Presentation Transcript

1. NR 420Group Project

   Denny Walton Jennie Williams Amy Yedo
2. Stakeholder Analysis Upstream Users Government Organizations Downstream Residents Local Businesses Recreationalist
3. Upstream Users Residential Agriculture Mining
4. Government Organizations Division of Wildlife United States Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Army Corps of Engineers Colorado State Larimer County City of Ft Collins and Greeley
5. Downstream Residents Municipalities Ft Collins Greeley Further downstream users
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. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. Land Use Cost Benefit Analysis 5= Highest/good 0= Lowest/bad
19. Watershed Alternatives Expansion or Halligan and Seaman Reservoir Aquifer Storage and Retrieval Conservation Measures
20. 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
21. 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
22. 2: Aquifer Storage and Retrieval ASR applications Capture excess water during runoff and peak flows NFCLP geologically and climatically supports ASR
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. Hydrologic Cost Benefit Analysis 5= Highest/good 0= Lowest/bad
27. Management Plan Expansion of Halligan and Seaman Reservoir Partial Subdivision
28. Questions?
29. 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