Lower Duchesne River Wetlands Mitigation Project · The Lower Duchesne River Wetlands Mitigation...

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.


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


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)


Would the LDWP affect any listed speciesthrough mortality, disturbance through keylife stages or habitat degradation?


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


Would the construction and operation of theLDWP interfere with the water rights ofexisting users, reduce water availability oralter existing water supply patterns to theseusers?


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.


Would the LDWP affect ground water levelson properties outside of the project area?


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


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?


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


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?


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.


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?


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.


Will the LDWP split properties leaving theowners with uneconomical remainders?


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


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?


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)


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?


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


Would the project change existingrecreational use or access within theDuchesne River corridor?


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


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?


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


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


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


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?


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

Date post:	19-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Lower Duchesne River Wetlands Mitigation Project · The Lower Duchesne River Wetlands Mitigation...

Documents