Review Decision on the Cheif's Appeal Decision, Arapahoe & Roosevelt Natl. Forests

Home Browse Search

• "The United States should assert, when joined as a party in a proceeding pursuant to 43 U.S.C. §666 (the McCarran Amendment) any claims it may have under federal or state law to the use of water for National Forest Purposes ". • "...the Forest Service should determine ... whether the exercise of water rights owned or used for non - federal purposes will ... ensure that instream flows will be protected ". • "Where state laws allow water rights, reservations, or conditions to be established for protection of instream flows or minimum lake levels, the Forest Service should use these laws to attain National Forest purposes ". • "The Forest Service should attain National Forest purposes relating to the protection of minimum instream flows for environmental and watershed management purposes in a manner that recognizes the laws and circumstances of each state where it seeks to acquire water rights for this purpose ". • "Optimization of the operations of water supply facilities that are subject to FLPMA land use authorization requirements can, in some cases, provide environmental benefits without interfering with the diversion, storage, and use of water supplies provided from facilities located on National Forest lands ". From: Report of the Federal Water Rights Task Force Created Pursuant to Section 389(d)(3) of P.L. 104 -127, August 25, 1997, Part VIP Task Force Recommendations, pp 1 -6 The Forest Service should, therefore, consider the Task Force Report as an important source of input to future policy addressing the management of water resources on National Forest System lands. Clarification of 2001 Discretionary Review Language The Chief addressed the question raised by the appellants as to whether Standard (13 5) and Guideline (13 6) constituted new information requiring supplemental NEPA to allow for additional public review. While I agree with the Chief's discussion and decision on that issue, the rational for why there was adequate opportunity for the public to comment raised an important issue that requires clarification and instructions. The Chief noted that stream flow requirements for recreational purposes were largely satisfied by Water Resources Standard 12. While Standard 12 was not specifically questioned in these appeals, it underlies the objection raised on appeals regarding the Forest Service's authority to regulate instream flows under Standard (135) and Guideline (136). It is, therefore, necessary to address standard 12, standard 135 and guideline 136 together to ensure clarity and consistency in the Revised Forest Plan. The Department provided instructions to the Forest Service in its March 29, 2001 discretionary review of the Chief's decision regarding the Rio Grande National Forest appeal, and his decision regarding the Routt National Forest appeal. The instructions were to comply with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act with respect to forest plan goals, standards and guidelines addressing the issuing and reissuing authorizations for water storage and diversions facilities.