North Fork Cache La Poudre Watershed Management Proposal

1. North Fork Cache La Poudre Watershed Management Proposal Denny Walton Jennie Williams Amy Yedo

2. Stakeholder Analysis • Government Organizations • Upstream Users • Non-GovermentalOrganizations (NGO) • Downstream Residents • Local Businesses • Recreationalist

3. Government Organizations • City of Ft Collins and Greeley • USFS • BLM • Army Corps of Engineers • Division of Wildlife

4. Upstream Users • Residential • Agriculture • Mining

5. Downstream Residents • Rely on Water Supply • Expect a Certain Level of Water Quality • Depend on Return Flows to the System

6. Local Businesses • Concrete Co/ Mining plant • Local outfitters • Recreation stores • Gas stations and hotels

7. Recreationalists • Kayakers and Rafters • Anglers • Hunters • Campers • OHV Users

8. Stakeholder Involvement Plan • Individually scope stakeholder groups • Preliminary alternatives derived • Collaborative meetings and discussion • Alternative decisions • Stakeholder evaluation and opinion of alternative • Submit management plan

10. Questions?

11. Management Alternatives Hydrologic and Land use alternatives for the NFCLP watershed

12. Land Use Alternatives • Subdivision • Total easements • Partial Easements

13. Alternative 1: Subdivision • Land Owners Selling for Development • Attractive due to value of land • Most private land is in Agricultural use

14. Subdivision Cost and benefits • Economically: • Profitable for landowners, real estate agencies, lawyers, development and construction companies • Negatively affect the recreational community • Environmentally: • Negative impacts on watershed • Large disturbance zones from housing units • Socially: • Problems for farming communities • Agriculture coinciding with urbanization

15. Alternative 2: Total Easements • All private lands gain total easements • Push for total land easements and protection from subdivision

16. Total Easements • Cost and Benefits • Economically: • Issues with nonexclusive easements • Conservation easements value • Benefit local recreational industries • Competition between organizations and developers • Environmentally: • Beneficial for watershed’s environment • Interest groups will invest in keeping environment resilient • Socially: • Good for recreationists and some ranching/farming communities • Bad for developers and promoters of growth

17. Alternative 3: Partial Easements • Option of preserving open space while developing small parcels • Sustain farming communities • Sustain open land in watershed

18. Partial Easements • Cost and Benefits • Economically: • Conservation Easement Tax Credit $22,732,927.54 • Benefit property owners with easements and subdivision • Good for recreation • Environmentally: • Less detrimental than alternative 1 • Will invite interest groups to invest in landscape • Socially: • Positive interests of local communities • Popular for many Coloradoans

19. Land Use Cost Benefit Analysis • 5= Highest/good 0= Lowest/bad

20. Watershed Alternatives • Expansion of Halligan and Seaman Reservoir • Aquifer Storage and Retrieval • Conservation Measures

21. 1: Expansion or Halligan and Seaman Reservoir • Halligan Reservoir- Fort Collins • Expanded by 33,000 acre feet • Cost $40 million • Seaman Reservoir- Greeley • Expanded by 38,000 acre feet • Cost $50 million

22. 1: Expansion or Halligan and Seaman Reservoir • Cost and benefits • Ecologically • Ecological areas adjacent to water will be displaces • Successional patterns will reestablish • Socially • Expanding reservoirs are controversial but will drastically increase water supply • Economically • Huge financial commitment in construction and maintained

23. Halligan Reservoir Before and After Expansion

24. 2: Aquifer Storage and Retrieval • ASR applications • Capture excess water during runoff and peak flows • NFCLP geologically and climatically supports ASR

25. 2: Aquifer Storage and Retrieval • Cost and Benefit • Ecologically • Long term solution with concentrated ecosystem damages • Socially • River flows would change and preconceptions about contamination • Economically • Expensive research, mitigation and monitoring required

26. 3: Conservation Measures • Conservation • Tiered water usage with penalties and rebated • Water Use Restrictions • Scheduled water days • zeroscaping • Waste Water Treatment Plant • Waste and storm water recycling for iragation non-potable uses

27. 3:Conservation Measures • Cost and Benefit • Ecologically • Virtually no impact on the environment • Socially • Huge burden on the general public to conserve and change lifestyle habits • Economically • Building a water treatment is a large cost upfront but will eventually pay for itself

28. Hydrologic Cost Benefit Analysis • 5= Highest/good 0= Lowest/bad

29. Management Plan • Expansion of Halligan and Seaman Reservoir • Partial Subdivision

30. Questions?

31. References • Grief, S. N., and Johnson J. E. (2000). The Good Neighbor Guidebook for Colorado. Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company • David Theopald and N. Thompson Hobbs. (2002). A Framework for Evaluating Land Use Planning Alternatives: Protecting Biodiversity on Private Land. The Resilience Alliance. • Retrieved from: http://www.larimer.org/openlands/ . Laramie County website