BOARD00195

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

Page 7
White River National Forest Management Plan Comments
February 18,2000

to designate a watershed protection area within a five mile radius from their raw water
intake. Several municipalities have made these designations which include areas within the
WRNF. This correction should be noted.

~ The "Water Quality" section on page 3-41 appears to be a typographical error. The
paragraphs in this subsection also appear above in the "Surface Waters" section and on the
next page where "Water Quality" is repeated.

~ The "Water Quality" (page 3-41) and the "Environmental Consequences" (page 3-52)
sections refer to sedimentation concerns of permitted activities, yet fail to acknowledge the
beneficial effects of water storage on downstream turbidity. (Also page 3-63.) And
inexplicably, the contribution of Colorado Department of Transportation winter sand and
gravel applications warrants only a passing mention in the entire document at page 3-231.

~ The plan commits the WRNF to "factor in state-listed stream segments during planning and
implementation of projects to avoid further water quality degradation" on 303( d) listed
stream segments. The plan should go further. Many of these segments are listed because
of uncontrolled drainage from abandoned mines, many of which are located on NF lands.
OtherTMDL limited segments are listed because of sedimentation from highly erodible soils
also located within the WRNF. Accordingly, the WRNF should commit in the plan to
working with the state and other affected entities to address the causes and TMDL
remediation efforts regarding 303(d) listed streams. (A similar commitment is appropriate
at page 3-51 under "Future Trends" with respect to erodible lands.)

~ Page 3-51 states, "Water rights held by the Forest will become important in meeting
management goals such as maintaining adequate stream-flows for healthy riparian areas and
developing recreation sites." What water rights does the USFS own for "maintaining
adequate stream-flows"? We are not aware of any such rights. To what is this referring?
(Similarly, Appendix J (page J-7) refers to instream water rights held by the Forest Service.)

~ Is the statement on negligible ("not measurably detectable") water yields (page 3-53) from
timber harvests consistent with the history and data from Colorado's companion water and
timber yield studies at the Fraser Experimental Forest? .

~ The plan states, "the potential for adverse impacts to water resources from vegetation