| OCR Text |
Show STRAWBERRY COLLECTION SYSTEM WILDLIFE MITIGATION HEARINGS A mitigation plan for 13,052 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat destroyed by the Strawberry Collection System (essentially, the Bonneville Unit) was aired at three public meetings (Duchesne, Orem and Salt Lake), February 6.th, 7th, and 8th, 1979. The plan, developed by DWR, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) biologists, calls for purchasing 14,003 acres of private lands over an extended period of time. These lands would be managed primarily for wildlife, with other uses allowed that would not detract from wildlife production. Biologists explained that lands were identified for acquistion based on their proximity to habitat destroyed, their ability to produce those species types lost, and their potential for increasing wildlife production. DWR expressed their intent to double wildlife production on the acquired lands, thus compensating for wildlife lost. Nevertheless, spokesmen admitted that all losses could not be replaced. Sagegrouse, beaver and moose would sustain a loss, while there would be a net gain of deer, elk and forest grouse. ' One glaring dissappointment of these three meetings was their focus on personal property rights rather than wildlife concerns. Very few specifics of the plan were discussed. Instead, the question/answer period was monopolized by land owners expressing fears of condemnation. This is curious in light of statements made by plan formulators, that almost all land would be bought from willing sellers. The overwhelming majority of people ostensively opposed the mitigation plan. However, BuRec never clarified that wildlife mitigation as mandatory, not discretionary. The plan would cost more than funds currently appropriated for mitigation. Although mitigation costs are non-reimbursable, additional expenses would raise costs of an already overspent project. Furthermore, this plan is merely a recommendation to BuRec. Based on public input and an environmental statement assessing biological, social and economic factors, the BuRec will decide on the type and amount of wildlife mitigation undertaken. On April 4, 1979 a letter was sent to attendees of these mitigation hearings giving the interagency team's conclusions from these hearings. Included are a recommendation that the mitigation plan be implemented with the acquisition of lands being on a willing seller basis. Lands in the North Fork of the Duchesne should be dropped from consideration as they do not constitute sufficient quality wildlife habitat. An upgrading of wildlife habitat on public lands was determined to cause significant impacts (socio-economic and physical damage to the environment] and was therefore not being considered. Instead of wildlife mitigation being an integral part of CUP, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the plan appears to be written almost as an afterthought. Wildlife losses and mitigation costs logically (and legally) should be included in the Environmental Statement and benefit-cost ratio. Total Profect cost should have been revealed before decisions were made and resources irretrievably committed. We have yet to see the costs - in both fisheries losses and dollars - of stream impacts and mitigation, And all of this in light of a Water Policy Act which specifies that mitigation must be done concurrently with constuction. Joelle Reece page 10 |
