Laserfiche WebLink
She also said the WSR section frequently mentions retirees and their importance to the <br />economy, but she was skeptical of the relevance of this. In response, Kelly Palmer, <br />hydrologist with the SJPLC, said that language came from some economic analyses that <br />were used for reference. <br />John Taylor, representing Hinsdale County, expressed concern about the expansion of <br />Wilderness Areas and asked whether a sufficient rationale was provided for any proposed <br />expansions. Mark said there is not an explicit rationale provided for different parcels. <br />Thurman said Appendix C of the Draft Plan looks at roadless areas and wilderness <br />potential. No new wilderness proposals are contained in alternatives A and D, but there <br />are some in Alternatives B and C. Alternative C is the most conservation- focused of the <br />four alternatives and would provide for approximately 525,000 acres of new wilderness, <br />whereas preferred Alternative B would provide only for approximately 55,000 acres. <br />Chapter 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement compares the four alternatives. <br />Thurman said anyone wanting more detail about specific wilderness proposals can talk <br />with SJPLC personnel. <br />Mark noted that the Revised Draft Plan will not affect prior recommendations for <br />wilderness, such as areas recommended by the Bureau of Land Management for <br />wilderness designation under the first President Bush. <br />Bruce asked whether the Management Area maps had remained the same since the last <br />Water Roundtable meeting. Thurman said the wilderness boundaries might have changed <br />somewhat, but everything else was the same. The SJPLC will provide an updated map. <br />Janice commented that the 1982 Rule talks about viable populations of species, but what <br />that means in terms of species numbers is not explained in the Draft Plan. "Habitat" may <br />be being used as a surrogate for viable population numbers. <br />Thurman said viability was not mentioned in the 2005 Rule but is indeed part of the 1982 <br />Rule. However, specific population numbers are very difficult to develop. <br />Janice asked how this issue relates to the Design Criteria under which new projects or <br />permit renewals will be decided. The Draft Plan needs to specify how viable populations <br />will be measured or defined, particularly concerning aquatic life and fisheries. <br />John commented that the Agencies need to consider the impact of humans on a stream <br />segment if it receives a WSR designation. Such a designation could greatly increase the <br />number of people visiting the river stretch, thus increasing negative impacts to the river. <br />This could be an unintended consequence of such a designation. <br />Janice asked about use of the term "historic range of variation" (HRV), which refers to <br />the ecological conditions that occurred within planning areas before European settlers <br />introduced sweeping changes to the landscape, such as logging, water diversions and <br />5 <br />