WSP08701 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M2~H Colorado Water Conservation Board Interstate Streams Investigations Comments on the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan And Draft Environmental Impact Statement December, 1999 Observations I. Plan focus is on six major arcas; biodiversity, recreation, travel management, roadless area management, special areas, and timber harvest. 2. The preferred alternative selected in the draft EIS is alternative "D." 3. Altcrnative D focuses on providing wildlife habitat for a variety of species as wcll as biodiversity. A higher priority is given to physical and biological resources than to human uses of the forest. It takes an aggressive approach to habitat management with a low emphasis on letting natural processes run there course. It does retain certain existing elements like ski resort permits areas, designated wilderness and scenic byways, active grazing allotments, recreational areas and trails, and rights-of-ways. 4. The EIS notes that less than 5% of the forest lands have been harvested, which when combined with 60-years of fire suppression leaves large portions of the forest in old age classes and high loads of dead or downed timber. Rather than increase the timber harvest to avoid disease and insect problems, they reduce the timber volume offered for harvest and recommend prescribed burns or other treatments of little economic value. 5. Of the 51 vacant grazing allotments they want to close 27 and reduce another 12 in size. They would only retain 12 allotments in their current size and configuration. Again, they would opt for land treatments of little economic value to the surrounding communities. 6. Recreation would be maintained at existing levels although altered as to form. More hiking type activities and less motorized activities. Also, there would be no additional ski area expansion and existing ski area permits maybe reduced if they are not yet developed (need to investigate this further). 7. Special areas, such as wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, would seek to be enlarged through various studies or designations. 8. The preferred alternative would provide less economic benefits to the surrounding communities than continuing with the 1984 forest management plan presently in effect. They argue that the plan would be more beneficial than the 1997 base year they used for comparison. However, this only because of the projected population growth in the surrounding communities and has nothing to do with benefits that would be provided under the preferred alternative. 9. There are a number of reservoirs, transmountain diversions, and mu~icipal watersheds located on or immediately adjacent to the forest (see taiJies 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3). Limiting human activities can be good from the standpoint of water quality, but limiting activities can also reduce the water yields from these watersheds given the increased vegetation.