Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />- <br />c'"' <br />N <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />PLAN FORMULATION <br /> <br />The MOP subteams have suggested many alternative plans for water <br />development in the project study area. The plans range from nondevelop- <br />ment to plans for highly specialized industrial uses. Six basic plans <br />comprising a representative selection of the many alternatives are <br />described in this chapter. One of the plans which seems at this time <br />the most likely to satisfy all needs and interests is discussed in more <br />detail. <br /> <br />The alternative plans have been formulated to evaluate a range of <br />concepts presented by various interests including those represented on <br />the MOP team and on the board of directors of the Yellow Jacket Water <br />Conservancy District. Four of these plans are development concepts <br />placing various levels of emphasis on water use by the coal industry, <br />the oil shale industry, irrigation, and municipal and domestic systems. <br />These differences acknowledge the fact that National energy policies are <br />uncertain at this time. Full consideration has been given to the insistence <br />of the conservancy district board for maximum irrigation development, as <br />well as the opposition to new land irrigation voiced by wildlife interests. <br />One of the alternatives is basically a non-Federal development plan, <br />designed primarily to support the preservationist concepts of free- <br />flowing streams and curtailment of civilization's encroachment into <br />wildlife habitats. <br /> <br />Each plan is described in detail, with a discussion of purposes <br />served, physical facilities, economic and environmental considerations, <br />and disadvantages anticipated. The plans are also summarized in three <br />comparative tables in Chapter V. Measures are included in each plan to <br />minimize the effect of wildlife habitat losses that would occur with <br />reservoir inundation, conversion of native range to irrigated cropland, <br />and interruption of migration routes by canals. Differences in cost <br />for mitigation measures among the alternative plans (as listed in Chapter <br />V) are proportional to the relative magnitude of full-service irrigation <br />in the Little Beaver area and attributable to other considerations, as <br />explained above. All of the development alternatives provide for recrea- <br />tion facilities at project reservoirs. In addition, prescribed minimum <br />streamflows would be maintained in the North Fork and the lower mains tern <br />of the White River for the protection of fisheries and downstream rights, <br />as stated in Chapter III. The following description of the six plans is <br />preceded by a discussion of potential reservoir sites considered in the <br />planning process. <br /> <br />29 <br />