Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Municipal and Industrial Water System Representative Area Template <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Payson representative area characterizes similar communities in which secondary water systems would <br />be constructed in existing streets, and that no construction in unlined, open ditches would be required. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The areas that would be disturbed do not support threatened, endangered, or special status species. In <br />addition. construction of secondary water systems would not occur within any recreation areas or in areas <br />that have mineral and energy resources. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The maximum width of disturbance along the secondary system alignment would be 15 feet, and all <br />disturbed areas would either be revegetated with upland grasses or landscape plantings, or covered in <br />asphalt/concrete. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It is estimated that 100 acre-feet of M&I water would serve one 40-acre parcel. Based on the allocated <br />1I,200 acre-feet of M&I water, a total of 1I2, 40-acre parcels could receive M&I water via a secondary <br />water system. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The total acreage of land that could be served with M&I water would equal 4.480 acres or 112, 40-= <br />parcels. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Of the 10 communities, two (Mapleton and Salem) have a rural character. Based on the estimates <br />provided in Table A-I. the Mapleton representative area represents approximately thirteen percent of <br />potential impacts associated with the development of secondary water systems. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Of the 10 communities, eight (Springville, Elk Ridge, Woodland Hills, Payson, Santaquin. Spanish Forie, <br />Goshen and Genola) are more urbanized. That is, the Payson representative area represents eighty-seven <br />percent of potential impacts associated with the development of secondary water systems. . <br /> <br />A.3.0 Method of Analysis <br /> <br />Within both Mapleton and Payson, a square, forty acre parcel (one-quarter mile section) was selected to represent <br />typical development in each community. Each forty acre square parcel is called a "representative area.. The <br />number of homes in each Mapleton and Payson representative area was detennined through field review. Figures <br />A-I and A-2 show the location of streets and homes within the Mapleton and Payson representative area. <br />respectively.' <br /> <br />Construction impacts that could occur within a representative area were evaluated in tenus of potential impacts <br />to wetlands, wildlife, soils, health and safety, socioeconomics, visual, transportation, and air quality. In peIfonning <br />the impact analysis, both the Mapleton and Payson representatives areas were characterized in tenus of existing <br />resources. Total disturbance for each representative area was calculated based on the total length of pipe that <br />would be installed in each representative area, times an assumed work space width of 15 feet. An identified <br />impact in one representative area was then multiplied by the potential number of affected representative areas (112) <br />to detenuine total potential impacts. Table A-2 shows the total disturbance expeCted in a representative area, as <br />. well as the total expected disturbance associated with the installation of secondary water systems in southern Utah <br />County. The figures are based on the assumptions listed above. An example of how the calculations were <br />computed is Hsted below. <br /> <br />A-4 <br />