1 / 28

North Fork Cache La Poudre Watershed Management Plan

North Fork Cache La Poudre Watershed Management Plan. Denny Walton Jennie Williams Amy Yedo. Stakeholder Analysis. Upstream Users Government Organizations Non- Govermental Organizations Downstream Residents Local Businesses Recreationalist. Upstream Users. Residential Agriculture

yered
Download Presentation

North Fork Cache La Poudre Watershed Management Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Stakeholder Analysis • Upstream Users • Government Organizations • Non-Govermental Organizations • Downstream Residents • Local Businesses • Recreationalist

  3. Upstream Users • Residential • Agriculture • Mining

  4. Government Organizations • Division of Wildlife • Department of Interior (USFS & BLM) • Army Corps of Engineers • Colorado State • Larimer County • City of Ft Collins and Greeley

  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

  9. Questions?

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

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

  12. 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

  13. Subdivision • Environmentally: • Negative impacts on watershed • Large disturbance zones from housing units • Socially: • Problems for farming communities • Agriculture coinciding with urbanization

  14. Zoning Development Scenarios

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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: • Conservation Easement Tax Credit $22,732,927.54 • Benefit property owners with easements and subdivision • Good for recreation

  18. 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

  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. Expansion or Halligan and Seaman Reservoir • Halligan Reservoir- Fort Collins • Seaman Reservoir- Greeley • Cost and benefits

  22. HalliganReservoir Before and After Expansion

  23. Aquifer Storage and Retrieval • ASR applications • Cost and benefits

  24. Conservation Measures • Conservation and Water Use Restrictions • Waste Water Treatment Plant • Cost and benefits

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

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

  27. Questions?

  28. References • Grief, S. N., and Johnson J. E. (2000). The Good Neighbor Guidebook for Colorado. Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company

More Related