Watershed Management Stakeholder Analysis Plan

1. 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 • Department of interior • Army Corps of Engineers • Colorado State • Larimer County • City of Ft Collins and Greeley

5. Downstream Residents

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

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

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

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

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

25. Questions?

26. 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