Laserfiche WebLink
3. An advisory council for the Hermosa area. Jeff said there is consensus <br />that there should be an advisory body, but it has to be decided whether <br />this should be stated in the legislation and, if so, who would appoint the <br />members, what terms they would serve, what their role would be, and so <br />on. <br />4. More specific language on which parts of the Hermosa watershed should <br />remain roadless. Jeff said this issue is really a sub -set of No. 2. <br />Discussion: It was asked how the Option 1 proposal differs from the Trails <br />2000 proposal presented early in the workgroup process. Jeff said, as the <br />proposal stands now, it is identical to the Trails 2000 proposal with a few minor <br />exceptions. The eastern wilderness boundary along Hermosa Creek has yet to <br />be defined and Bear Creek has been eliminated from protection. The SMA <br />boundaries might be tweaked slightly and thus might differ from the Trails 2000 <br />proposal. Also, the new proposal adds in the advisory council and language <br />about using management practices that reduce human - caused sedimentation in <br />the watershed. Those items are new. But, as with the Trails 2000 proposal, there <br />is still a wilderness -area setback from the Hermosa Creek trail to allow for <br />continued mountain - biking on the trail. <br />It was asked why the wilderness -area boundary should not extend all the way to <br />the creek. Steve Fearn said placing the wilderness boundary next to the creek <br />would eliminate the ability to build new structures, thus impeding water <br />development, and it would be preferable to wait until the water issues have been <br />decided before implementing a measure of that sort. One proposal is to <br />designate the wilderness boundary as one - quarter -mile from the river, which <br />would mesh with any potential WSR boundary. Steve said the boundary can be <br />adjusted later if Hermosa Creek does not ultimately become a WSR. <br />Jeff said all the wilderness areas designated under the 1993 Colorado <br />Wilderness Act were located at headwaters of rivers or streams. The <br />conservation community had wanted a federal reserved water right ( "FRWR ") <br />designated for those streams, but settled for a compromise because the FRWR <br />was a moot issue as headwaters have no upstream. The bill's language said the <br />federal government could not go to court to assert such a right. In return, the <br />conservation community was granted a provision that rescinded the standard <br />ability of the President to override wilderness -area provisions and allow a water <br />project within a wilderness area. <br />Steve said a WSR designation traditionally does include a FRWR, so such a <br />designation for Hermosa Creek would preclude new water development <br />upstream from the protected Hermosa area and would affect the ability to <br />manage existing waters upstream. <br />Ed Zink said it seems the Workgroup has decided it likes the Hermosa Creek <br />area as it is now and wants to protect the values that exist and try to make <br />certain those will not be changed. <br />Q <br />