lower duchesne river wetlands mitigation project · the lower duchesne river wetlands mitigation...
TRANSCRIPT
Lower Duchesne River Wetlands Mitigation Project
SUMMARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APRIL 2008
Lower Duchesne RiverWetlands Mitigation Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement
SUMMARY
S- 1
SUMMARY
S.1 INTRODUCTION
The Lower Duchesne River WetlandsMitigation Project (LDWP) is a Federallymandated project to restore and enhancewetland, riparian and supporting uplandalong the Duchesne River in the Uinta Basinin Northeastern Utah. The project respondsto a need to fulfill mitigation commitmentsmade to the Ute Indian Tribe (Tribe) thatresulted from the development of theBonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project(CUP). The CUP is a major waterdevelopment project that develops waterresources for use locally in the Uinta Basinand that diverts and transports ColoradoRiver water from the Uinta Basin topopulous areas on the Wasatch Front. Thistrans-basin diversion has harmed the Tribeby reducing flows in the Duchesne River,causing a loss of wetlands and wildlife thatwere important to the Tribe. The purpose ofthe LDWP is to mitigate for these Triballosses and to provide additionalwetland-wildlife benefits to the Tribe.
S.1.1 Purpose of this Summary
A summary is an essential component of anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) asrequired by the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (see 40 CFR 1502.1). At aminimum, the summary should provide anaccurate and thorough overview of the EIS. Additionally, it should stress the majorconclusions of the EIS, areas of controversy(especially those raised by the public andgovernmental agencies) and the issues to beresolved. This summary fulfills thisrequirement in the following organizationalformat:
S.1 Introduction and Purpose of theSummary
S.2 Summary of Chapter 1, HighlightingBackground Information andDevelopment of the Proposed Actionand Alternatives
S.3 Public Concerns, Issues, and Areasof Controversy
S.4 Summary Description of theProposed Action and Alternatives
S.5 Major Impact Conclusions, AffectedEnvironment and EnvironmentalConsequences
S.6 Coordination and Consultation
S.2 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 1 S.2.1 Background, Purpose and Need The CUP, originally authorized in 1956 aspart of the Colorado River Storage ProjectAct, is a massive water development projectintended to assist Utah in utilizing itsapportionment of waters from the ColoradoRiver. The Bonneville Unit, the mostexpensive and complex subunit of the CUP,is being constructed to deliver water fromthe Uinta Basin to the populous WasatchFront. One completed feature of theBonneville Unit is the Strawberry Aqueductand Collection System (SACS), an aqueductsystem that gathers water from the upperDuchesne River and various tributaries. This water is transported to StrawberryReservoir for storage and eventual use onthe Wasatch Front.
As a result of construction and operation ofSACS, wetland-wildlife habitat was lostalong the Duchesne River and adjacent toStrawberry Reservoir. Much of thesewetland losses occurred on Uintah and
S- 2
Ouray Indian Reservation lands. As a result,the Tribe lost certain benefits associatedwith such wetlands, including wetland andriparian habitats, hunting opportunities,plants and fish and wildlife important to theTribe. The Federal government recognized as earlyas 1964 that construction of the CUP wouldharm the interests of the Tribe. In response,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)recommended in 1965 that wildlifemanagement areas totaling 6,640 acres bedeveloped to replace wetland and waterfowlhabitat for the benefit of the Tribe. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), thefederal agency then responsible forconstructing CUP, adopted thisrecommendation as a project feature in itsSeptember 1965 Supplement to the 1964Definite Plan Report. The projectcommitment was affirmed again with theissuance of the 1988 and 2004 Definite PlanReports for the Bonneville Unit.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act of1992 (CUPCA) again reaffirmed thecommitment of the federal government tocomplete all unfulfilled mitigationobligations of the CUP and at the same timerecognized that fulfillment of theseobligations had not kept pace withconstruction of project features. With thepassage of CUPCA, Congress created theUtah Reclamation Mitigation andConservation Commission (the MitigationCommission) and gave that new agency theauthority and responsibility to complete theunfulfilled CUP environmental mitigationobligations. The CUPCA also establishedthe CUP Completion Act Office under theOffice of the Secretary of the Department ofthe Interior (DOI) to overseeimplementation of CUPCA.
The Mitigation Commission and the DOIare the joint-lead agencies for this Final EIS. The Tribe is a key project partner as there isa substantial involvement and commitmentof Tribal trust resources involved in theLDWP. Decision making authority forselecting which LDWP alternative toimplement rests with the three projectpartners for this FEIS: the MitigationCommission, the DOI-Central Utah ProjectCompletion Act Office and the Tribe.
S.2.2 The Development of the ProposedAction and Alternatives
In 1995, the Mitigation Commissioninitiated planning for the LDWP with theTribe and DOI. By that time it had been 31years since the original SACS mitigationobligation had been recognized byReclamation in the 1964 DPR and in the1965 Deferral Agreement with the UteTribe. Accordingly, a feasibility study wascompleted in 1998 that reevaluated andrevised the original mitigation commitmentto embrace more current concepts such ashabitat restoration, wetland diversity andecosystem management required in CUPCA. Greater consideration was given to a muchbroader range of wetland-dependent species,including deer, raptors, wading birds andsongbirds. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (FWS), U.S. Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA) and Reclamation assisted theCommission, DOI, and Tribe in thisplanning effort.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for the LDWP, issued in 2003,presented three action alternatives. Eachalternative addressed the obligation toprovide mitigation to the Tribe for theimpacts of SACS on wetlands adjacent tothe Duchesne River and to provideadditional wetland-wildlife benefits to the
S- 3
Tribe. In addition, the Proposed Actionpresented in the DEIS also intended to fulfillthe federal government mitigation obligationfor the related Duchesne River Area CanalRehabilitation Program (DRACR).
S.3 ISSUES, PUBLIC CONCERNS, ANDAREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Several areas of concern and issues wereraised during scoping, consultation withcooperating and other agencies, and publicreview of the DEIS. The impact analysiscontained in Chapter 4 of this FEISaddresses those issues in detail. There wereseveral recurring concerns or areas ofcontroversy expressed during public reviewof the DEIS. In response, the ProposedAction was revised in several importantways (refer to Chapter 5 of the FEIS). Keyand recurring issues as well as revisions thatwere made to the Proposed Action inresponse to those comments are summarizedbelow and are addressed in greater detaillater in this Summary and in the FEIS. Asummary table of the environmental impactsof the Proposed Action and Alternatives isalso provided at the end of this summary and Figure S-1 on the following page showsthe Project Area Map for the ProposedAction.
Issue: The Duchesne River Area CanalRehabilitation program (DRACR)mitigation obligation should be keptseparate from the LDWP.
Response: The DRACR mitigationcomponent has been eliminated fromconsideration in conjunction with the LDWPmitigation obligation. The MitigationCommission will develop plans for theDRACR mitigation program, separate andapart from the LDWP.
Issue: The LDWP will increase mosquitoes[and the risk of mosquito-borne West NileVirus] and the need for mosquito control.
Response: Approximately 43% of theproject boundary provides suitable mosquitoproducing habitat under baseline conditions,and the Proposed Action would increase thisamount by 11%. Although the ProposedAction would result in an increase inpotential mosquito habitat, there would beless acreage of untreated mosquito habitatunder the Proposed Action compared tobaseline conditions (Figure S-2). This isbecause the LDWP would implement acomprehensive mosquito control programthat has been expanded and included asAppendix G of the FEIS. All potentialbreeding habitats within the projectboundaries would be treated in accordancewith the Mosquito Control Plan.
Issue: The LDWP will increase the amountof weeds in the area and increase the burdenon local governments and nearby privatelandowners for weed control.
Response: The LDWP will result in areduction in noxious weeds compared to theNo Action Alternative, especially Russianolive, pepperweed, and tamarisk. Noxiousweed control would take place during allphases of the project, from preconstructionand construction to operation andmaintenance (O&M) in accordance with adetailed weed control plan included as partof the LDWP (Appendix B). Weed controlis an LDWP project objective to improvewetland wildlife habitat.
Issue: Funding of mosquito and weedcontrol.
S- 6
Response: The weed and mosquito controlprograms will be initiated duringconstruction of the project and continuethroughout the life of the project. Fundingwill be provided by the Federal governmentspecifically for the LDWP.
Issue: Acquisition of Private Lands. Therewere concerns expressed about (A) the useof eminent domain to acquire private landsfor the LDWP; (B) loss of private land; and(C) the tax impact on local government byremoving lands from the tax rolls.
Response: (A) The Mitigation Commissionand DOI recognize the concerns about usingeminent domain to acquire private lands. Although it is necessary for joint-leadagencies to preserve the right of eminentdomain for the LDWP, it will be used onlyas a last resort in the event that allreasonable efforts to complete an acquisitionon a willing-seller basis have failed. Theprocess of acquiring lands by eminentdomain is controlled by federal regulationand policy and is designed to protect boththe private landowner and the taxpayer. (B) The Proposed Action has been revised toreduce the amount of acreage in the projectand specifically to reduce the amount ofprivate land needed. This was doneprimarily by eliminating the site with themost private land (the Flume site), andrevising other site boundaries to avoidestablished cropland where possible. Project goals were revised to emphasizehabitat connectivity, equal emphases onwetland and riparian habitat, and ecosystemmanagement. The amount of private landsto be acquired under the Proposed Actionhas been reduced from 2,154 acres in theDEIS, to 1,592 acres in the FEIS (Figure S-3. (C) Private (fee) lands acquired on awilling-seller basis under the revisedProposed Action will be retained in fee
status under Tribal corporate ownership,thereby retaining those private lands on thelocal tax rolls and minimizing tax impacts ofthe project.
Issue: The impacts of the LDWP on localeconomies is not accurate in the DEIS,particularly regarding agricultural impactsand the effects on local property taxes andincome taxes.
Response: The economic impact analysiswas revised for the FEIS using the IMPLANmodel, instead of the model developed bythe State of Utah that was used for theDEIS. IMPLAN is accepted by and used bythe State of Utah for all its economic impactforecasting. None of the changes ineconomic output under any of the actionalternatives would account for more than a0.1 percent change in the Uinta Basineconomy. None of the alternatives wouldadversely affect any of the localinfrastructure, including roads, or localsocial services.
Under the Proposed Action, the total annualtax change within the two-county area fromboth the conversion of private land tofederal ownership and the conversion ofsome parcels from residential to greenbeltuse could range from zero (with all residentsrelocating to similar value homes within thetwo-county area) to $1,632. The totalproperty tax loss within the two-county areafor the Pahcease Alternative would rangefrom $3,808 (with all residents relocating tosimilar value homes within the two-countyarea) to $7,918 annually. The total propertytax loss under the Topanotes Alternativewould range from $3,364 to $7,043annually.
S- 8
Issue: The LDWP will increasegroundwater levels outside the projectboundary, which will affect neighboringproperty, and may affect the cemetery inMyton.
Response: Under the Proposed Action,there would be no increase in the groundwater table outside of the LDWP projectboundaries with the exception of a slightincrease in the water table within twoexisting oxbows south of River Roadadjacent to the Riverdell South site. As aresult, there would be no effects from theProposed Action on adjacent infrastructureor cropland through ground water increase. Water test wells were installed in thevicinity of the Myton Cemetery. Resultsindicate that the groundwater table slopesaway from Myton toward the east and southto the Duchesne River. Under the ProposedAction, the water volume and durationassociated with water management of therestored wetlands, in conjunction with thebaseline water table gradient and soil types,would cause only a very localized, if any,rise in the underlying water table in theUresk Drain Unit. There would be no effecton the ground water levels at the MytonCemetery. Issue: The LDWP will change DuchesneRiver flows or water quality, and will affectjunior water right holders.
Response: Under the LDWP, wateravailability to junior water right holderswould not change in average and high flowyears. In dry and very dry years, theProposed Action could result in a reductionof 127 to 908 acre-feet of water to juniorwater right holders based upon the fullexercise of the senior reserved Indian waterrights appurtenant to project lands. Thereduction of water for junior water right
holders would be greater under the otheralternatives, ranging from 174 to 1,439acre-feet. All alternatives would result in nomeasurable change in the Duchesne Riverflow at Randlett. Under the Proposed Action, the LDWPwould result in an increase in TotalDissolved Solids (TDS) of 0.68 ppm in theDuchesne River downstream of Myton, withno measurable change in the TDSconcentrations at Randlett. The net increasein the Duchesne River TDS concentrationsconsidering both surface and ground watercontributions for the Pahcease andTopanotes Alternatives would be between2.6 and 3.0 ppm downstream of Myton andup to 1.7 ppm at Randlett. None of thesechanges are considered significant whencompared to natural TDS levels in theDuchesne River or seasonal fluctuations ofTDS due to flow and agricultural uses ofwater, and would not likely be measurable.
The estimated long-term average annual saltload contributed to the Colorado River bythe Duchesne River is 330,000 tons (BOR1986, as cited in Swanson 2007), whichrepresents 4 percent of the total annualColorado River salt load of 8.2 million tonsat Imperial Dam. Under all alternatives,total annual salt loading from wetlands andirrigated pastures in the project area throughground water seepage would increase by115 to 1,125 tons of salt. This equates to anincrease of 0.03 to 0.3 percent of the saltload of the Duchesne River, an amount toosmall to be measured at Imperial Dam or tobe considered a significant change in theColorado River.
Issue: Individuals will not be adequatelycompensated for unharvested crops left forwildlife purposes.
S- 9
Response: The Proposed Action no longerincludes the concept of conservationeasement where landowners would be paidto leave 20% of their crops for wildlifepurposes. All but 58 acres of cropland hasbeen removed from the project boundariesunder the Proposed Action. These 58 acresof cropland would be acquired for theproject and developed and managed forwildlife benefits.
S.4 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OFTHE PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES
S.4.1 Features Common to All ActionAlternatives
The Proposed Action, Pahcease Alternativeand Topanotes Alternative would use avariety of measures to rehabilitate wetlandand riparian habitat in the Duchesne Rivercorridor. These measures includerewatering oxbows, connecting oxbows toform contiguous systems, enlarging oxbowsto at least their 1936 widths (as determinedfrom aerial photographs), enhancing waterquality in oxbows receiving agriculturalreturn flows, filling portions of the UreskDrain (a large drainage ditch) to create alarge marsh complex, replanting riparianareas with native woody trees and shrubs,seeding of new wetland edges, removingnon-native invasive species and changingmanagement of areas adjacent to wetlands tobenefit wildlife.
There are four oxbow systems within theentire project area that historically formedannually flooded, continuous side channelsof the Duchesne River. Each alternativewould connect the oxbow systems on thesites included within the alternative into acontinuous backwater channel and expand
the oxbow widths. Where feasible, theoxbow systems would be reconnected to theDuchesne River by removing impedimentsto river flow through the oxbows. Oxbowreconnection was identified as feasible if theoxbow would be flooded by the meanannual flood, the flow that occurs onaverage every 2.3 years. Because the riverhas narrowed by up to 40 percent, beendowncut by 2 to 4 feet and had its flowreduced by diversions, reconnection of alloxbows to the river is no longer feasiblewithout either increased flows or riverreconstruction.
Large marshes would be created on theUresk Drain site in each alternative byfilling portions of the main drainage ditchand constructing a series of berms to retainwater on the site. Woody riparianvegetation would be planted on formerDuchesne River floodplains and non-nativeand invasive riparian woody species such astamarisk and Russian olive would beremoved through chemical and mechanicalmeans.
A number of upland habitats would not beconverted to wetlands, but their value towetland and riparian species would beenhanced by changes in management. These include portions of currently irrigatedwet meadow-grassland complexes anddesert shrub habitat. Irrigated grasslandswould continue to be irrigated under theProposed Action, but grazing would beeliminated unless necessary to achievespecific wildlife management objectives. Grasslands would continue to be managed toprovide nesting and foraging sites forwildlife. Desert shrub habitats would bemaintained as buffers between humanactivity areas and wetlands.
S- 10
Land acquired for the project would be heldin differing ownerships depending upon thealternative. For the Proposed Action,private lands acquired by the federalgovernment from private landowners on awilling-seller basis would be transferred toTribal ownership (fee status) andsubsequently managed by the Tribe. Privatelands acquired by eminent domain, if any,would remain in ownership of the UnitedStates and held on behalf of the Tribe. Tribal Trust land (both Reservation andallotted lands) would be placed undereasements, with two consecutive 25-yeareasements used on the Riverdell Southproperty, and for a length of time to benegotiated (a minimum of 10 years) withinthe other sites. All land would be developedand managed by the Tribe under a singlemanagement plan. There would be noconservation easements purchased onestablished cropland under the ProposedAction as originally proposed in the DEIS.
For the Pahcease and TopanotesAlternatives, all acquired private land wouldremain in federal government ownership forproject purposes. Conservation easementsinstead of fee purchases would be used toacquire cropland.
Differences among the action alternativesoccur in the total size, the final acres andtypes of wildlife habitats, the amount ofprivate land acquired, the amount of Triballand incorporated by easement, the finalland ownership and management status andhow established cropland would be treated. These differences are described below andsummarized in the table at the end of thisdocument.
S.4.2 The Proposed Action • The project area encompasses 4,807
acres.
• Includes 2,681 acres of wetland andriparian habitat, of which 1,025 acreswould be created or restored and1,656 acres of existing habitat wouldbe enhanced.
• Requires the acquisition of 1,592acres of private land andcompensation to the Tribe for loss ofincome on 3,215 acres of TribalTrust and Allotted land that wouldbe incorporated into the project. Acquired private land would begenerally retained in fee status underTribal ownership.
• All land would be managed by theTribe under a single permit andaccess system.
• Fifty-eight acres of cropland wouldbe acquired for wildlife habitat. Nocropland would be placed underconservation easements.
S.4.3 Description of the PahceaseAlternative • Encompasses 6,765 acres. • Includes 3,055 acres of wetland and
riparian habitat, of which 2,125 acreswould be created or restored and 930acres of existing habitat would beenhanced.
• Requires the acquisition of 1,787acres of private lands andcompensation to the Tribe for loss ofincome on 3,891 acres of TribalTrust land that would beincorporated into the project.
• Utilizes the federally-ownedRiverdell North property of 1,087acres for the LDWP, creating a needto purchase an alternative sitesuitable for DRACR mitigation.
• Acquired private land would beretained by the federal governmentfor project purposes resulting in a
S- 11
mix of government and Tribal Trustlands in the project area.
• All land would be managed by theTribe under a multiple permit andaccess system.
• No cropland would be purchasedstrictly for wildlife habitat, but 239acres of cropland would be placedunder conservation easements.
S.4.4 Description of the TopanotesAlternative • Encompasses 6,648 acres. • Includes 3,175 acres of wetland and
riparian habitat, of which 1,461 acreswould be created or restored and1,714 acres of existing habitat wouldbe enhanced.
• Requires acquisition of 2,171 acresof private land and compensation tothe Tribe for loss of income on up to4,477 acres of Tribal Trust land thatwould be incorporated into theproject.
• Acquired private land would beretained by the federal governmentfor project purposes, resulting in amix of government and Tribal Trustlands in the project area.
• All land would be managed by theTribe under a multiple permit andaccess system.
• No cropland would be purchasedstrictly for wildlife habitat, but 356acres of cropland would be placedunder conservation easements.
S.4.5 No Action Alternative • Restores no wetlands or riparian
habitats impacted by SACS. • Results in a continued decline of
existing cottonwood forest andcontinued expansion of riparian andwetland weeds.
• Results in mitigation obligations tothe Tribe identified in the 1988 and2004 Definite Plan Reports and the1965 Deferral Agreement remainingunfulfilled.
S.5 MAJOR IMPACT CONCLUSIONS -AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
S.5.1 Introduction
This section summarizes important issuesand concerns that are evaluated in chapter 4of this FEIS, Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences. Chapter 4 isorganized according to different resourcetopics, such as water resources oragriculture, and addresses issues raisedduring the scoping process, during publicreview of the DEIS, through agencyconsultation or by the EIS team duringanalysis. This summary will focus on themost important and controversial of theresource topics. Major issues that wereaddressed in these topic areas will beidentified and the impact analysis for thoseissues will be summarized. Resource topicsthat contained little or no controversialinformation are briefly summarized ordeleted from this summary (e.g., noise andair quality). The discussion generallyfollows the order of the resource topics asthey are presented in chapter 4.
S.5.2 Wetland and Riparian Habitats
S.5.2.1 Issues and Concerns
Will the construction and operation of theLDWP change or reduce the existingacreage of wetland and riparian habitat typesin the project area?
S- 12
S.5.2.2 Impact Analysis Under the Proposed Action, 18.5 acres ofwetland and riparian habitats would betemporarily impacted and 7.3 acrespermanently impacted. The permanentimpacts generally occur where wetlandberms are constructed across existingwetlands, notably in the Uresk Drain site. There would also be some conversion ofexisting wet meadow and emergent marshhabitats to other habitat types, but similarhabitats would be developed elsewhere inthe project area to compensate for suchlosses. Construction impacts under theTopanotes and Pahcease Alternatives wouldbe similar to those of the Proposed Action.
The few acres of wetlands lost or altered bythe LDWP would be more than offset by therestoration, creation and enhancement ofwetlands envisioned by the project. TheProposed Action would restore or create1,025 acres of wetland and riparian habitatand enhance the value of 1,656 acres ofexisting wetland and riparian habitats. ThePahcease Alternative would restore or create2,125 acres and enhance 930 acres ofwetland and riparian habitats. The numbersfor the Topanotes Alternative are 1,461 and1,714, respectively. Additionally, all thealternatives would improve the value andfunction of other existing habitats in theproject area, such as cottonwood forests.
S.5.2.3 Issues and Concerns
What will be the impact of the project onwetland and riparian weeds in the projectarea? S.5.2.4 Impact Analysis
Two of Utah's listed noxious weeds,pepperweed and Russian olive, are prevalent
in the project area. Tamarisk, a non-nativeinvasive species, is also abundant in theactive floodplain of the Duchesne River.
The LDWP would decrease the abundanceof noxious weeds in the project area,representing a beneficial impact of theproject. The Proposed Action wouldremove 339 acres of Russian olive andtamarisk as well as treat for pepperweed. The Pahcease and Topanotes would treat801 and 578 acres of noxious weeds,respectively. Moreover, an ongoing weedcontrol program, as outlined in Appendix Bof this FEIS, would be an integral part of theLDWP Comprehensive Conservation andManagement Plan.
S.5.3 Wildlife Resources
S.5.3.1 Issues and Concerns
The construction of the LDWP would alterwetland and riparian habitats in the projectarea, as well as impact the adjacent uplands. What effects will this alteration have on thehealth and populations of the differentspecies of waterfowl, fish, songbirds, raptorsand mammals that are currently found in theproject area?
S.5.3.2 Impact Analysis
Construction of the LDWP would improvethe habitat for all of the nine major wildlifespecies groups that were evaluated. Elimination of cattle grazing and bettermanagement of upland grasslands wouldbenefit songbirds, provide grazing for muledeer, elk, and antelope and improve habitatfor small mammals (in turn providing anadditional food source for raptors). Therestoration of cottonwood forests along theriver corridor would provide habitat for avariety of birds, as well as nesting habitat
S- 13
for raptors, golden and bald eagles and greatblue herons. These forests would alsoprovide winter habitat for mule deer as wellas a wood source for beaver. The creationof open water areas and marsh habitat wouldbenefit a variety of ducks and otherwaterfowl, while the reduction in croppingon agricultural lands would increase thefood base for a number of species. Therewould be some minor negative impacts towildlife as one type of habitat is convertedto another, but these impacts are almost alltemporary and would eventually be offset byimproved habitat of similar types in otherareas of the project. Generally, habitatimprovements that benefit wildlife areconsidered to be significant beneficialimpacts of the Proposed Action andalternatives.
S.5.4 Threatened, Endangered andCandidate Species (Listed Species)
S.5.4.1 Issues and Concerns
Would the LDWP affect any listed speciesthrough mortality, disturbance through keylife stages or habitat degradation?
S.5.4.2 Impact Analysis
Only seven listed species are known tooccur or to have potential habitat within theLDWP project area of influence: Two areplants (Uinta Basin hookless cactus and Uteladies'-tresses orchid); two are fish known tooccur in the Duchesne River in this area(Colorado pikeminnow and razorbacksucker); two are birds (mountain plover andwestern yellow-billed cuckoo).
The construction and operation of theLDWP would not adversely impact any ofthese listed species but would benefitseveral of them. The Uinta Basin hookless
cactus is found in desert shrub north of theRiverdell Canal, where its habitat would beimproved through the elimination of grazing(Pahcease Alternative only). Uteladies'-tresses have been observed upstreamon the Duchesne River, but not in the projectarea. Habitat improvements anticipated bythe project are not expected to inhibit itspossible emergence in the area. No impactsto either the Colorado pikeminnow or therazorback sucker are expected from theLDWP, because no change in water quantityor quality in the Duchesne River isanticipated. The western yellow-billedcuckoo is expected to benefit from theproject as the restoration of the cottonwoodforest provides improved roosting andfeeding habitat.
S.5.5 Water Resources
S.5.5.1 Issues and Concerns
Would the construction and operation of theLDWP interfere with the water rights ofexisting users, reduce water availability oralter existing water supply patterns to theseusers?
S.5.5.2 Impact Analysis
All of the irrigable lands within the projectarea, except the Riverdell North propertywhich has a 1916 water right, are suppliedby certified 1861 Indian water rights and areauthorized for direct diversion from theDuchesne River. These water rights, whichwill be available for the LDWP, total 12,403acre-feet for the Proposed Action and up to19,611 acre-feet for the other alternatives. Water budgets prepared for the ProposedAction identify a water requirement thatranges from 8,452 to 10,118 acre-feet, withwater requirements of 11,286 to 14,420acre-feet for the Pahcease and Topanotes
S- 14
Alternatives. As these numbers indicate,there are secure water rights available onproject lands to fulfill LDWP needs withoutobtaining water from other sources outsidethe project area.
Under the LDWP, the water budget wouldremain similar among years, instead ofvarying from year to year. This would notchange water availability to junior waterright holders in average and high flow years. In dry and very dry years, the ProposedAction could result in a reduction of 127 to908 acre-feet of water to junior water rightholders based upon the full exercise of thesenior reserved Indian water rightsappurtenant to project lands. The reductionof water for junior water right holders wouldbe greater under the other alternatives,ranging from 174 to 1,439 acre-feet.
All alternatives would result in slight localincreases in return flows among the sites,but no measurable change in the DuchesneRiver flow at Randlett.
S.5.5.3 Issues and Concerns
Would the LDWP affect ground water levelson properties outside of the project area?
S.5.5.4 Impact Analysis
Under the Proposed Action, there would beno increase in the ground water table outsideof the LDWP project boundaries with theexception of a slight increase in the watertable within two existing oxbows south ofRiver Road adjacent to the Riverdell Southsite. As a result, there would be no effectsof the Proposed Action on adjacentinfrastructure or cropland through groundwater increase. Under the other alternativesthere would be an increased water table tothe east of the Uresk Drain and adjacent to
the Flume. This increased water table couldaffect 40 acres of pasture land east of theUresk Drain and nine acres of croplandadjacent to the Flume site. None of thealternatives would affect the ground waterlevels at the Myton Cemetery.
S.5.6 Water Quality
S.5.6.1 Issues and Concerns
Would the LDWP increase contaminants orsalts in the mitigation wetlands to a pointwhere wildlife would be adversely affected?Would the project affect salinity inputs tothe Duchesne River in terms of the totalamount or concentration of salts?
S.5.6.2 Impact Analysis
Boron and total dissolved solids (TDS) havebeen identified as the most problematiccontaminants in the project area. Under theProposed Action and alternatives, thewetlands would be operated as flow-throughsystems with a water quality control factoradded to each site's wetland water budget tomaintain water quality. By increasing theflow through the project area, concentrationsof boron and TDS in surface water returnflows entering the Duchesne River would bereduced under all alternatives by seven tonine percent.
The estimated long-term average annual saltload contributed to the Colorado River bythe Duchesne River is 330,000 tons (BOR1986, as cited in Swanson 2007), whichrepresents 4 percent of the total annualColorado River salt load of 8.2 million tonsat Imperial Dam. Under all alternatives,total annual salt loading from wetlands andirrigated pastures in the project area throughground water seepage would increase by115 to 1,125 tons of salt. This equates to an
S- 15
increase of 0.03 to 0.3 percent of the saltload of the Duchesne River, an amount toosmall to be measured at Imperial Dam or tobe considered a significant change in theColorado River.
Under the Proposed Action, the net changeof both the decreased TDS concentration ofsurface water runoff and the increased TDSconcentration of ground water seepagewould result in a TDS increase of 0.68 ppmin the Duchesne River downstream ofMyton, with no measurable change in theTDS concentrations at Randlett. The netincrease in the Duchesne River TDSconcentrations considering both surface andground water contributions for the Pahceaseand Topanotes Alternatives would bebetween 2.6 and 3.0 ppm downstream ofMyton and up to 1.7 ppm at Randlett.
S.5.7 Agriculture and Land Use
S.5.7.1 Issues and Concerns
Will the LDWP negatively impact theagriculture industry in the two countiesthrough the elimination of grazing orchanges in crop production in the projectarea? Will the LDWP impact agriculturalproduction outside of the project area?
S.5.7.2 Impact Analysis
The LDWP would reduce agricultural outputwithin the project area in two differentways. Grazing would be eliminated on4,807 to 6,765 acres of pasture land to allowthe creation and restoration of differentwetland and upland habitats. The foragevalue of these lands for grazing varies fromabout 0.1 AUM to 2.5 AUMs per acre. As aresult, elimination of grazing would result ina 0.2 percent reduction of the Uinta Basinlivestock cash receipts.
Cropland would be addressed differentlyamong the various alternatives. Under theProposed Action 58 acres of cropland wouldbe acquired and managed for wildlifepurposes. Under the other alternatives noestablished cropland would be acquired, butfrom 239 to 356 acres of cropland would beplaced under conservation easements inwhich the landowner would be paid to retain20 percent of their crop for wildlife. Thesechanges would result in a 0.1 to 0.2 percentreduction in marketable crop yield. Neither action is expected to have asignificant impact on the agricultureindustry as a whole in the two counties.
There would be no direct effect onagricultural practices or production outsideof the project boundaries under the ProposedAction. Under the other action alternatives,crop production on nine acres of croplandadjacent to the Flume site could be affectedby an increase in the local groundwatertable.
S.5.7.3 Issues and Concerns
Both Uintah and Duchesne Counties haveadopted county land use plans that call for"no net loss of private land" in the county. How will the LDWP address these countypolicies?
S.5.7.4 Impact Analysis
Unavoidably, private lands would beacquired under all action alternativesranging from 1,592 under the ProposedAction to 2,171 acres under the TopanotesAlternative. Between 3,215 to 4,477 acresof Tribal Trust and Allotted land would beplaced under a negotiated easement. Acquired private land would be transferredto the Tribe as private fee lands under the
S- 16
Proposed Action, but retained by the federalgovernment under the Pahcease andTopanotes Alternatives.
S.5.7.5 Issues and Concerns
Will the LDWP split properties leaving theowners with uneconomical remainders?
S.5.7.6 Impact Analysis
There may be partial landholdingacquisitions (acquisitions in which portionsof the land holdings fall inside the LDWPboundary and portions fall outside of theboundary) under all alternatives. In theevent of a partial landholding acquisition,the appraised value and the amounts offeredto landowners would be based on not onlythe fair market value of the interest in theland the United States actually acquires, butalso any difference in the before and afterfair market value of the remaining parcelretained by the landowner.
S.5.8 Socioeconomics
S.5.8.1 Issues and Concerns
Will the LDWP have a positive or negativeimpact on socioeconomic conditions in thearea? Will there be impacts on countyservices or community infrastructure? Howwill the LDWP affect county taxes?
S.5.8.2 Impact Analysis
Construction of the Proposed Action,Pahcease Alternative and TopanotesAlternative would increase the net economicoutput ($924,729 to $1,259,642), personalearnings ($316,387 to $375,305) andemployment (13.1 to 15.1 jobs) in the localeconomy during construction. The netincrease in revenue considers both the actual
decrease in agricultural revenue and themultiplier effect of this decrease. Even withthe multiplier effect, the net economicoutput would be considerably larger than thedecrease in agricultural revenue duringconstruction for all alternatives.
Operation of the project would continue tocontribute to increased revenue in the localeconomy by $197,331 (TopanotesAlternative) to $335,810 (Proposed Actionand Pahcease Alternative). As for theconstruction economic analysis, the O&Mperiod revenue accounts for both thedecrease in agricultural output and themultiplier effect of this output. None of thechanges in output represent more than a 0.1percent change in the Uinta Basin economy. None of the alternatives would adverselyaffect any of the local infrastructure,including roads, or local social services. None of the alternatives would impact theMyton cemetery.
Changes in county tax revenues would varyamong alternatives. Tax revenues would beaffected by changes in two factors: changesin land ownership and changes in someparcel tax status from residential togreenbelt use. There would be no change incounty taxes associated with changes in landownership under the Proposed Action, asland would generally be maintained in feestatus. Land acquired for the Pahcease andTopanotes Alternatives would remain infederal ownership resulting in annual countytax revenue decreases of $3,808 and $3,364,respectively.
Changes in tax revenues associated withacquisition of residences and conversionfrom residential to greenbelt use could resultfrom the project.
S- 17
Under the Proposed Action, the total taxchange within the two-county area couldrange from zero (with all residentsrelocating to similar value homes within thetwo-county area) to $1,632. The totalproperty tax loss within the two-county areafor the Pahcease Alternative from both theconversion of private land to federalownership and the conversion of someparcels from residential to greenbelt usewould range from $3,808 (with all residentsrelocating to similar value homes within thetwo-county area) to $7,918. The totalproperty tax loss under the TopanotesAlternative would range from $3,364 to$7,043.
Under certain circumstances, these taxlosses might be offset by federalreimbursements through the Payment inLieu of Taxes (PILT) Program, a programthat provides payments to counties to offsetthe practical costs of having lands in theirjurisdiction that generate no tax revenues.
S.5.9 Health and Safety (MosquitoControl)
S.5.9.1 Issues and Concerns
One of the most controversial areas ofconcern regarding the LDWP is the concernthat the project will increase marshy habitatsthat can provide potential breeding sites formosquitoes. There are two importantquestions related to this issue: (1) will therebe a significant increase in nuisancemosquitoes from wetlands and marsheswithin two miles of the town of Myton, and(2) will there be a significant increase indisease-bearing mosquitoes in the UintaBasin that cannot be reasonably controlled?
S.5.9.2 Impact Analysis
Much of the land within the LDWP projectboundaries is irrigated or contains wetlandsand has the potential to produce mosquitoes. Under all alternatives, the existing wetlandhabitat would be maintained and irrigationof grasslands would continue. Additionally,there would be an increase of wetlands. Under the Proposed Action, there would bean eleven percent increase, or 497 acres, ofpotential mosquito-breeding habitat. Increases in the other action alternativeswould be from 12 to 13 percent (776 to 849acres). These increases would result in anoverall increase of 0.4 to 1 percent increasein potential mosquito-producing habitatwithin the Uinta Basin. Within the Mytonvicinity, there would be a net increase of124 acres of potential mosquito breedinghabitat, of which 68 acres would be of theWest Nile Virus (WNV) vector (Culextarsalis) type. This would be a significantimpact if not for the implementation of amosquito control program. Under all actionalternatives including the Proposed Action,all potential breeding habitats within theproject boundaries would be treated inaccordance with a Mosquito Control Plan(refer to Appendix G of the FEIS) modeledafter plans recommended by the Centers forDisease Control. Under baseline conditionsfor the Proposed Action, only 34 percent ofthe project area (1,592 acres) is presentlytreated by the local Mosquito AbatementDistricts (MADs) for mosquitoes, with theremainder (3,215 acres) either untreated oronly sporadically treated. Therefore, eventhough the amount of mosquito breedinghabitat will increase locally under theProposed Action or other action alternatives,there would be a mosquito-control programimplemented on all LDWP project lands. Because most of the existing habitat withinthe project area is not currently treated for
S- 18
mosquitoes, there would be a greater levelof mosquito control in the LDWP area underthe Proposed Action and alternatives thanunder baseline conditions (Figure S-4).
S.5.10 Recreation Resources
S.5.10.1 Issues and Concerns
Would the project change existingrecreational use or access within theDuchesne River corridor?
S.5.10.2 Impact Analysis
There is the slight potential for recreationaluse of the project area to increase as theLDWP brings more wildlife to the area. Permits and access conditions for hunting,fishing and non-consumptive recreationwould vary among the alternatives. Underthe Proposed Action, hunting, fishing andnon-consumptive recreation would requireTribal permits or Tribal permission foraccess. Multiple hunting/fishing permits(State and/or Tribal) plus Tribal permissionfor access could be required for thePahcease and Topanotes Alternatives.
S.5.11 Transportation
S.5.11.1 Issues and Concerns
Would the LDWP change the existing levelsof service (LOS) on roads that would beused by workers traveling to and from thejob, deliveries of various materials or visitsby recreational users? (LOS is a highwayrating system that evaluates traffic flowconditions on various road segments. LOSdeclines as traffic increases and roadsbecome unable to adequately handle trafficflow.) Would the LDWP result in anyphysical damage to the paved county roads
or close any roads necessary for propertyaccess?
S.5.11.2 Impact Analysis
During peak construction periods, it isexpected that implementation of the LDWPwould add up to 50 vehicle round trips perday to the road network in the surroundingarea, particularly between Myton andRoosevelt. This volume of traffic is notexpected to cause any deterioration in theroad infrastructure nor any noticeabledecline in the LOS on the roads. Oneexception to this might be during peakevening traffic periods in Roosevelt, whereLDWP project traffic would add to theincreasing congestion and might cause theLOS to decline slightly.
Although internal roads would generally beclosed to motorized vehicles, except thoseneeded for administrative use, all existingroad rights-of-way necessary for propertyaccess would be maintained.
Wetlands would be constructed so as to notpond against county roads, culverts wouldbe repaired or installed at wetland-countyroad crossings as necessary and the roadsidedrainage ditches maintained. As a result,there would be no impacts to county roadsthrough surface or ground water.
S.5.12 Cultural Resources
S.5.12.1 Issues and Concerns
Would the LDWP affect any prehistoric orhistoric sites eligible for the NationalRegister of Historic Places (NRHP)? Wouldthe LDWP affect any Tribe traditional orreligious use areas?
S- 20
S.5.12.2 Impact Analysis
Most of the known sites within the projectarea are historic structures or engineeringfeatures. Significant cultural resources inthe LDWP project area are limited to fourhistoric canals that have been determined tobe eligible for the NRHP; the remaining fivesites are either unevaluated or have beenjudged insignificant by field recorders. There would be no impacts to these knownsites. There are no known sites of culturalimportance or sacred sites to the Tribewithin the project area.
Since cultural resources surveys of theimpact area of influence have not beencomprehensive, additional cultural andpaleontological surveys and analyses wouldbe conducted under a ProgrammaticAgreement among the Utah State HistoricPreservation Office (SHPO), MitigationCommission, DOI and the Tribe (seeAppendix F of the FEIS).
S.5.13 Native American TrustResources/Environmental Justice
S.5.13.1 Issues and Concerns
Would the LDWP affect Tribal sovereignty?Would the LDWP insure that Trustresources are utilized for the benefit of theTribal owners? Would the project have adisproportional effect on minority or lowincome populations such as Tribalmembers?
S.5.13.2 Impact Analysis
The Proposed Action would occur onportions of the Uintah and Ouray IndianReservation and would utilize land andwater rights of the Tribe. The Tribe wouldbe compensated for placing easements on its
land and leasing its water to the project. The Tribe would also receive the benefit ofincreased wetland-wildlife resources. TheTribe is a lead partner on this project forplanning purposes specifically to ensure thattribal sovereignty and resources areprotected. The Tribe has developed theconceptual project plans and would managethe entire wetland-wildlife area.
Under the Proposed Action, constructionwould occur over a 7-year period generatingjobs for up to 30 local residents. Construction contractors would be requiredto give preference to qualified Ute Indiansin hiring and income would be generated forsome individual Ute Indians during projectconstruction. Employment would beprovided for an estimated regular staff ofthree personnel with periodic needs fortemporary workers to meet operation andmaintenance needs. Both projectemployment opportunities and increasedwetland-wildlife resources would provide apositive impact on the Tribe (a minority andlow-income population) withoutsignificantly affecting the health or safety oflocal residents or the local economy. Noneof the alternatives would disproportionallyadversely affect low-income or minoritycommunities.
S.6 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONAND COORDINATION
S.6.1 Initial Project Planning
The Tribe, in conjunction with theMitigation Commission and DOI, conductedextensive consultation and coordinationwhile preparing this FEIS. Consultation andcoordination was initiated in 1997 duringpreparation of project feasibility reports. Public input was sought by the Tribethrough individual landowner contacts,
S- 21
preparation and distribution of a survey toTribal members, field tours of the projectarea and a series of presentations made bythe Tribe to area high schools, at TribalCouncil meetings and at public MitigationCommission meetings. Less formalconsultation with agencies, organizationsand technical experts took place throughoutthe preparation of the initial environmentaldocuments.
Early in the planning process, the leadfederal agencies appointed representatives tobe involved in an LDWP Planning Team. Planning Team members includedrepresentatives from the Tribe, MitigationCommission, DOI, FWS, Reclamation andthe BIA. The first Planning Team meetingwas held on April 15, 1997, in Salt LakeCity. Between April 1997 and initiation ofthe DEIS with public scoping meetings, 18additional Planning Team meetings wereheld.
S.6.2 Development of the DEIS
Public scoping meetings were held in FortDuchesne and Roosevelt on May 15, 2001,and in Salt Lake City on May 16, 2001. Thirty oral and written comments werereceived. Results of the scoping meetingsand comments received during the scopingprocess were used to establish the scope ofthe DEIS and focus the environmentalanalysis on important issues and concerns. Issues and concerns focused on sevengeneral categories: potential economicimpacts, loss of private land (fee) status,project costs and long-term financing,mosquito and weed control, wildlife benefitsand recognition of SACS impacts onwetlands. There was strong support forimmediate completion of the mitigationobligation.
Prior to the DEIS preparation, draft projectdescriptions and an administrative DEISwere submitted to Planning Team membersfor review and comment. Preparation of aPreliminary DEIS (PDEIS) was initiated inJanuary 2003; on April 30, 2003, thiscompleted document was distributed to allcooperating and lead agencies, includingPlanning Team members, for review andcomment. Comments on the PDEIS wereused to prepare the DEIS. The followingagencies participated in the PDEIS review: • U.S. Department of the Interior• U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • Ute Indian Tribe Business
Committee • Ute Indian Tribe Fish and Wildlife
Advisory Board • Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission
S.6.3 Review of the DEIS
The DEIS was filed with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency on November 17, 2003,and a Notice of Availability (NOA)published in the Federal Register onNovember 24, 2003 (68 FR 65943). Publicmeetings were announced in the FederalRegister NOA and within the Uinta Basin. Notices regarding the release of the DEISwere published in the Salt Lake Tribune(December 12, 2003), the Uinta BasinStandard (December 16, 2003), the VernalExpress (December 10, 2003) and the(Provo) Daily Herald (December 11, 2003). Flyers publicizing the DEIS release andannouncing the dates, times and locations ofpublic hearing meetings on the DEIS wereposted in conspicuous locations throughoutthe Uinta Basin in November 2003. Announcements regarding the Uinta Basin
S- 22
public hearings were made on two localradio stations (KNEU and KVEL).
Approximately 200 copies of the DEIS weredistributed by mail or providedelectronically to federal and state resourceagencies, individuals and organizations forofficial review and comment. DEIS copieswere also available at the public hearings toall individuals attending.
Three public hearings were held on theDEIS in December 2003; one in FortDuchesne, one in Roosevelt and one in SaltLake City. The public comment periodremained open until January 16, 2004. Inresponse to requests, the comment periodwas extended for an additional 30 days byadditional notice in the Federal Register onFebruary 5, 2004 (69 FR 5567) for a total ofa 90-day comment period.
S.6.4 FEIS Coordination
All written and oral comments on theLDWP DEIS were considered and used todevelop a revised Proposed Action that metthe project Purpose and Need while alsoaddressing issues raised during the DEISreview.
Subsequent to the DEIS release, ExecutiveOrder 13352 was issued on August 24,2004, and implementing regulationsassociated with this Executive Order wereissued on June 6, 2005. These documentsprovide that local governments withresource jurisdiction or special expertise beafforded, upon request, cooperating agencystatus. Uintah and Duchesne countiesexpressed interest in participating moreclosely in the LDWP planning effort andwere extended offers (September 15, 2006)to participate as cooperating agencies duringthe FEIS preparation. Subsequently, both
counties participated in the FEISpreparation, along with the agency PlanningTeam members for the DEIS.
As a result of both public and agencyPlanning Team member input, the ProposedAction represented in this FEIS was revisedas described in sections S.3 and S.4.
An administrative draft FEIS was completedon July 31, 2007 and distributed to allproject partners and cooperating agencies onSeptember 18, 2007. Additional input fromthese agencies was used in the preparationof the FEIS.
S- 2
3
Tab
le S
-1. S
umm
ary
of E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
s
Prop
osed
Act
ion
Alte
rnat
ive
Pahc
ease
Alte
rnat
ive
Top
anot
es A
ltern
ativ
e
Mos
quito
es
Ther
e w
ould
be
a el
even
per
cent
incr
ease
inpo
tent
ial m
osqu
ito-b
reed
ing
habi
tat w
ithin
the
proj
ect b
ound
arie
s whi
ch re
pres
ents
an
over
all
incr
ease
of 0
.4 p
erce
nt in
the
Uin
ta B
asin
; not
asi
gnifi
cant
impa
ct.
With
in th
e M
yton
vic
inity
,th
ere
wou
ld b
e a
net i
ncre
ase
of 1
24 a
cres
of
pote
ntia
l mos
quito
bre
edin
g ha
bita
t, of
whi
ch 6
8ac
res w
ould
be
of th
e W
est N
ile V
irus v
ecto
r(C
ulex
tars
alis
) typ
e. T
his w
ould
be
a si
gnifi
cant
impa
ct if
not
for t
he im
plem
enta
tion
of a
mos
quito
cont
rol p
rogr
am.
All
pote
ntia
l bre
edin
g ha
bita
ts w
ithin
the
proj
ect
boun
darie
s wou
ld b
e tre
ated
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith a
Mos
quito
Con
trol P
lan
(ref
er to
App
endi
x G
of
the
FEIS
). U
nder
bas
elin
e co
nditi
ons 6
6 pe
rcen
tof
the
proj
ect a
rea
(3,2
15 a
cres
) is e
ither
unt
reat
edor
onl
y sp
orad
ical
ly tr
eate
d fo
r mos
quito
es.
Ther
efor
e, th
ere
are
sign
ifica
ntly
mor
e ac
res o
fun
treat
ed m
osqu
ito h
abita
t und
er b
asel
ine
cond
ition
s com
pare
d to
the
Prop
osed
Act
ion
Alte
rnat
ive.
Sim
ilar t
o th
e Pr
opos
ed A
ctio
n, e
xcep
tth
ere
wou
ld b
e a
twel
ve p
erce
ntin
crea
se in
pot
entia
l mos
quito
-br
eedi
ng h
abita
t
Sim
ilar t
o th
e Pr
opos
ed A
ctio
n, e
xcep
tth
ere
wou
ld b
e a
thirt
een
perc
ent
incr
ease
in p
oten
tial m
osqu
ito-b
reed
ing
habi
tat
Wee
ds
Wou
ld re
mov
e 33
9 ac
res o
f Rus
sian
oliv
e an
dta
mar
isk
as w
ell a
s tre
at fo
r pep
perw
eed,
repr
esen
ting
a be
nefic
ial i
mpa
ct o
f the
pro
ject
. A
deta
iled
Wee
d C
ontro
l Pla
n is
incl
uded
as
App
endi
x B
of t
he F
EIS.
Wou
ld re
mov
e 80
1 ac
res o
f Rus
sian
oliv
e an
d ta
mar
isk
as w
ell a
s tre
at fo
rpe
pper
wee
d, re
pres
entin
g a
bene
ficia
lim
pact
of t
he p
roje
ct. A
det
aile
d W
eed
Con
trol P
lan
is in
clud
ed a
s App
endi
xB
of t
he F
EIS.
Wou
ld re
mov
e 57
8 ac
res o
f Rus
sian
oliv
e an
d ta
mar
isk
as w
ell a
s tre
at fo
rpe
pper
wee
d, re
pres
entin
g a
bene
ficia
lim
pact
of t
he p
roje
ct. A
det
aile
d W
eed
Con
trol P
lan
is in
clud
ed a
s App
endi
x B
of th
e FE
IS.
Priv
ate
Lan
d A
cqui
sitio
nan
d Pr
ojec
t Siz
e
The
proj
ect w
ould
enc
ompa
ss 4
,807
acr
esin
clud
ing
1,59
2 ac
res o
f priv
ate
land
that
wou
ldbe
acq
uire
d fo
r the
pro
ject
.
The
proj
ect w
ould
enc
ompa
ss 6
,765
acre
s inc
ludi
ng 1
,787
acr
es o
f priv
ate
land
that
wou
ld b
e ac
quire
d fo
r the
proj
ect.
The
proj
ect w
ould
enc
ompa
ss 6
,648
acre
s inc
ludi
ng 2
,171
acr
es o
f priv
ate
land
that
wou
ld b
e ac
quire
d fo
r the
proj
ect.
"No-
net l
oss"
of P
riva
teL
ands
Pol
icy
Acq
uire
d pr
ivat
e la
nd w
ould
be
trans
ferr
ed to
the
Trib
e as
fee
land
s con
sist
ent w
ith D
uche
sne
and
Uin
tah
Cou
ntie
s’ “
no n
et lo
ss”
of p
rivat
e la
ndpo
licie
s.
Acq
uire
d pr
ivat
e la
nd w
ould
be
reta
ined
by
the
fede
ral g
over
nmen
t and
wou
ld n
ot b
e co
nsis
tent
with
Duc
hesn
ean
d U
inta
h C
ount
ies’
“no
net
loss
” of
priv
ate
land
pol
icie
s.Sa
me
as P
ahce
ase
Alte
rnat
ive
Sum
mar
y of
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
cts
Pr
opos
ed A
ctio
n A
ltern
ativ
ePa
hcea
se A
ltern
ativ
eT
opan
otes
Alte
rnat
ive
S- 2
4
Part
ial L
and
Acq
uisi
tions
Ther
e m
ay b
e pa
rtial
land
hold
ing
acqu
isiti
ons a
spa
rt of
the
proj
ect (
acqu
isiti
ons i
n w
hich
por
tions
of a
pro
perty
ow
ner’
s lan
d ho
ldin
gs fa
ll in
side
the
proj
ect b
ound
ary
and
porti
ons f
all o
utsi
de o
f the
boun
dary
). In
thes
e in
stan
ces,
prop
erty
ow
ners
wou
ld n
ot o
nly
be c
ompe
nsat
ed fo
r the
acq
uire
dla
nds,
but a
lso
for a
ny re
duct
ion
in th
e va
lue
ofth
e re
mai
nder
pro
perty
resu
lting
from
the
acqu
isiti
on.
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
nSa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Duc
hesn
e R
iver
Are
aC
anal
Reh
abili
tatio
n(D
RA
CR
)D
RA
CR
miti
gatio
n no
t inc
lude
d as
an
elem
ent o
fth
is a
ltern
ativ
e.
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
nSa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Gro
undw
ater
Lev
els
Ther
e w
ould
be
no in
crea
se in
the
grou
nd w
ater
tabl
e ou
tsid
e of
the
LDW
P pr
ojec
t bou
ndar
ies
with
the
exce
ptio
n of
a sl
ight
incr
ease
in th
e w
ater
tabl
e w
ithin
two
exis
ting
oxbo
ws s
outh
of R
iver
Roa
d ad
jace
nt to
the
Riv
erde
ll So
uth
site
. Th
ere
wou
ld b
e no
eff
ects
on
adja
cent
infr
astru
ctur
e or
crop
land
thro
ugh
grou
nd w
ater
incr
ease
. Non
e of
the
alte
rnat
ives
wou
ld a
ffec
t the
gro
und
wat
erle
vels
at t
he M
yton
Cem
eter
y.
Sam
e as
the
Prop
osed
Act
ion
exce
ptth
ere
wou
ld b
e an
incr
ease
d w
ater
tabl
e to
the
east
of t
he U
resk
Dra
in a
ndad
jace
nt to
the
Flum
e. T
his i
ncre
ased
wat
er ta
ble
coul
d af
fect
40
acre
s of
past
ure
land
eas
t of t
he U
resk
Dra
inan
d ni
ne a
cres
of c
ropl
and
adja
cent
toth
e Fl
ume
site
. Sa
me
as P
ahce
ase
Alte
rnat
ive
Wat
er R
ight
s
Ther
e ar
e se
cure
wat
er ri
ghts
ava
ilabl
e on
pro
ject
land
s to
fulfi
ll pr
ojec
t nee
ds w
ithou
t obt
aini
ngw
ater
from
oth
er so
urce
s out
side
the
proj
ect a
rea.
C
ould
resu
lt in
a re
duct
ion
of 1
27 to
908
acr
e-fe
etof
wat
er to
juni
or w
ater
righ
t hol
ders
in d
ry a
ndve
ry d
ry y
ears
. No
mea
sura
ble
chan
ge in
the
Duc
hesn
e R
iver
flow
at R
andl
ett.
Sam
e as
the
Prop
osed
Act
ion
exce
ptco
uld
resu
lt in
a re
duct
ion
of 1
74 to
1,43
9 ac
re-f
eet o
f wat
er to
juni
or w
ater
right
hol
ders
in d
ry a
nd v
ery
dry
year
s. Sa
me
as P
ahce
ase
Alte
rnat
ive
Wat
er Q
ualit
y
Ther
e w
ould
be
net i
ncre
ase
in T
DS
of 0
.68
ppm
in th
e D
uche
sne
Riv
er d
owns
tream
of M
yton
,w
ith n
o m
easu
rabl
e ch
ange
in th
e TD
Sco
ncen
tratio
ns a
t Ran
dlet
t; no
t a si
gnifi
cant
impa
ct.
Ther
e w
ould
be
net i
ncre
ase
in T
DS
betw
een
2.6
and
3.0
ppm
in th
eD
uche
sne
Riv
er d
owns
tream
of M
yton
and
up to
1.7
ppm
at R
andl
ett;
not a
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
. Sa
me
as P
ahce
ase
Alte
rnat
ive
Cou
nty
Tax
Rev
enue
s
The
tota
l los
s of t
ax re
venu
es w
ithin
the
two-
coun
ty a
rea
wou
ld ra
nge
from
$0
to $
1,63
2an
nual
ly.
The
tota
l pro
perty
tax
loss
with
in th
etw
o-co
unty
are
a fr
om b
oth
the
conv
ersi
on o
f priv
ate
land
to fe
dera
low
ners
hip
and
the
conv
ersi
on o
f som
epa
rcel
s fro
m re
side
ntia
l to
gree
nbel
tus
e w
ould
rang
e fr
om $
3,80
8 to
The
tota
l pro
perty
tax
loss
with
in th
etw
o-co
unty
are
a fr
om b
oth
the
conv
ersi
on o
f priv
ate
land
to fe
dera
low
ners
hip
and
the
conv
ersi
on o
f som
epa
rcel
s fro
m re
side
ntia
l to
gree
nbel
t use
wou
ld ra
nge
from
$3,
364
to $
7,04
3
Sum
mar
y of
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
cts
Pr
opos
ed A
ctio
n A
ltern
ativ
ePa
hcea
se A
ltern
ativ
eT
opan
otes
Alte
rnat
ive
S- 2
5
$7,9
18 a
nnua
lly.
annu
ally
.
Soci
oeco
nom
ics
Con
stru
ctio
n of
the
proj
ect w
ould
incr
ease
the
net
econ
omic
out
put (
$924
,729
to $
1,25
9,64
2),
pers
onal
ear
ning
s ($3
16,3
87 to
$37
5,30
5) a
ndem
ploy
men
t (13
.1 to
15.
1 jo
bs) t
o th
e lo
cal
econ
omy.
Afte
r con
stru
ctio
n, o
pera
tion
of th
epr
ojec
t wou
ld in
crea
se th
e ne
t eco
nom
ic o
utpu
t by
$335
,810
ann
ually
. N
ot a
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
.Sa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
n ex
cept
net
econ
omic
out
put w
ould
incr
ease
by
$197
,331
afte
r con
stru
ctio
n.
Agr
icul
ture
indu
stry
Gra
zing
wou
ld b
e el
imin
ated
on
4,80
7 ac
res o
fpa
stur
e la
nd to
allo
w th
e cr
eatio
n an
d re
stor
atio
nof
diff
eren
t wet
land
and
upl
and
habi
tats
. As a
resu
lt, e
limin
atio
n of
gra
zing
wou
ld re
sult
in a
0.2
perc
ent r
educ
tion
of th
e U
inta
Bas
in li
vest
ock
cash
rece
ipts
; not
a si
gnifi
cant
impa
ct.
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
nSa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Cro
plan
d
Fifty
-eig
ht a
cres
of c
ropl
and
wou
ld b
e ac
quire
dan
d m
anag
ed fo
r wild
life
purp
oses
and
no
long
erus
ed fo
r cro
p pr
oduc
tion;
not
a si
gnifi
cant
impa
ct.
No
esta
blis
hed
crop
land
wou
ld b
eac
quire
d, b
ut fr
om 2
39 to
356
acr
es o
fcr
opla
nd w
ould
be
plac
ed u
nder
cons
erva
tion
ease
men
ts in
whi
ch th
ela
ndow
ner w
ould
be
paid
to re
tain
20
perc
ent o
f the
ir cr
op fo
r wild
life.
Thes
e ch
ange
s wou
ld re
sult
in a
0.1
to0.
2 pe
rcen
t red
uctio
n in
mar
keta
ble
crop
yie
ld.
Sam
e as
Pah
ceas
e A
ltern
ativ
e
Wet
land
and
Rip
aria
nH
abita
t Typ
es
18.5
acr
es o
f wet
land
and
ripa
rian
habi
tats
wou
ldbe
tem
pora
rily
impa
cted
and
7.3
acr
espe
rman
ently
impa
cted
. W
ould
rest
ore
or c
reat
e1,
025
acre
s of w
etla
nd a
nd ri
paria
n ha
bita
t and
enha
nce
the
valu
e of
1,6
56 a
cres
of e
xist
ing
wet
land
and
ripa
rian
habi
tats
. Si
gnifi
cant
bene
ficia
l im
pact
.
Neg
ativ
e im
pact
sim
ilar t
o th
ePr
opos
ed A
ctio
n. W
ould
rest
ore
orcr
eate
2,1
25 a
cres
and
enh
ance
930
acre
s of w
etla
nd a
nd ri
paria
n ha
bita
ts.
Sign
ifica
nt b
enef
icia
l im
pact
.
Neg
ativ
e im
pact
sim
ilar t
o th
e Pr
opos
edA
ctio
n. W
ould
rest
ore
or c
reat
e 1,
461
acre
s and
enh
ance
1,7
14 a
cres
of
wet
land
and
ripa
rian
habi
tats
. Sig
nific
ant
bene
ficia
l im
pact
.
Wild
life
Res
ourc
es
Wou
ld im
prov
e th
e ha
bita
t for
all
of th
e ni
nem
ajor
wild
life
spec
ies g
roup
s tha
t wer
e ev
alua
ted.
Hab
itat i
mpr
ovem
ents
that
ben
efit
wild
life
are
sign
ifica
nt b
enef
icia
l im
pact
s.Sa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
n
Thr
eate
ned,
End
ange
red
and
Can
dida
te S
peci
es(L
iste
d Sp
ecie
s)
Wou
ld n
ot a
dver
sely
impa
ct a
ny th
reat
ened
,en
dang
ered
or c
andi
date
spec
ies.
Wou
ld b
enef
itU
inta
Bas
in h
ookl
ess c
actu
s and
wes
tern
yel
low
-bi
lled
cuck
oo.
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
nSa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Sum
mar
y of
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
cts
Pr
opos
ed A
ctio
n A
ltern
ativ
ePa
hcea
se A
ltern
ativ
eT
opan
otes
Alte
rnat
ive
S- 2
6
Rec
reat
ion
Hun
ting,
fish
ing
and
non-
cons
umpt
ive
recr
eatio
nw
ould
requ
ire T
ribal
per
mits
or a
cces
s per
mis
sion
.
Mul
tiple
per
mits
and
acc
ess
perm
issi
ons c
ould
be
requ
ired
to fi
sh,
hunt
or r
ecre
ate
alon
g th
e D
uche
sne
Riv
er c
orrid
or.
Sam
e as
Pah
ceas
e A
ltern
ativ
e
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Incr
ease
d tra
ffic
from
con
stru
ctio
n ve
hicl
es is
not
expe
cted
to c
ause
any
det
erio
ratio
n in
the
road
infr
astru
ctur
e no
r any
not
icea
ble
decl
ine
in th
eLe
vel O
f Ser
vice
on
the
road
s (a
mea
sure
of
volu
me
and
flow
rate
s and
traf
fic c
onge
stio
n).
Alth
ough
inte
rnal
road
s wou
ld g
ener
ally
be
clos
edto
mot
oriz
ed v
ehic
les,
exce
pt th
ose
need
ed fo
rad
min
istra
tive
use,
all
exis
ting
road
righ
ts-o
f-w
ayne
cess
ary
for p
rope
rty a
cces
s wou
ld b
em
aint
aine
d.
Ther
e w
ould
be
no im
pact
s to
coun
ty ro
ads
thro
ugh
surf
ace
or g
roun
d w
ater
. Sa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
n
Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es
Ther
e w
ould
be
no im
pact
s to
know
n si
tes e
ligib
lefo
r lis
ting
to th
e N
atio
nal R
egis
ter o
f His
toric
Plac
es.
Ther
e ar
e no
kno
wn
site
s of c
ultu
ral
impo
rtanc
e or
sacr
ed si
tes t
o th
e Tr
ibe
with
in th
epr
ojec
t are
a. C
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith th
e St
ate
His
toric
Pres
erva
tion
Off
icer
wou
ld b
e co
nduc
ted
purs
uant
to a
n M
OA
with
SH
PO u
pon
proj
ect
impl
emen
tatio
n (r
efer
to A
ppen
dix
F of
the
FEIS
).Sa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
nN
ativ
e A
mer
ican
Tru
stR
esou
rces
/Env
iron
men
tal
Just
ice
Wou
ld n
ot d
ispr
opor
tiona
lly a
dver
sely
aff
ect l
ow-
inco
me
or m
inor
ity c
omm
uniti
es.
Sa
me
as P
ropo
sed
Act
ion
Sam
e as
Pro
pose
d A
ctio
n