Laserfiche WebLink
legislation would spell out specifics, where there is agreement, on what uses <br />would be allowed in the SMA. The legislation would be silent on the question of <br />WSR designation. It would contain standard language regarding headwaters and <br />wilderness, derived from the 1993 Colorado Wilderness Act, for the wilderness <br />area within the SMA. Marsha said it is not possible to create a wilderness area <br />that is silent on water, but legislation for a SMA can be silent about water. <br />Marsha said the drafting committee felt strongly that it would be unfair to the <br />Workgroup to wait to decide everything, only the water - protection questions. <br />She reiterated that remaining water issues would be addressed after the four <br />other river workgroups have completed their process. The idea is to "circle back" <br />to water protection after the recommendations of the other workgroups have <br />been formulated. <br />Marsha said she has proposed an accelerated timeline for the other groups <br />because no one wants this process to continue for five or six years. The <br />accelerated process may not mean achieving consensus on all issues, but the <br />other workgroups will be creating their own values statements; studying issues, <br />opportunities and concerns; and deciding what protections they will seek. Then <br />there might be some type of regional negotiating team with representatives from <br />each workgroup to look at the overall map and basin -wide water issues in a <br />holistic way. Negotiations would be led by the RPW Steering Committee. The <br />goal is to try to have this all completed by 2011. <br />In the Hermosa Workgroup's final report it is important that the group's <br />sentiments, input and concerns be expressed so they are not lost. Marsha will <br />write the report with input from the Drafting Committee. Marsha said the Drafting <br />Committee wants to have the draft report prepared by two weeks before the <br />November meeting for editing and approval by the Workgroup. <br />Jeff Widen reiterated that the Drafting Committee wants to pursue legislation in <br />the coming session of Congress. Issues yet to be worked out are: <br />1. The location of the wilderness boundary on the east side and how close it <br />would fall to the main stem of Hermosa Creek. Jeff said the wilderness <br />boundary could be set close to the creek or some distance away. It could <br />follow the floodplain or even follow the water line, in which case the <br />boundary would move with the water. <br />2. The specific language related to uses allowed in the SMA. Jeff said the <br />parameters and guidelines for SMAs are much looser than for wilderness <br />areas. What would be allowed or prohibited in the SMA will be spelled out <br />in legislation developed by the committee and Workgroup in regards to <br />uses such as logging, fire, travel management, mineral development, and <br />general management issues. <br />2 <br />