| OCR Text |
Show To help control any degradation that might occur, construction activity in the stream or diversion of water would comply with all applicable State and Federal water pollution control regulations and laws. A recent streamflow study on the fishery habitat bf the stream affected by the Strawberry Aqueduct has been completed cooperatively by the Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1979). The study, requested by the Governor of Utah in an effort to evaluate the various flow alternatives, was submitted to him on May 7, 1979. The designs of the diversion structures along the Strawberry collection system will allow releases of whatever flows should be finally decided upon. The impacts on salinity are discussed in the response to comment 9 above. 22. Comment: We are disturbed by the segmentation of analyses that is being done on the Bonneville Unit. The Strawberry Collection System, the Diamond Fork Power System, and the Irrigation and Drainage System are all interrelated in function and would have interdependent environmental effects. It is misleading to analyze each system as if it stood alone. Actions taken on any given system would affect the other systems in terms of design and environmental impacts. Response: The Bonneville Unit is divided into six systems according to location and function. Although these systems are designed for interrelated operations to provide the maximum efficiency, they could operate independently if necessary. Two court actions upheld the practicability and legality of issuing individual environmental impact statements on each of the systems of the Bonneville Unit. Civil Action No. C-74-9 (Sierra Club et al. vs. Gilbert Stamm et al.), was filed January 7, 1974, and was litigated in favor of the defendants (Stamm, et al.), by the United States District Court for the District of Utah on June 21, 1974. The decision was upheld by the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, on November 29, 1974. The Supreme. Court refused to hear an appeal. This subject is discussed further in Section A-10(a) of the DES and the FES. 23. Comment: ".* The impact statement did not contain a cost/benefit analysis. This was called for in the original EIS guidelines issued by the Council on Environmental Quality and is required by their new regulations. Not only is there no B/C analysis in the impact statement, but a copy of the analysis is not even readily available. Furthermore, the analysis as we understand it is based on outdated information and policies. 40 if" •• |
