| OCR Text |
Show -2- the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Defense Fund, as well as of Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation, that the issues and questions raised on the Uinta Range water storage projects, are just part of the type issues needing addressing in the entire Programmatic EIS for the Colorado River Basin. It is my understanding, also, that the Bureau is not anxious to undertake such a comprehensive study of cumulative impacts of all its projects, both those underway as well as those just planned. What I am trying to do is to bring public pressure on the Department of Interior to see that an adequate and total CES is carried out. While the Bureau would take the lead, the intent is that it would enlist the cooperation of any and all federal agencies in ordeer to ascertain the kind and degree of information required. Word of mouth in Utah, indicates that money is not available for such a project. I do not know how the CES was proposed, for funding but funding needs to be determined outside the influence of Cunn KcKay, second in line on the Interior Sub-Committee on Appropriations. I am available now to assist in any way deemed most effective for the purposes sought,in a meeting with Bureau staff people or in requesting written answers to my questions. I am providing you a copy of my report which lists these. Very truly yours, In a telephone conversation with Robert Rowan, Ashley Forest Supervisor, (Jan. 5, 1977) Mr. Rowan raised two points of law which might need to he looked into, he was addressing ?he constraints' placed on him as a ForwtSup.rvi.er in Ration to activity of the Bureau of Reclamation on National Forest lands. 1 He said that there was an agreement between the Federal * Government and Utah Water Conservancy Districts which rave the Bureau the power to carry out water storage projects. He thought such agreement took place in the 1960fs between the State of Utah and Congress. In the r,:nd of !!r. Rowan, such action limited the. scope °| his prerogatives in carrying out the Multiple-Use Stained ?aid Act of 1960. Is this valid? Has it been tested? o Fe claimed that the Forest Service was omitteddas a npjnber o^ the mitigation committee and, as a result, "the'Forest Service has not been fairly or adequately represented in seeking, identifying or in claiming mitigation for lost wildlife habitat from water storage and diversion activities of the Bureau. It is his opinion and aiversion dcuv. , winter range that private land is available nov r,^ t1- + 'or> aTv.a« - which would alleviate areas proposed for water development, nothing is done nor is planned as mitigation. |
