Laserfiche WebLink
Hermosa Creek Workgroup <br />Meeting #12 Summary <br />March 3, 2009 <br />(draft) <br />Meeting summaries: The February meeting summary was approved with no <br />changes. <br />Continued discussion on Hermosa Creek: Facilitator Marsha Porter -Norton <br />led the Hermosa Workgroup in developing a draft list of possible scenarios for <br />the future. She began with two scenarios and the group added more during the <br />discussion; the full list is at the end of this summary. <br />The two first scenarios were: <br />- The Trails 2000/Wilderness Society /San Juan Citizens Alliance proposal <br />as presented to the workgroup at the January 2009 meeting. Some key <br />components of this proposal are: Manage the entirety of the Hermosa Creek <br />watershed as a single landscape; incorporate the Bear Creek watershed as part <br />of the landscape; give a special management designation to the entire area; <br />designate wilderness within the larger management landscape but leave the <br />popular mountain - biking route outside the wilderness; do travel- management <br />planning to designate motorized and non - motorized routes; create a watershed <br />restoration area for headwaters; designate much of Hermosa Creek and its <br />tributaries as a Wild and Scenic River ( "WSR "). <br />- A proposal by workgroup member John Taylor of Hinsdale County. (His <br />complete proposal has been e- mailed to the workgroup.) Briefly, it says that the <br />ecosystem needs increasing protection as use increases. Because WSR <br />designation would ensure that recreational use increases, a better means of <br />protection would be to utilize local monitoring and guidance. With the Forest <br />Service as administering agency, an advisory committee would be established <br />composed of individuals from local clubs and organizations. It would meet with <br />the forest supervisor at least twice a year to make recommendations on <br />ecosystem management, trails, and other issues. The idea is to have more local <br />control and more flexibility. Existing trails groups could help with monitoring and <br />user counts. <br />Jeff Widen of the Wilderness Society commented that the difference between <br />the two proposals is not so much the degree of local control, but the fact that one <br />is a legislative proposal and the other is not. One would codify the management <br />system in law, while the other would let things be managed under administrative <br />directives. <br />Bruce Whitehead, executive director of the Southwestern Water Conservation <br />District, said legislation would bring a new title for the landscape, which might <br />