260 likes | 346 Views
Denny Walton Jennie Williams Amy Yedo. Stakeholder Analysis. Upstream Users Government Organizations Downstream Residents Local Businesses Recreationalist. Upstream Users. Residential Agriculture Mining. Government Organizations. Division of Wildlife United States Forest Service
E N D
Denny Walton Jennie Williams Amy Yedo
Stakeholder Analysis • Upstream Users • Government Organizations • Downstream Residents • Local Businesses • Recreationalist
Upstream Users • Residential • Agriculture • Mining
Government Organizations • Division of Wildlife • United States Forest Service • Bureau of Land Management • Department of interior • Army Corps of Engineers • Colorado State • Larimer County • City of Ft Collins and Greeley
Local Businesses • Concrete Co/ Mining plant • Local outfitters • Recreation stores • Gas stations and hotels
Recreationalists • Kayakers and Rafters • Anglers • Hunters • Campers • OHV users
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
Management Alternatives Hydrologic and Land use alternatives for the NFCLP watershed
Land Use Alternatives • Subdivision • Total easements • Partial Easements
Alternative 1: Subdivision • Land Owners Selling for Development • Attractive due to value of land • Most private land is in Agricultural use • Cost and benefits • Economically: • Profitable for landowners, real estate agencies, lawyers, development and construction companies • Negatively affect the recreational community
Subdivision • Environmentally: • Negative impacts on watershed • Large disturbance zones from housing units • Socially: • Problems for farming communities • Agriculture coinciding with urbanization
Alternative 2: Total Easements • All private lands gain total easements • Push for total land easements and protection from subdivision • Cost and Benefits • Economically: • Issues with nonexclusive easements • Conservation easements value • Benefit local recreational industries • Competition between organizations and developers
Total Easements • 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
Alternative 3: Partial Easements • Option of preserving open space while developing small parcels • Sustain farming communities • Sustain open land in watershed • Cost and Benefits • Economically: • Benefit property owners with easements and subdivision • Good for recreation • Tax credit money available for agriculture land with easements
Partial Easements • Environmentally: • Less detrimental than alternative 1 • Will invite interest groups to invest in landscape • Socially: • Positive interests of local communities • Popular for many Coloradoans
Land Use Cost Benefit Analysis • 5= Highest/good 0= Lowest/bad
Watershed Alternatives • Expansion or Halligan and Seaman Reservoir • Aquifer Storage and Retrieval • Conservation Measures
Expansion or Halligan and Seaman Reservoir • Halligan Reservoir- Fort Collins • Seaman Reservoir- Greeley • Cost and benefits
Aquifer Storage and Retrieval • ASR applications • Cost and benefits
Conservation Measures • Conservation and Water Use Restrictions • Waste Water Treatment Plant • Cost and benefits
Hydrologic Cost Benefit Analysis • 5= Highest/good 0= Lowest/bad
Management Plan • Expansion of Halligan and Seaman Reservoir • Partial Subdivision
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