| OCR Text |
Show •- 2. Before we got into the intent of our meeting with Debbie and Sursiand, Harold and I got into a discussion on wildlife and mitigation. It finally became apparent to me why these guys won't mitigate acre for acre.' They hold that replacing private land inholdings for the F.S. mitigations will replace land to be used for Multiple-Use purposes - not just for wildlife and they can't justify using Section 8 Funds for this. Al showed me what F S W Service had recommended for mitigation for Stateline Dam a State owned area north of Beaver Creek ostensibly for elk and deer winter range - rather than the Cooke land on the Black's Fork. I have heard Jim Young state that mitigation can't replace lost wildlife habitat on the basis of land to be managed as Multiple Use! So, what we see here is the fact that the Bureau can 3 take National Forest land but not return it in kind and we have no law or agency to protect this! That's the real problem! When I return to Wisconsin, I'll have alrady sent Sen. Proxmire a copy of thie letter to Andrus and will ask to meet with him sometime in Wis. before I return to Utah. Then among other issues, we can discuss the lack of a law or means to deal with lost F.S. lands. No wonder you c ouldn't get anywhere. While I was in Franks office, I got a copy of the South Slopes Land Use Plan - laying out the proposals for the High Uintas Wilderness, among other issues. What upsets me about the F.S. wilderness proposal ( and I can't read the map line on the North Slopes) is that so much of the area east of Whiterocks River is lost... to land planning under the Vernal Land Use Plan. The reasons for this apparently are those given to Vern Hamre by Bob Rowan at a meeting held recently in Ogden with Hamre, St. John, Rowan and Dick on the High Uintas. Rowan's defense was that this area was to be developed for "people"! Dick said that when Rowan said this, Hamre took off his glass' and looked at Rowan-' and said, "What! What did you say?" Rowan repeated, "People" What he meant is he want to develop this area for high recreation use - and this is the area I recommended four years ago for the least public access since it is the wiIdlest area on the Uintas and provides isolated habitat for elk, cougar, and deer, in particular. I've been so busy, I haven't had time to work on this - but I think I'lll write Hamre and give my criteria - over and : yond comment on the Land Use Plan. Maybe you don't agree with me and agree with . Rowan. He's shortsighted - with all the development to take place in the Uintah Basin - wildlife on the Uintas will have to fight for its privacy - without the help of MAN. Well, I'll have time when I get back to Wis. to comment - for whatever good it will do! And, I'll have to check on the North ilope line proposal! DH |
