BOARD00195

• Board Meeting Date: 3/20/2000
• Description: Water Resources and Power Authority Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 5
White River National Forest Management Plan Comments
Februarv 18, 2000

Colorado law, in companion with the federal McCarran Amendment, provides an adequate means
for federal agencies to secure enforceable reserved or appropriative water rights pursuant to
Colorado's procedural laws. Federal agencies have used and continue to use Colorado's procedural
water law processes to secure such adjudications. Federal water rights adjudicated through
Colorado's substantive and procedural processes are recognized and administered by Colorado's
water officials - a condition not enjoyed by by-pass flows secured through federal permitting fiat.

Accordingly, the River District repeats its position that Goal 1.10 (Pal!c 1-5) should be
rewritten to indicate that the White River National Forest will work with the Colorado Water
Conservation Board to "provide instream floWS wherever such flows are determined to be
beneficial and consistent with the purposes of the forest" and Obiective 1.10 (pal!e 1-5) must
be rewritten to delete anv sUI!!!estion that established water ril!hts will be taken from public
or private entities throul!h the Forest Service's special use_ or anv other. permittin!! process.

OTHER CONCERNS:
Goal 1.1 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species; Objective 1.la (page 1-3): The plan
mentions cooperation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service to address the needs of species listed
under the Endangered Species Act. The River District would like to see the goal of cooperation
extended to specifically include the Colorado Depanment of Natural Resources and its Division of
Wildlife. These state agencies have existing programs to identify native species in decline and to
address their conservation and recovery needs prior to listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Early intervention effons, before species and their habitat are in such dire straights that listing is
warranted, are more cost-effective and efficacious than post-listing remedial measures.

Additionally, the plan should state explicitly that the "needs of the species listed under the
Endangered Species Act" are limited to needs and species within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
WRNF. The WRNF should not place itself in the position of accommodating the needs of
endangered species which are located outside the forest boundaries.

Management Plan Alternatives:
The River District prefers that a more integrated approach to the various factors offorest health be
identified in the management plan. Water, both quality and quantity, appears in the management
plan as a secondary consideration in management decisions. The draft plan continues to follow an
old management model of identifying specific areas and activities (e.g., roads, timber, recreation)
for specific management actions or protections. The River District recommends an approach that