Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project: documents and correspondence, 1979

Page 23

Citizens for a entra! Utah Project Mtih^ (f oi Director /Shy Harvey, co-chairperson Jjeirrshf'rr. co-chairperson Duncan d freed Heidenreich l Hovingh d littleiield : McCormick ara Polich ?s Talley t Wixom Crting Organisations ih Coonci', Trout Unlimited fky Mountian Council of the iteration of Fly Fishermen lb Member Clubs of the ieratioi of F!y Fishermen inefly Society of the Wastach Salt take City. Utah rier oi ihe Royai Coachman Pleasant Grove. Utah ah Audubon P r o j e c t Manager, Central Utah Project U, So Bureau of Reclamation Box 1338 Provo, Utah 84601 Dear Sin 14 February 1979 Representatives of Citizens for a Responsible Central Utah Project attended the February 8 public meeting on the proposed Strawberry Collection System Wildlife Mitigation Plan, Reactions of our members to the meeting were some­what varied? however, there was one common impression, that much about the plan was not being told and that the Bureau was not being impartial. It appears the Bureau is mustering opposition to a miti­gation plan which it ostensively favors yet in reality is opposed to. Discussion at the meeting revealed the land­owners in the mitigation area were given more than a "letter of notice" as to the mitigation plan meeting, an advantage not afforded any environmental group represented at the meeting. Although our organization does not support condemnation of private property, the fact that the Bureau appears to be hiding behind-this issue when it comes to mitigation is hypocritical. The Bureau shows no hesitancy in the condemnation of private property for the development of CUP features. Bureau representatives conducting the meeting failed to specify that the need for mitigation is not an arguable point; mitigation is man­datory, not an issue open to debate. Additionally, the costs of this mitigation plan are part of the total project cost. The map of the proposed mitigation lands suggests the elimination of Forest Service inholdings may have been an important consideration in mitigation plan formulation. Were mitigation lands truly considered for their value to wildlife? If they were, how much consideration was given to leasing or purchasing surface rights to lands around Strawberry Reservoir that are seriously overgrazed and have been largely defoliated? Development of these lands would most definately aid sage grouse, one of the hardest hit yet unmitigated for species. If this was not possible, why couldn't the acreage of sage grouse habitat lost be miti­gated for elsewhere in the state where potential sage grouse habitat needs to be developed; in other words, were the species affected by the collection system taken into con­sideration or was it only the acreage lost that was important?