Board Meeting 10/01/1987

• Board Meeting Date: 10/1/1987
• Description: CWCB Meeting
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

10

(Sections 19. 20, 23. 24. 26. 30 8~d 31. T. 8 N,. R. 72 W., 6th P,M.;
Sections 5,6. and 8, T. 7 N.. R. 72 W.. 6th P.~I.; Sections 13.14. .
15. 25. 26 and 27, T. 8 N., R, 73 W" 6th 2.M.; Sections 1. 2. 7. 11.
14. 16, 17. 18. 20, 21, 22 and 30, T. 7 N.. R. 73 W.; Sections 12 and
13, T. 7 N., R. 74 W., 6th P,M.), As disc'lssed in the analysis for-
this wilderness in Appendix III, there is no indication of any pr-esent
or for-eseable future water development at these sites that would pose
an immediate threat to wilderness values. However, because their
topography, sizes and locations would permit water development that
might have an effect on wilderness water resources. the Forest Service
will perform a specific investigation with regard to these lands.

On the White River National Forest above the Eagles Nest Wilderness.
there is a large parcel of land of approximately 400 acres (Sections
16 and 21, T. 4 S., R. 81 W., 6th P,M.) and a smaller one of 160 acr-es
(Section 12. T. 4 S., R. 81 W., 6th P.M.). Ther-e ar-e two conditional
water rights associated with this ar-ea, both of which predate the
wilder-ness designation. One of these belongs to the Denver- Water-
Beard in conjunction with the Piney Reservoir- Unit of the Roberts
Tunnel Collection System. The Boar-d must comply with For-est Ser-vice
conditions in the developme~t of the water at this site. as their use
~ill involve wilderness and non-wilderness NFS lands,

As discussed in the individ~al wilderness analyses io Appendix III,
the threat to wilderness from future water developments on the above-
described and other numerou~ small non-Federal lands is minimal due to
the topography of the sites, their location in the upper watersheds.
the cost of construction and general engineering fea~ibility. The .
.land areas in private owner~hip are steep. deeply channeled land or
very small cirque basins, none of which provide opportunity for
development of storage or diversion facilities at reasonable cost.
Moreover, these areas are in the upper portions of drainage basins,
have very limited storage capability, and are long distances from
users. Furthermore, for many of these locations, any practical
~evelopment cf the water resource would entail storage on or diver-
sions acr03S wilderness o~ non-wilderness NFS lands, ~hich will
require Presidential or agency author-ization. These factors. along
with the high constr-uction costs of water developments make them
undesir-able for developmC2r,t. Howe'lec. in the event of such a
proposal, the manageme~t actions set for-th below will be used to
protect wilderness water values.

5, ~.I.'\;:;GEMENT MECHANISMS FOR PROTECTION OF WILDERNESS WATER RESOURCES AND
THEIR SPECIFIC COLORADO APPLICATION

'ct" For-est Service is r-esl"onsible for- assm'ing that the "'ater- and dependent
~"3Cl!l"ce,; cn NFS lands. including wilderness. a~e managed in accordance wi th
applicable legal author-ity. This legal authority is contained in the
pr-ovisions of numerous statutes including, but not limited to. the Organic

.