| OCR Text |
Show Introduction, continued My involvement in the CUP commenced in October of 1977 when I researched all the impacts on Uinta Range streams and wildlife habitat which would accumulate from CUP development. I was assisted by staffs of the State fish & Game and the Forest Service. I presented this information for consideration at Bureau of Reclamation hearings in Vernal, Utah, which were required from an Environmental Defense Fund suit on the Bureau and Interior,relative to increasing salinity in the Colorado River from existing and proposed developments on this River. I followed up this hearing with several communications with Secretary Andrus, requesting a reformulation and review of the CUP. Through his initiative, a meeting was set up with the Bureau and myself in February to address my environmental concerns. The Bureau would not let me tape the meeting and I was not satisfied with the Bureau continuing plans. I set up a meeting in Salt Lake City with the Missouri River Basin Representative from Denver and experts in river ecosystems and wildlife for May 11, 1978. These experts were from Northern Arizona University, Brighman Young University, Utah State U., the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. Three days before May 11, the riparian expert from Arizona begged off coming - since he had to "look at another situation on the Colorado River for the Bureau"; that same day Forest Service fisheries biologist told me that the instream flow requirements were twice what the Regional Forester from Ogden had requested from the Governor; the next day they called back and said, "Forget it I We can't rock the boat! Careers are at stake."; the Regional Hydrologist then stated that he could not contradict recommendations of his boss, the Regional Forester, at the meeting and the Director of Wildlife Managment found he had to be in Idaho on that day; and the day before the meeting, the Missourir River Basin Rep. cancelled out " due to illness". However, that entire week, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation was helicoptering all over dam sites in Utah and meeting there with water developers. It was as a consequence of this failure to be heard, . that I subsequently appeared at a Fly Fishermen Conclave in /<uUW^,u^ Utah,to try to present the need for organization^opposition. ' I received some support; however, many of the Fly Fishermen present, supported the State development policies and philosophies even though they wanted streams protected. More.aggressive Fly Fishermen did help form the CRCUP and decide it was our first order of business to prepare an Issues Paper which would spell out what concerns we had which could not be explained to the Missouri River Basin Representative of Interior. However, we ended up preparing an Issues Paper # ' dealing with only the Economic/Cost issues and the Van Dam report on Alternatives. A second Issues Paper, in simpler form, is to include environmental, geologic/safety issues, the silencing of opposition in the State, probable questions of impact on Rare and Endangered Colorado Squawfish and the Humpback Chub in the Green and White Rivers, as well as reduced presentations of the cost and alternatives issues. * Steves "ourv, * t*< UTOJCL/V, <H"*\~- ""H^O-. in f%C>(> • T^A f^cL^tU. |
