Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />million had been spen~ on [isb and wildlife repairs. r worry <br />that similar oversight has attended the project's developments in <br />neighboring CRSP states. <br />I was equally alarmed to learn tbat there is no provision <br />contemplated for the ongoing environmental mitigation costs that <br />will necessarily follow these massive water developmen~s. All <br />current plans ignore these continuing costs and presume that they <br />will be readily sbouldered by our underfunded. state wildlife <br />resource Agenoies. <br />For example, the mitigation proposed for utah streams being <br />dewatered by the Project are structures to improve the remaining <br />habitat. Unfortunately, these structures have a ~-7 year life; <br />there is no proposal to maintain them. The many acres of <br />wetlands beinq drained by the CUP are being compensated by the <br />creation of new wetlands in alternative locations. The <br />maintenance cost for wetlands is surprisinqly hiqh: 801 of <br />Utah'. Division of W~ldlife Resources' wetland budget is required <br />to maintain its existing wetland resources. Who will fund <br />mitiqation of the impacts we have not yet disc~vered? <br />The CRSP is manipulating the habitats of 7 different <br />endangered fish species. As you know, federal funding for <br />endangered species management and protection is increasingly <br />scarce. As we have learned from the Spotted Owl, failure to give <br />adequate attention to the management of threatened and endangered <br />5peciea oan be enormously disruptive. <br />To respond to these problems we are proposlnq a CRSP <br />oonservation tund based on a modest user fee on the water and <br />