20b

• Board Meeting Date: 9/18/2007
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

- 31 -

complete a draft of their Land and Resource Management Plan Revision, which is a j oint effort
of both agencies. The draft Plan Revision has been reviewed by BLM and Forest Service staff in
Washington, D.C. It has also been reviewed by the Forest Service's Regional Office and the
BLM's State Office and is undergoing a final review from the Regional Office. The SJPLC has
decided to work on the Plan Revision under the Forest Service Planning Rule of 1982 rather than
the new 2005 Planning Rule, which was enjoined by a federal district court based upon a finding
that the Forest Service had not followed proper procedure in preparing the 2005 Planning Rule.
The 1982 Rule includes the concept of standards and guidelines, an element about which the
Water Roundtable members had expressed concern. The 2005 Rule included guidelines, but no
standards. According to the SJPLC, standards are considered mandatory, whereas guidelines can
be used flexibly with proper justification. Other changes resulting from working under the 1982
Rule include: (1) the designated "responsible official" will be the Regional Forester instead of
the Forest Supervisor; and (2) there is a return to "management indicator species" vs. "species of
interest" and "species of concern," as well as a return to "maintaining viable populations" of
vulnerable species.

The Draft Plan Revision now includes a new section on Water Issues and Policy, which was
added at the request of the Regional Office. According to the SJPLC, while the April 2004
MOU between the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Water Conservation
Board and US. Forest Service, and a similar MOU involving the BLM, are not included
verbatim in the Plan, the MOUs are referenced in the Plan, and language from the MOUs has
been incorporated into the Plan. In the section of the Plan concerning fish and wildlife habitat,
the draft language states that for all other trout besides Colorado River cutthroat trout, a
minimum of 50 percent of the usable area that would occur under natural flow conditions should
be maintained within each stream reach. For designated conservation populations of Colorado
River cutthroat trout, 100 percent of usable habitat should be maintained.

The term "natural flow conditions" means what one could reasonably expect the natural flow to
be if the stream were unregulated, without diversions. As a mle of thumb, the agencies will
apply these criteria to meet the requirement that species populations should remain viable. The
use of instream flow, habitat improvements or water-trading could be explored in order to
achieve population viability. Otherwise, the rule of thumb would be the requirement for 50
percent of usable area.

Because the Forest Service Regional Office wanted another review of the draft Plan since the
change in planning rules, the release of the draft Plan and related NEP A documents has been
delayed from its original timetable. Now, the goal is to have the completed package available in
electronic format and posted on the planning web site at http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestplan/ by
Sept. 30,2007. Hard copies and CDs will then be available to the public in another month
(approximately Oct. 31). Following the release of the draft Plan Revision in hard-copy format,
there will be a 90-day comment period. During the public-comment period, the Community
Study Groups that provided input early in the planning process will have meetings in Pagosa
Springs, Durango, Cortez, Silverton and Rico. The agencies also hope to meet with regional
Native American tribes - including the two Ute tribes and 22 others - around the first week of
October to discuss issues such as water and cultural resources. The goal is to have the final Plan
Revision in place by Sept. 30,2008, the end of the agencies' fiscal year. The Water Roundtable
requested another meeting approximately three weeks after the draft Plan is posted electronically
at the end of September, to begin framing comments on the draft.

Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Sn-eam and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning