My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
San Juan River Workshop
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
8001-9000
>
San Juan River Workshop
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2016 12:54:32 PM
Creation date
11/11/2015 8:46:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
documents related to River Protection Workgroup (RPW) San Juan River Workgroup
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
1/27/2011
Author
RPW
Title
San Juan River Workshop
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
J.R. said on the East Fork Ranch most of the mineral development rights have been given up <br /> because of conservation easements. Mark said it needs be established that the McCarthys <br /> actually own those minerals; there could be a split estate and the government could own them. <br /> Ann said it seems that protecting the geology ORV means protecting the scenic values of the <br /> watershed and it seems that a mineral withdrawal wouldn't entirely protect those because <br /> other things could affect the scenery, such as new roads. <br /> Buck said he supports a conservation tool other than WSR.John said he doesn't want WSR, nor <br /> does he want mineral withdrawal as a recommendation, but he would accept a <br /> recommendation of consideration of a mineral withdrawal. <br /> Mark asked whether there would be a complementary measure to a federal mineral withdrawal <br /> so there would not be mineral development on adjoining private lands. <br /> Jimbo said on the Boot Jack Ranch,the conservation easement allows for a gravel operation that <br /> could be a big visual disturbance. He said it's unlikely to happen, but under a previous owner <br /> there was an operation that was disturbing, so it is possible. <br /> J.R. said he believes if surrounding land were protected from mineral development, the owner <br /> of Boot Jack would opt to protect his land from development as well. He said if the group does <br /> recommend a mineral withdrawal it should be bigger than 5,000 acres in order to substantially <br /> protect the view. <br /> Ideas for recommendations: <br /> • A mineral withdrawal for public lands (area to be defined) <br /> • Consideration of a mineral withdrawal <br /> • A mineral withdrawal if WSR cannot be attained <br /> • Exempt the existing gravel pit and allowed it to be used (consensus) <br /> • Have a complementary tool on private lands to go with withdrawal, such as a zoning <br /> overlay <br /> • Use planning decisions—federal and county—for protection <br /> • If there is a WSR designation, have a mineral withdrawal along with it to give wider <br /> protection <br /> • Address potential visual disturbances <br /> • Broad mineral withdrawal with a small piece exempted to provide gravel for federal <br /> agency <br /> Windsor Chacey suggested also protecting the watershed for clean water. Becca said there is a <br /> source-water protection zone on the West Fork for the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation <br /> District. <br /> John said there are a couple of creeks in the area that have native trout. A mineral withdrawal <br /> could help protect those. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.