Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. There has been very few comments received from the public <br />on this issue. <br /> <br />3. Even though water yield improvement is grouped with the class <br />two issue and is not a class one issue, the work that will be accomplished <br />could just as well be accomplished with it being a class two issue rather <br />than a class one issue. He said that a class one issue were those wherein <br />the Forest Service needs to change its policy, whereas the class two <br />issues are those wherein the policy is adequate but the Forest Service <br />needs to change its direction with regard to implementing the policy. <br /> <br />Stender further said that four of the six national forests in his <br />region that are within the Colorado River Basin are planning to address <br />water yield improvement in their regional plans. The Dixie National <br />Forest is not now planning to discuss it because of their conclusion <br />that they did not have a sufficient amount of marketable timber within <br />their region to justify including water yield improvement as an objective. <br />He said the regional office hopes to have them modify that position some- <br />what. The other regional forest that is not including water yield is <br />the Uinta National Forest. Its plan does not address water yield improve- <br />ment since its plan was too far advanced when we brought up this as an <br />issue. <br /> <br />I responded to Stender's comments, pointing out that the Colorado <br />River Board of California represents humdreds of agencies in California <br />that distribute Colorado River water to cities, communities, and farms, <br />and that these other water agencies rely upon the Board to take any and <br />all actions necessary with regard to California's Colorado River resources. <br />Thus, the one letter from the Board, in effect, represents what may be <br />considered to be hundreds of letters fromea,ch of these different agencies. <br />Further, I indicated that the general nature of the pUblic's reaction to <br />water resources is that it is an areas of responsibility of government <br />agencies, and that they do not comment o~ its except when government has <br />failed in some way and there is insufficient water for their needs. At <br />those times, the public comment is extremely vociferous. <br /> <br />Stender acknowledged these points, and suggested that they should <br />be mentioned in any letter of comment in order to assist the Forest <br />Service managers in evaluating the letter of comments. <br /> <br />Stender also indicated that it would be desirable to have someone <br />attend the public meetings and speak on the issues of water yield <br />improvement as well as in sending letters. I pointed out the difficulty <br />of the Colorado River Board in attending the meetings, inasmuch as they <br />are generally held in places remote from the offices of the Board and <br />that there are meetings associated with each of the many national forests <br />that are located in the region. It was discussed that a possible alter- <br />native would be to have the PSIAC member in the state where the hearings <br />are being held attend in person and submit a statement of support on <br />behalf of all the member states of PSIAC. <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />B-13 <br />