Letter April 11 2008 Concerning Comments of the SOuthwester Water Conservation District in response to Notice of Availability of Draft San Juan Public Lands Land Management Plan and Draft Envrionmental Impact Statement

Home Browse Search

April 11, 2008 Page 11 Consistent with this instruction, standards similar to those proposed in the Draft Plan were removed from the White River Plan. See generally Decision Notice and FONSI, Forest Plan Amendment 01 -05 for the White River National Forest (March 2005) ( "White River Amendment "). In order to achieve land management plan consistency across forests, and as more fully detailed below, many of the water management prescriptions proposed in the Draft Plan must be removed from the Final Plan. F. Summary � f Requested Action. Given the Draft Plan's reliance on rejected Planning rules and overturned habitat protection guidance, the SJPLC must substantially revise the Draft Plan to comport with the 1982 Rule and to fully support a flexible, collaborative approach to habitat protection and the primacy of Colorado water law, especially Colorado's instream flow program. In other words, the Final Plan must truly continue to support the Department's recognition of the "Four Cornerstones" for managing water resources on National Forest System Lands, summarized above. II. Specific Comments Regarding Legal and Factual Draft Plan Issues. As stated above, the Draft Plan, from its onset, is permeated by concepts which find no support in the 1982 Rule, and, in fact, were rejected in the, now repealed, 2000 Rule. Of the approximately 60 "Desired Conditions" statements pertaining to water - related issues, over fifty percent (50%) are based on the HRV concept. Below are specific comments which illustrate, among other issues, this major legal flaw in the Draft Plan. A. Vision Statements: Desired Conditions Draft Plan, Volume 2, p. 22 Statement 3.1: In some areas, because of natural background pollutants, non -human generated pollutants, this goal may never be achieved. The existence of non -human generated pollutants must be recognized in the Draft Plan. Because, pursuant to the White River Review Decision, only achievable prescriptions may be incorporated into a management plan the Final plan should reflect that this goal is inappropriate where it cannot be achieved. Statement 3.4: The Draft Plan does not define "reference conditions" with specificity. This concept, central to the Draft Plan, needs a complete and understandable definition. It is unclear in the Draft Plan how the term "reference conditions" relates to the HRV concept, which may not be the basis of forest planning. Ambiguous prescriptions are inconsistent with the White River Review Decision. In some areas, salinity is a product of the natural environment. The Draft Plan fails to recognize this natural background occurrence and that there may be no way to mitigate this occurrence. Limiting water diversions because of return flows through saline soils is inconsistent with the first Cornerstone of for managing water resources on National Forest System Lands, i.e. the State of Colorado has the authority to allocate water for appropriation and manage water quality under the Clean Water Act.