| OCR Text |
Show Citizens for a Responsible Central Utah Project Board of Directors Dorothy Harvey, co-chairperson Fred Reimherr, co-chairperson Beth Duncan David Freed Karl Heidenreich Peter Hovingh David Littlefield Dave McCormick Barbara Polich fames Talley Hartt Wixom Supporting Organizations • Utah Council, Trout Unlimited • Rocky Mountian Council of the Federation of Fly Fishermen •Utah Member Clubs of the Federation of Fly Fishermen •Stonefly Society of the Wastach Salt Lake City, Utah •Order of the Royal Coachman Pleasant firove. Utah • Utar ibon 1445 N. 10 St. Manitowoc, Wisconsin 54220 Feb. 5, 1979 Pat Parenteau, Counsel National Wildlife Federation 1412 16th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Pat: While this material is sent to you, because it has legal implications, will you also make it available to Oliver Houck. Thanks. We still do not have written answers to our cost questionnaire from the BuRec. The Washington office of the Bureau forwarded a 2" packet of Statistics on the Bonneville Unit of the CUP three weeks ago. I tried to get University of Wisconsin Economics Professors to evaluate it in light of our questions but they are all too busy. So I forwarded it to Gerry Kinghorn in Salt Lake City. He and others v/ho worked on it will try to assess whether we can answer some of our questions, which ones, and then some of the CRCUP group will meet-in Salt Lake City with the Bureau. Meanwhile, I gather from Arthur Harris, Guy Martin's Dep't. that he will try to help us get answers - to use to compare with what the Bureau tells us. The Bureau does not know this. We are in the process of raising questions of re-authorization of the Project under conditions of changing purpose of the Strav/berry Collection System to M & I use, and on the issue of exceeding the cost ceiling under v/hich the Bonneville Unit was authorized. We have to prove this latter issue and £• have inquired from 0MB about it. Kinghorn says the Bureau has exceeded these costs. The latest maneuver of the State of Utah and the Bureau, as you can see from the enclosed article, is to get CUP development binding through tying it in with.the Ute Indian issue. This way, none of the issues of re-authorization need be addressed and there appear to me to be innumerable environmental issues related to mineral development in northeast Utah which might be avoided under the umbrella of Indian jurisdiction over fish and wildlife on all former tribal boundaries. I am preparing background use when Utah presents the State to Congress for "authorization" maneuver and would be disastrous it would succeed and would be di issues in northeast Utah. This cant wildlife area in the State Utah wants to develop oil shale, information you people can legislature recommendation or whatever. This is a slick in our stopping the CUP if sastrous for all wildlife is undoubtedly the most signifi- - its natural features irreplaceable tar sands, oil and gas, phosphate |
