| OCR Text |
Show UHli IN REPLY REFER TO: 565. United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION UPPER COLORADO REGIONAL OFFICE P.O. BOX 11568 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84147 UC-725 r APR 4 - 1979 Ms. Beth Kaeding Citizens for a Responsible Central Utah Project 727 6th Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Dear Ms. Kaeding: In order to address the many points contained in your letter of February 14 concerning our proposed mitigation plan for the Strawberry Collection System, we would like to clarify for your group some background on how the plan was developed and the Bureau's involvement therein. Initially, we believe it is only fair to say that your impression that the Bureau was not "impartial," was hiding behind the issue of condemnation, and "in reality is opposed to" the plan is without: merit. Further, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and the Forest Service support" out-efforts to acquire mitigation land as indicated in the attached letter. Your comments relating to the handling of public notice letters and subsequent landowner involvement are, we believe, not in keeping with events which actually transpired. For example, some 225 letters of notice were sent to those parties the Bureau felt would be potentially affected by the project. Some 35 were sent to landowners and the remaining letters were sent to environmental groups, clubs, and governmental agencies. A number of concerned landowners, primarily in the North Fork area, called the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for clarification. The Division then called the Bureau and asked us to meet with the landowners to discuss the proposed public meetings and answer questions they might have. On February 2, 1979, representatives of our Provo office met in Duchesne with several landowners, however, no information was exchanged that x^as not available at the public meetings. Any environmental group would have been afforded the same "advantage" had they asked. The public meeting was intended to discuss the biological merits of the proposed mitigation plan. However, the majority of the public was |
