Laserfiche WebLink
[e largest question for the Governance Committee associated with Federal <br />letions has been the issue of management plans for National Forests in the <br />dwaters of the Platte River, and whether harvesting trees might be reduced in <br />future possibly reducing average runoff to the Platte River. The position of <br />U.S. Forest Service is (l) that any change in Forest Management Plans will <br />.lire coordination and consultation under NEPA and ESA and (2) their <br />;casts [sic] suggest rates of timber removal are likely to remain steady or <br />'ease in the future leading to no change or a slight increase in runoff to the <br />tte River."" <br />[DEIS, p. 5 -275]. Neither position attributed to the Forest Service enjoys factual support. <br />With respect to its treatment of water depletions from increased forest density in land. and <br />resourc management plans (forest plans) for individual National Forests, the Forest Service did <br />not con 3ult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the harmful effects of such depletions upon <br />Platte s ecies downstream of either the Routt, Medicine Bow, or the Arapaho /Roosevelt National <br />Forests during the plan revision process. [See Decision for Appeals of the Routt National Forest <br />Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, p. 14 (Jan. 15, 2003); USFWS Biological <br />Opinioi i on the Proposed Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Medicine <br />Bow N itional Forest, p. 46; ARNF Plan FEIS App. A, p. 17.]2 <br />1 <br />Basin I <br />the life <br />See also VM Plan at 5 ( "Analyses in individual Forest Plans for NFS lands in the Platte River <br />Aict that vegetation management actions will have a neutral to positive effect on water yield over <br />F each plan (approximately 15 years) when compared to the no- action alternative. ") To the <br />the FEIS for the ARNF Revised Forest Plan states: <br />It should be noted that the present water yield of the Forest includes water yield increases <br />from past and current vegetation management. While timber harvest declined under the <br />1984 Forest Plan to a low of 2,244 MBF in 1995, the average harvest volume for the <br />period 1976 to 1994 was 14,647 MBF. This volume is greater than the projected volume <br />for [the selected plan alternative]. As the water yield from past harvest diminishes, water <br />yield increases from planned harvest for [the selected alternative] will be insufficient to <br />make up the difference, and total water yield from the Forest will decline slightly. <br />[ARNF Ian FEIS, p. 127 (emphasis added)]. According to the ARNF, this "slight" decline will reduce flows an <br />average f 1271 acre -feet per year when compared with water yield under the previous Forest Plan. [Id. (difference <br />betwee "no action" alternative and selected alternative in corrected Table 3.17)]. <br />This is the case despite the fact that, during the Routt Forest Plan revision, "[t]he percentage of <br />forest la id in mature [i.e., full hydrologic utilization] condition is projected to increase under all <br />alternat es." [Routt Revised Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3 -89]. The ARNF Plan FEIS noted: "As the water yield <br />from pat harvest diminishes, water yield increases from planned harvest for [the selected alternative] will <br />be insu icient to make up the difference, and total water yield from the Forest will decline slightly [1271 <br />acre-fe4 per year from previous plan yield]." ARNF Plan FEIS, p. 127. See also Medicine Bow National <br />Forest Ilevised Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS App. B, p. B -112 (2003) (MBNF Plan FEIS): <br />-14- <br />