was accomplished by suitable terracing ^nd the flooding was stopped. A look at the areas Involved showed no place to put dams, but the problem was solved witi| far less cost by the tarraces. Senator boss has pointed out in correspondence that little Dell Dam was needed to insure water for an increase of 10,000 people. Former Representative LLoyd argued in correspondence that flood control was the major factor,and the figures he supplied were obviously those supplied by the Army Corps of Engineers. He states that "Ihe Corps of Engineers estimates that average primary flood damage within the project area reach nearly $500,000. annually. In a statement of Rep. Lloyd before the House Public Works Committee on June 18, 1968 he stated: "...the 1952 flood inundated 1,200 acres of highly developed urban area causing an estimated $2,5 million in damages.: The Deseret i':ews reported an estimated half million damage by the flood. Hay 15. 1952. .dght the flood of 1952 be considered 'A Standa rd Project Flood?" Would one be twice as great? This is desert country, and in the 125 year history of the valley, that flood of 1952 was the greatest. In a letter from A.I. Gearndrot, Jr. Chief Engineering Division, Secramento, ary^ enclosure pointed out that theaverage flood control benefit annually would be about $1,082,000. Many of us who looked at the damage reported at the time of the flood were surprised at the large average damage to be prevented. Lloyd had mentioned that the area inundated covered 1,200 acres, yet the later engineering estimates placed the area flooded in 1952 at scarcely 1000 Acrels. In the July 1973 Draft Statement the estimate of damage was >1,324,000 and pencilled in above that figure was 1,402,000 which was "annual damages prevented; 96 percent of the damage to be prevented are in the 13th Street flood plain." In the larch 19?4 Draft Environmental Statement the figure was boosetd to $1,403,000 and this "Consists of annual damages prevented. Over 90 percent of the damage to be prevented ia in the 13th South Street flood plain." /.hat is not understood was how the increase was gradually enlarged, and tne 96 percent reduced to 90 percent. ' It is necessary to look at some of the records of the period of the flood. On /

On June 24, 19 5 2 the Deseret Hews reported that "A Utah flood study ended with the conclusion that quick action to fight floods with emergency structures was more sensible (economical) than-permanant structures with high maintenance costs (exceed damage.) Channels must be kept open and free from obstructions. Accuracy of Lrunoff estimates was good so how much water and when it was coming is known in the recent flood."

B y the end of June, fountain Dell F.eservoir was full. Then on July 31 we read Deseret Dews headlines 'T Lash Tloods Sweeps over Sait lake East Bench." Flood damage was in the thousands of dollars. Sugar House was flooded by Parley's Creek. There is nothing to prevent severe flooding even with the building of little Dell Reservoir should one storm fill the flood ietention volume and another storm to follow soon after.

a year later, on April 18, 1953 the Deseret News carried a story of a storm sewer which overflowed at Ninth South and Rain Streets. The Ninth South Street sewer was at fault because of its low capacity. layer Earl J. Glade said the flood highlighted the need for additional storm sewer capacity, yuoting the mayor, engineers have told me that the paving of additional streets in the city's residential areas on the north and east benches during the past few years is responsible for the addition of eighty-three second feet of water to the storm runoff for every inch of rainfall." Since the discussion fcn the impact statements are all on a 100 year basis, we take a look at the $1,403,000 average annual damage prevented by Little Dell Dam. r. Lee. iicQuivey said was derived by the Engineer economists. :fe need to see their figuring to arrive at that figure. Ity "economist" did some figuring. In a hundred years there would be $140,300,000 damage done to the city without Little Dell Dam. vith infaltion, anything might happen, even this (?) amount of damage. It is inconceivable in this desert country that we could have a standard Jroject Flood li;,e the one in 1952 happen more than once in a century. ..ere we to have a storm every twenty years on an average even much greater than the storm of 1 9 5 2 , this would be a storm damage average of $28,000,000 per storm. This is about 56 times as much damage as 'was caused in 1952 using Lajor General R.G. KacDonnell's figures in Senate document mentioned above. The estimate that 70 percent of ithe flood water came from above the diversion point for waters to go into little Dam is purely a guess with favor of promoting the project and not on the realities of where the major snow melt occurred. The whole west side of .ithe ’.'asatch poured water from its sun exposed face. Its historically absorptive region just below the old Lake Eonneville levels which was composed of sand gravel was replaced by cement and asphalt. Colonel Crawford Young, District Engineer in his report in the Senate Document 53. page 73 stated that even i'After construction of the Little Dell Project, the downstream areas involved would still be subject to a substantial damage potential from rainstorms concentrated in areas below the dam and diversion structures." _Q In Senate Document 52, 90th Congress, titled Little Eg11 Froject we find item under 15 RECOI-fllSKDATICi S '/dequately inform interests affected that the project does not provide protection against floods originating below the dam, and that the project-related diversion facilities do not provide against large floods on Dnigration and [111 Creeks." There is a question of whether any, let alon€-adequate informing has gone on. Since in the estimation of many of us who were ’.present in the 1952 flood when there was an enormous late snow on the bench areas, in the mouths of the canyons, and even higher, and since it is well established that in the early spring such as in / pril, th major melting does not take place in the higher colder portions of the mountains, I maintain that there was a recognigiton that a *. similar snowfall on the- areas below 6,000 feet might provide as much water "unoff as in 1952. Yfct several residents informed me that these .Late spring floods must be curbed and that LittleDell would do the job. Would it be unexpected that a conclusion would be drawn that the dam is not an assurance against flooding with ft similar late snowfall? ihy shouldn't the average citizen conclude that the Army engineers know the potential fCr such flooding even with a costly dam. Since the 1952 flood the major storm drains down 13th South Street had an addition of a 60 inch corrugated drain which was considerably larger that) the one which had proven inadequate earlier. Several other drains were added on other streets. h member of the flood control department in the city feels that with those greatly enlarged storm carrying drains that a similar runoff as occurred in 1952 would be cared for and that there would be no such flooding as occurred in 1952. During the flood of 1952 all of the water in the Jordan River was diverted at 21st Street South to the Surplus Canal. Problems arose with this diversion since the Surplus Canal ends out on the flats and soon this pocke • was filled. It had no where to go. ,-cecently the Surplus Canal was hooked to the Goggin Drain, but the drain can carry scarcely 200 second feet of water, whiLe the diversion at 21st St in a full river could be over 1,000 second feet. It is recommended that the Surplus Canal be completed to the lake with provision left to divert normal water into the duclc ponds. /mother angle which has been ignored in the Draft Statement is the Jordan •iver Froject which involves construction of detention basins at about 50th South. This would leave the Jordan flowing past the city practically empty and so it could readily carry the flood waters from such floods as that one of 1952. Cn page 63 of the ;iarch 197^ sta tement is an estimate of the tfalue of the flood prone area of $250,000,000. Since this is established as a flood plane area, there should be no permission granted to expand building in this area esceptas responsibility is assumed for flood damage should it occur, and that insurance against flood damage be carried. On the basis of a flood like that of 1952 occuring agiin especially with the improved storm drains, and if one were to occur in twenty year periods, an annual damage of only $125,000 would average' from a $2,500,000 storm damage. Insurance would be negligible since such damage averaged annually would be a small fraction of a percent. While some channel improvements would be environmentally damaging, the com­ pletion of the Lairplus Canal to the lake would be a positive value. In the 1972 environmental working paper the annual general recreation benefits were estimated at $1,053,000 per year. This was based on 13.700 people per day for an 80 day recreation season. .iaximum practical use of 1,100,000 annual visitor days is expectdd to be reached by the‘10th year of operstion. Big Ccbtonwood Canyon had 75^,600 visito r days in 1973- The numbe using .hat canyon for year-round recreation a ctivities is considered as a saturated use with respect to the maintenance of a healthy environmental condition. The number of acres over which this number is scattered on ski slopes, snowmobile trails, and summer picnicinr activities is perhaps ten times that which would be normally available at the proposed Little Dell Dam. It is hardly inappropriate to consider-those who would normally go hiking in Emigration or DfeliiCanyohs as part of the numbers who are using little iell Dam and its water as the attractant. In the .arch 1974 Draft statement the recreation use was put at 8,000 people per day (design day.) '/aximum practical use of 960,000 recreation days annually is expected to be reached by the tenth year of operafiori. This would be nearly equal to the combined use" of? Bi g ' I ^ rlitfcie ' Co£tSnw65d*‘Canyons. Such absurd concentrated use must not occur, and it is basically a heavily exaggerated use expectancy. Heavy week end use to hold up such a high average could run to 20,000\ on T7«eke«da,— Throughout a given day of average use, there could be at least 3*000 cars coming and going. There could be up to 500 cars per hour moving through the canyons. This could provide a car every eight aBconds or a line of cars the length of the canyon. Parking space of over 20 acres wtowid have to be provided. The pollution from such a parking lot would consist of petroleum products and these would of necessity have to go into the reservoir.

be note also in the July 1973 Environmental Statement and essentially the aame in the larch 1974 edition, that there would be 75 picnic areas, hardly three or four days at the most would we fidd these in full use for two shifts. Then there would be 7 group picnic sites each holding up to 200 people. These would likely have to be reservation areas, lost groups which would reserve such areas would have less than a hundred, and these would hardly number seven a week, '.ith peak usage, there would be a possibility of accommodation of less tha 3500 people a day. This is a far cry from the average numbers needed to bring up the total to nearly a million a year at vl-50 each to give the high benefit ration claimed > i .' any of those who come to the area now to hike would likely come even if the dam were built. They should not be considered as coming by virtue of being attracted by the water. In senate Document 53, item 12 on page 4 is the statement "...The Board notes that existing state Regulations pertaining to water supply reservoirs do not permit water contact sports. In view of this, the cost allocations have been revised to reflect a reduction in recreational benefits...to $450,000 annually." There is nowhere a breakdown of • iere‘this figure was arrived at. ’’ouldn’t picnici,:.n on the shore produce pollution which would negate use of the water for cullinary purposes? r phone call to the City Health Department was made questioning whether they would permit water contact sports and other activities such as picnicing of thousands of people around the lake and still use the water as planned. They had not been contacted on this matter and would not permit the use of the wate r s fpr cullinary water which is the intention. Swimming certainly woiild not be 7 permitted especially when at least 5£ of swimmers will urinate in the water especially when it is cold. To maintain their nearly 1,000,000 annual day use of ’.the are ther would be an enormous concentrated toilet use. Facilities for at least 20,000 people a day would need to be provided. Has a sewer line been planned and approved to be constructed down Harley’s Canyon which is now thoroughly covered by the freeway? Permission for such a sewer has not been located though on page 27 (..arch 1974) Draft Statement item 3 states that "sanitary fac-ilities will be constructed ir. such a way as to prevent all unacceptable water quality effects. *.’e question what "such ^ way’’ is. In th^» Senate Document Fo. 53 on page XIV in Governor R.*q>tons reoprt is a statement showing sensitivity tc a problem for the people of emigration Canyon. The people of the canyon rely upon well water for cullinaty pnrposes. Tb* governor states that 1 Since the plan for little Dell Reservoir proposes to divert flow® of Emigration Creek to the reservoir, residents of Emigration Canyon have expressed concern regarding the effect of this diversion on their present water supply. This matter should be given further attehtion..." has such attention been given with a critical approach? The Department of resources personnel are skeptical that they could provide the amount of fishing promised for Little Dell Reservoir. Utah is a desert country with an evaporation rate of about 60 inches at the airport. Theevaporative effect at Little Dell area is about ^5 inches a year. Even on a basis of 36 inches of evaporation a year, the 3^0 acre surface would evaporate over a thousand acre feet a year. The y .0 f n t - o i' EnvironemhtaL Statement reporting th*t there would be only about 300 acre feet of evaporation a year would be only about ten and a half inches. In Senate Document 53 we find "Provided that prior to initiation of con­ struction responsible local interests furnish assurances satisfactory!)*) the Sec­ retary of the /irmy that they will: a. Obtain without cost to the United states all water rights necessary for operation of the project in the interest of water Supply." There is no understandigg from some of !the residents of Ithe canyon that they have had their water rights clarified. /Iso m comments from the division of water rights submitted by Governor Ramp ton we find "The metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City filed three applications, ...on Parley's Creek...on M i l Creek and ...on Emigration Creek all of which have been approved by memorandum decisions oee^eprotest. These approvals were dated July 31, 196^. These memorandum decisions specifically caution the construction of this project and that the prior water rights of users on the three streams must be recognized."

i.;_amor,- rnvr- if th«» re sidents--j T C«f*pn •. • h >i' •«' L’-t s ■•>_L3Mi-f Had such a memorandum decision merely taken away their water rights. This is a nebulous area.

There has been a great increase in flood damage in the last few decadeisifca the city. nil of these with no recalled exceptions in looking o ver the newspaper accounts of flooding are the re^it of runoff from the immense expansion of cement, asphalt in the form of roads, driveways, roofs, compacted yards, sidewalks and other structures on the east and norths bench. Done of these Ishould be added to the potential damage from water coming from the higher reaches of the canyons such as above the diversion point of Emigration Canyon. There are various neglected ecological aspects which have been completely ignored by the engineers. This in itself is another study which must be made to have a complete picture of the environmental impact which little Dell DBm would have. vVildiife considerations with thousands of people added to the area has not been fairly dealt with. The destruction of narrow leaf poplars when Emigration Canyon below the diversion point would have anr.aal water as little as the severe drought years or worse as occurred in the 1930's, has not been treated. V.nile Congress approved a dan of about 23 million dollars at 3-l/^ percent, i f ’was seen fit even with the elimination of lull freed from consideration to increase tha:. to about 433 million dollars. It should likewise hare a realistic inflation :? the interest rate' to a realistic 6 percent or more. Should only the benefits be inflated, but not the interest costs? The Craft .nvironner.tal Statement was undoubtedly intended for revision, any revision must include careful consideration and incorporation of realistic elements submitted by interested parties. These must not be ignored. National Wildlife Federation

1412 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, DC. 20036

J u ly 3 1 , 197*1

Colonel P. G. Rockwell, Jr., District Engineer United States Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Colonel Rockwell:

I am writing on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation to comment on the draft environmental impact statement for the Little Dell Project in Utah.

The Fish and W ildlife Coordination Act and the National Environmental Policy Act require federal agencies to quantify and mitigate for wildlife and fish losses that will occur from federal projects. The affected wildlife include deer and elk; the fisheries losses appear largely to be trout.

No estimate is made in the Little Dell DEIS for the losses which will occur. No mitigation is planned for the general decrease in wildlife that the statement conceded will occur. The losses are nowhere quantified. Without these estimates no decisionmaker can be in a position to decide whether the overall balance of benefits and losses favors^roject construction. sjTnpeyely,

O liv e r A. Hbuck Counsel

cc: Harold A. Hintze, President Utah W ildlife Federation

Edwin J. Merrick, Regional Executive, NWF

Mr. S ta n le y B. M ulaik APPENDIX E

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT CONCERNING LITTLE DELL STATION AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE

Page Letter dated 23 August 1974 from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation E-l

Letter dated 5 June 1974 from the District Engineer to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation E-2

Memorandum of Agreement E-4 w- f* r * • • — • . — * ~ ■» • • 6^0 CArt i . '.-LL , ' P '. " jcf'.VATICN SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 JmIO 29 All ' 1!

5 June 1974

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1522 K Street, N.W., Suite 420 Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Sirs:

By letter dated 8 December 1972, we informed you of our Little Dell Lake Project and the fact that it would affect National historic properties. We indicated the proposed Little Dell Lake would inundate Little Dell Station and a portion of the Mormon Trail. Also, that a diversion structure would be constructed in Emigration Canyon which is a National Historic Landmark.

Subsequent to that letter in 1972, we have been in consultation with Mr. Louis Wall of your staff in Denver. The following points were agreed on with Mr. Wall and representatives of the Utah State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation and confirmed by your letter of 20 March 1973:

a. Little Dell Lake project would not affect Emigration Canyon Historic Landmark.

b. There would be an adverse effect on Little Dell Station and the historic Mormon Trail, but this effect would be satisfactorily mitigated if the Corps of Engineers would do the following:

(1) Have a professional archeologist survey all areas affected by the project.

(2) Obtain archeological clearance for the federal lands within the project area from the National Park Service as required by the Antiquities Act of 1906.

(3) Assure that archeological resources discovered by the survey or during the construction are investigated by a professional archeolo­ gist and the State Liaison i ficer for Historic Preservation to determine their significance, eligibility for listing on the National Register* and the extent of preservation or salvage required to insure that an adequate record of the site has been compiled.

(4) Coordinate the relocation and adaptation of the Little Dell Station for use a3 a museun and recreation facility with the State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation and the Keeper of the National Register to assure its historic status is not impaired.

(5) Prepare a Historic American Euilding Survey of the Little Dell Station* Including measured drawings and record photographs, for deposit in the Library of Congress prior to the disruption of its environs and its relocation.

(6) Compile a detailed record, including photographs and maps, of the 1.5 miles of the historic trail for deposit in the archives of the State of Utah prior to its inundation.

We have now completed the archeological survey recommended in item b.(l) (copy inclosed), and furnished it to the National Park Service. Since the survey did not reveal any archeological sites of major significance and the National Park Service has not advised us of any further actions necessary, it is our understanding that no further archeological clearance or investigation, as indicated in items h. (2) and a.(3), is necessary at this time. If any such resources should be found during construction, we have established standard procedures which will insure protection of the resources and further coordination with the National Park Service for proper disposition. We concur in the measures specified in items b . (4) thru (6) and will implement them prior to any disturbance of these historic properties.

We would like to execute a Memorandum of Agreement to conclude the proced­ ures for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. We understand from your letter of 20 March 1973 that you will prepare this agreement based on the information contained in this letter and prior correspondence.

If further information or clarification is needed, we will be pleased to furnish it.

Sincerely yours,

F. 0. RQCFVT.LL, 3R. C: i Cr: Disfrict ia.giaeer Advisory Council O n Historic Preservation 15_2 K Stio;; N. Vv. Suite 4 ;;) W'.i-l.iriUuc O X ,. : m()05

August 23, 1974

Mr. F.G. Rockwell, Jr. Colonel, CE District Engineer Sacramento District Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Col. Rockwell:

The Advisory Council is pleased to inform you that the Memorandum of Agreement for the Little Dell Station in the Salt Lake City, Utah vicinity, has been approved by the Chairman of the Advisory Council. This completes the Section 106 process and the Corps of Engineers may proceed with the construction of the Little Dell Lake. A copy of the Agreement is enclosed.

The Council appreciates your cooperation in the resolution of this matter and commends your contribution to the preservation of our national heritage.

Sincertly yours,

Ann Wffl&ster Smith^y *y Director, Officayof Compliance On Historic i ivaet' n y i ’K Siiw. *•:» \X n huKtor! I).',. ri.‘ ■1

'r*» • •------'If « fli>T\TMT

WHEREAS, the U. S. Department cf the Army, C.irj o* Engineers, proposes to construct the Little Dell Lake ir. fountain Dell -.envon, vicinity of Salt Lake City, Utah; and,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, has deter­ mined that this proposal will affect Little Dell Station, a property included in the National Register of Historic Piece.::, and pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act >«£ 1951 has re 'ted t r .c cements of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Federal Regis.-.er, January lr, 74, pj. 3366-3370) representa­ tives of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Corps of Engineers and Utah State Historic Prcserv t fer Officer have consulted and reviewed the undertaking to determine the nature of the effect; now,

THEREFORE: It is mutually agreed that implementation of the undertaking, as indi­ cated in the attached letter of June 5, 1974, from Colonel F. G. Rockwell,Jr, District Engineer, Sacramento District. Corps of Engineers, which contains specific conditions to insure preservation of the historic integrity of the property, will satisfactorily mitigate atjy .adverse effect.

i Executive Secretary------1l - * — r ------1------— —* Advisory Council on fcistoric Preservation

U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers --- —

, i , ♦ ^ ' 1 Utah State Historic Preservation Officer

Chairman Advisory Council on Historic Preservation LITTLE DELL LAKE ARCHAEOLOGICAL si LVEY

ty

Dale L. Berge

Presented to the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento

Kusrun of Archaeology and Ethnology Brigham Yeung University Provo, Utah

July 1973 The objectives o£ thLs study have been; to conduct an intensive survey and record the archseologLeal sites in the proposed Little Dell

LnV.e area; to provide the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with a statement as. to what impact the proposed dam and lake would h3ve on the environment; • to make recommendations pertaining to the salvage of threatened archaeologies sites; and, to make available the data concerning the ancient and historic inhabitants of the surveyed area.

. -This project was initiated by the Corps of Engineers in-order to understand what effect the construction of a dam and reservoir In '

Mountain Dell Canyon,.an area covering approximately 450 acres, would

.have on the archaeological resources. Without this project, ouch . valuable information concerning the prehistoric and historic people of

Utah could have been lost by inundation after completion of the dara.-

It was determined that in order to cover the area to be inundated in the future, a crew of five surveyors was used. Each crew member covered a fifty foot wide area by walking back and forth across' assigned areas.'

It was necessary to deviate slightly from the main area* of consideration where there was a potential of archaeological sites located-relatively close on ridges, in rock shelters, flat areas, and so forth. These areas were considered to be important to survey to understand the environmental •

Impact in the vicinity of the considered aarea. The construction of roads or providing access to the future lake would also provide access to the archaeological sites in the area. . ..-.-Ver had a specific task whenever a site wjj ..

This ever a site was found, the first task was l.o p. .-^-gripa .... before they were disturbed with footprints or collecting. Then a

survey forte was filled in no Ling cultural and envicon.asntal data.

In addition, a notebook was kept la which 'further pertinent data was recorded; drawings were made of site details; and, the site was plotted on the appropriate topographic map.

It is important to collect the cultural material according to various components, such as rooms, campfires, storage pits, and so .

forth. The deposition of artifacts is not random, but rather, reflect

the behavioral patterns of the people who lived at the site. Culture

Is not homogeneous; therefore, the distribution of artifacts at each

site is not completely the same. However, there are customs observed by all people which result in stylistic, similarities of artifacts and

their distribution.

All the artifacts collected at each component were sacked and^

labelled according to their appropriate provenience. It is essential

that after the artifacts are collected, they never get mixed or lose

their assigned proveniences. When the artifacts arrived at the.,

laboratory, they'are washed and labelled with permanent ink. All

the artifacts from each site are then Identified, described and.: ■

classified according to specific types and varieties.

An intensive .survey in the Mountain Dell Canyon where the Little

.Dell Lake will be located in the future revealed three archaeological

sites (See Appendix A):*

for the C o c p s of Engineers indicates that I need not consider the (1)

Little Dell Station or Mountain’Deli Pony Express Station, (2) .E-ai-

’gration Canyon, (3) Ephraim Hanks “or.-iaent, or (A) Camp Grant Monument.

The Little Dell Station is listed on the national Register of

H istoric Places and is 3n important historic archaeological site because

there are very few standing structures which w e re u s e d by the pony

E x p r e s s .

'.Tills site was recorded to give it a Utah Archaeological Survey

6ite designation. There is seme conflict as to whether this structure

is called Little Dell Station, Mountain Dell Sta.tion, or Ephraim Han!<3

Station. Further historical research is needed to settle, this question.

The structure consists of three rooms which have been modified to

satisfy later inhabitants. A cement walk and partial wall have been

placed around the building. The walls have been kept in good condition

by replacement of eroded mortar. The building is now used as.a Girl

Scout camp, and changes, such as showers and outhouses, have been •

added to accommodate this use of the facilities.

A2>si-tHi

•This site is located to the west and slightly north of the station

building.. It is situated in a plowed field and consists of a scattering

of several types of historic artifacts, mostly Ironstone and glass.-

At one time there may have been an additional structure located in

this area. It consists of a scattering of c..a:c i --- a few over aa area approximately 20 feet by 20 feet. The limited amount of cultural material found on this site sugsests that it was o£ very United occupation both in teres of quantity of people and duration.

Tlje only site with any significant historical and'cultural value

is the Little Dell Station. This station should be salvaged by.

excavation, an architectural drawing’rondered, and authentically

restored out of.the proposed lake area.

The culture-history of Utah reveals a long prehistoric occupation

by hunting, gathering and agricultural people (Sea Appendix C).* The

environmental resources available in Mountain Deli Canyon could not

sustain very many people for any duration of time. The archaeological

evidence indicates that the canyon was not used for long occupation;

in fact, the one prehistoric site recorded indicates the transient nature

of the area.. The extent of prehistqrlc use of the canyon may have been

hunting groups passing through or fishing the creek.

The canyon floor, which is approximately 1 0 0 0 ^feet wide at its

widest point, would provide the most logical place for the location

o f ’sites. However, this same land has been used extensively by

“historic people, including Ephraim Hanks and the Pony Express.

The land has been plowed and a large area of the top soil has been

removed.

The only important archaeological resource in Mountain Dell Cdnycn

is the Mountain or Little Dell Pony Express Station. This.site should

be salvaged by archaeological excavation and an architectural rendering

of the original and present structure (Gee Appendix 3).