| OCR Text |
Show 6. This agreement, then, is not in accord with the Administration Water Policy: - Insufficient water supply is agreed upon; this amount (44,400 a f) will suffice for four rivers only, or, if the Fish & Game spread out the amount, there will be a reduction from the maintenance of 50% adult trout habitat. The additional rivers, in particular Wolf Creek, are valuable fishing streams, yet they are sacrificed. - in fact, only the 22,300 a f to be supplied by the Conservancy District, is assured, now, at the time of an agreement, and, after 1994 ? ? ? - with the write-off of the additional streams (rivers) there is a write-off of the riparian vegetation and wetlands associated with these rivers. It sounds to me that the attitude accepted among participants to this agreement is that the mitigation provided by the ranch purchase in Currant Creek offsets any wildlife habitat losses - anywhere. Yet this is not in accord with protection of wetlands or riparian vegetation. In discussion with someone at the Water Resources Council on the issue of guidelines for wetlands protection, I was told that the Council was funded only to determine wetlands within floodplains. When I explained the natural features on the Uintas - wetlands, wet potholes, springs and seeps, spruce bogs, marshes, and wet meadows - at all elevations on the Range, the individual at the Council said this was a rare situation - and, one not really covered in the Executive Orders. Where, then, does this leave us? If the Forest Service is the lead Agency in determining what wetlands are, and where^and this Agency is not yet doing this, there is no specific on-site guidelines on which to base agreements. Moreover, this leaves such determinations in the category of subjective judgments - which the Task Force Reports say must be avoided. Can a land exchange of 2,300 acres of ranch on Currant Creek serve as equivalent habitat, or sufficient habitat, for that lost as the kinds of wetlands, in or outside of floodplains, jjjjj-x _ which exist on the Uintas? ) 5f,(( ,| Wildlife Resources and/or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for instream /) . 0 " Water acquired solely by or for the Utah Division of GAfLHfJ+t flows shall not be used as a credit to offset the 15,800 a f provided by the District. This additional water is intended to go beyond the initial 22,300 a f, in order to achieve the goal of 44,400 a f for instream flows. The District will cooperate in such acquisition, but without expense to the District. ^In what ways? This should be spelled out.) The parties also mutually acknowledge that many of the project works are not yet completed, and, the transbasin diversion of 136,000 a f is not possible today, and will not be possible for several years. The parties also acknowledge that although the Soldier Creek Dam is complete, and water can now be stored in the enlarged Strawberry Reservoir, there is a degree of flexibility in the time for filling the reservoir. (Note: there is time enough to undertake and experiment with conservation programs to determine actual need for this transbasin diversion. There appears to be no doubt that |
