My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
San Juan National Forest/Public Land Management Plan Revisions Governmental Water Roundtable March 12 2008
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
San Juan National Forest/Public Land Management Plan Revisions Governmental Water Roundtable March 12 2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2014 4:43:33 PM
Creation date
4/28/2014 5:25:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
3/12/2008
Author
Governmental Water Roundtable
Title
San Juan National Forest/Public Land Management Plan Revisions Governmental Water Roundtable March 12 2008
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Kelly said there has been considerable comment about the fact that the Draft Plan <br />Revision does not mention climate change, so there may be a section added to the revised <br />Plan dealing with that. She is currently working on language based on what is widely <br />accepted: that there is a trend toward a warmer climate, which may mean more wildfires, <br />drought and extreme weather patterns. After she writes an outline, she will get responses <br />from staff specialists on the new climate section. <br />Chuck Lawler, representing the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, asked whether there would be <br />an opportunity for the Water Roundtable members to review the climate change language <br />and to see what its implications might be for water issues. Mark said the SJPLC will try <br />to provide the additional language in time for comments but cannot promise that it will. If <br />anyone has ideas regarding climate change, those should be sent during the comment <br />period. After the comment period ends, it becomes difficult to consider new comments. <br />Janice asked whether there might be changes to the Draft Plan, as a result of comments, <br />that are not now available for comment. For example, could there be additional acreage <br />added to the preferred alternative's wilderness recommendations after the comment <br />period ends? <br />Mark said her question appears to be whether the Agencies can "pick and choose" among <br />recommendations made in the different alternatives. He said this can be done, but if the <br />changes are great enough they would essentially constitute a different alternative. A <br />supplemental Draft Plan would then have to be released. This is not something the SJPLC <br />wants to do. <br />Janice also expressed concern about a statement in the Draft Plan that all water <br />developments on the National Forest must be authorized. She questioned the use of this <br />word with regard to recognition of rights under the 1866 Act, which are not authorized <br />by the Forest Service. Mark said this needs to be clarified. <br />Janice said clarification is also needed concerning terms such as "baseline conditions" of <br />ecology and whether and how these relate to the HRV concept; how individual Desired <br />Conditions relate to other matters and the difference between viability and sustainability. <br />Additionally, if a stream reach is found suitable for WSR designation, how certain <br />management responsibilities are designated does not seem to be explained in the Draft <br />Plan. How management strategy is developed to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable <br />Values in the suitable stream segments requires discussion in the Final Plan. <br />John said the Middle Fork of the Piedra River from the Weminuche Wilderness boundary <br />to its confluence with the East Fork is designated as a special recreational area. Some <br />people are already irritated because he is diverting water out of the Middle Fork. Some <br />have tried to sabotage his headgate and pack his ditch with rocks. That a WSR <br />designation could bring more vandalism is a major concern. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.