Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"". <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />White River National Forest Management Plan Comments <br />Februarv 18,2000 <br /> <br />prioritizes the water resources of the WRNF and addresses areas and activities within the forest <br />according to the benefit or detriment to water quality and quantity, mindful that the forests were <br />originally reserved as watersheds for the nation. <br /> <br />The description of preferred Alternative D (page 2 -10) indicates that "a higher priority will be given <br />to physical and biological resources than to human uses of the Forest." This causes concern for <br />present and future beneficial uses of water located within or dependent upon diversions from the <br />WRNF. This characterization of the preferred alternative seemingly would further justify (but still <br />not make legal) the USFS' s proposal to require by-pass of a portion of historically beneficially used <br />water when a right-of-way or special use permit renewal is required. The River District therefore <br />cannot support Alternative D. Alternative B appears to provide a better balance between human and <br />biological uses while still allowing for appropriate remediation and management measures to address <br />areas of over-use or degradation. Without judgement on the timber products limitations associated <br />with Alternative C, this alternative also appears to strike a more reasonable balance between human <br />uses and preservation interests. <br /> <br />However, the identification of a single alternative is not as important as our recommendation to <br />integrate water quality and quantity as a central management tenant irrespective of the management <br />alternative finally chosen. <br /> <br />Watersheds: <br />The Watersheds section (Part 2, Section 2) contains numerous concerns, inaccuracies, and undefined <br />terms. <br />~ Page 3-36 introduces the term "water yield" as a key indicator. What does this term mean <br />in this context? What is the WRNF's goal with respect to water yield? These questions <br />should be addressed in this section. <br /> <br />~ Numerous management activities are listed that "affect the health of watershed resources." <br />It is not clear whether these activities have a positive or negative effect. Can they be both? <br />What is the role of mitigation associated with these activities? Can mitigation eliminate the <br />negative effects and emphasize positive effects? As "key indicators" these should be better <br />defined and explained. <br /> <br />~ The plan incorrectly states, "(T)here are no designated public supply watersheds on the <br />Forest." Under Colorado statutes (C.R.S. 39-15-707(l)(b)), municipalities have the authority <br />