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