Roaring Fork Watershed Plan

Comment on Draft Roaring Fork Watershed Plan

2011-03-02T11:34:00.000-08:00

As of March 2nd, the Draft Roaring Fork Watershed Plan is available for review and comment. The Plan consists of a number of sections including an introduction and overview, recommendations for urgent actions, recommendations applicable to water quality, water quantity and regional water management, and a discussion of implementation. The matrices, which arrange the recommendations in a sortable format, divide the recommendations into several categories which allow for examining the recommendations from a number of perspectives such as location, key entities and recommendation type (study, project or regulation). Over the next several months we will be reviewing the Draft with local governments and other water management agencies with the objective of gaining the endorsement of those governments and agencies and moving towards a common implementation strategy. In the meantime, we want to invite the stakeholders who have been part of the watershed planning process for the last several years to review this Draft and provide us with your comments, questions, and impressions. Although the Plan is intended to be an ever-evolving and flexible document we do hope to have a final version in hand sometime in 2011.

Roaring Fork Watershed Plan - March 2011 Draft Plan
Roaring Fork Watershed Plan - Recommeneded Actions

Please leave comments on these documents below or email comments to Mark Fuller, Director of Ruedi Water & Power Authority at fulcon@comcast.net.

University of Michigan Fostering Implementation of the RF Watershed Plan Report Available Online

2010-12-21T09:09:00.000-08:00

Five graduate students from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) have completed their year-long master’s project to help implement the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. Amanda Barker, Bethany Hellmann, Anne Kohl, Angela Michalek, and Kathleen McIntyre and their project advisor Professor Julia Wondolleck undertook research to evaluate and recommend potential implementation and education strategies for the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. The team identified models of watershed-scale governance systems to promote collaborative watershed scale management and identified approaches to public outreach and education in watershed. These efforts will greatly enhance implementation of the watershed plan. The entire report is available online at www.roaringfork.org/watershedplan The students will present their findings at the next Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative Meeting, January 7, 2011 at Carbondale Town Hall. Please RSVP to Sharon Clarke if you are interested in attending the meeting.

2010 Watershed Summit - A Great Success!

2010-06-22T12:43:00.000-07:00

The non-floating Roaring Fork Watershed Summit was a huge success. With nearly 80 elected officials, agency staff, and water experts discussing critical water issues in the Roaring Fork Watershed, the conversation was candid and extremely useful. The suggestions made for solutions will be added to the greater effort of creating the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, a document that will be used to help municipalities make critical water related decisions. It was stated many times throughout the day that this is only the beginning of the conversation, and that all entities must continue to have dialogue and discussion to find ways to manage the Roaring Fork Watershed to the best of their abilities.

The day began with Representative Kathleen Curry addressing the crowd and answering questions. Then discussion continued in break out 'boat groups' and then followed with lunch, an address by Ruedi Water and Power Authority's Executive Director Mark Fuller, and wrapped up by the 2010 River Conservator Rachel Richards.

Roaring Fork Watershed Summit Group Reports- June 10, 2010

2010-06-10T21:19:00.000-07:00

General Notes:

Growth continues, diversions continues, dewatering, inconsistent planning throughout the watershed… need to continue to have dialogue and work together toward finding long term solutions to bring more continuity toward a healthy watershed.
This type of gathering is critically important.
State legislation may not be the best answer – it needs to be a grass roots effort, we must work together toward planning and development with the intent of creating a healthy watershed
Should continue meeting.

Ken Randsford

Education – how important it is to education public here and on eastern slope – need a message that we can give to the public that is not wonkish. Super complex topic… need an easy message to share. Then need funding.
Consider real use of water – agriculture or outdoor shrubs and lawns.
Are we willing to allow our stream and rivers to become unhealthy and crash in order to have lawns and shrubs in subdivisions?
Starting in CO River Basin – demand future development to treat this climate like Tucson and not like Kentucky – a lot more xericscaping.
Shoshone call importance to CO River basin. Need to spread awareness of how important the Shoshone call is.

Jim Pokrandt

Conditional rights issue – concern is about water being taken via the transmountain diversions – Fry-Ark and Twin Lakes

Sharon Clarke

Connecting riparian lands with upland lands; connectivity of the channel. Groundwater issues were discussed.
Need to continue to have similar style events and broaden the audience to include landowners
Watershed muse – having people who are familiar with riparian areas do site visits with land owners. Offer them suggestions for stream banks.

Mark Fuller

Connection between utility service and land owners. Land development is approved without full coordination and communication with utility services to their ability to serve and the availability of water supply.
Top down solution is probably not very likely because CO is a home rule state when it comes to land use. Need to think locally especially when thinking about incentives for private land owners.
Increasing water yield – potential for increasing water yield. Looking at land from a landscape scale and improving watersheds to the point so they can produce and preserve more water. Need legal mechanism to recognize the increased yield and make use of it locally. There is a bureaucratic disconnect between increasing water supply and the ability to protect the existing water supply.
Transbasin Diversion – conditional water rights are liable to be developed in the future. Only effective way to protect that water is to do a lot of legal saber rattling and provide incentives to those who perfect the water rights to mitigate future transbasin diversions more effectively than previous trans basin diversions.
Gunnison Basin Example: war chest that was set aside to fight future transbasin diversions and it has been effective in getting the attention of future diverters and giving them disincentive to enter into that battle. We should consider doing the same thing in this valley as well if we’re going to protect the water we have left.

Shelley Kaup

Needs for all municipalities to work together on common land use codes that protect our flood planes. Need to make sure to maintain low water flows and able to accommodate high water flows and natural hydrograph. Flooding enhances riparian environments as well as fish and wildlife.
Cities individually can protect riparian habitats from stormwater and old septic tank systems. Need to inventory septic systems and update them to make sure they are working properly.

Peter Nichols

Increasing threat of transbasin diversions. Need to negotiate a cap for the amount of water that goes to the Front Range to make sure to protect the water we have on the west slope and specifically in the Roaring Fork Valley

Rachel Richards

Local codes for home building fire mitigation using ponds vs underground cisterns allow for a lot of evaporation. This use of water does dewater local streams.
Our way of growing and developing. Need to strengthen our business industry so that we’re not completely dependent on construction and 2nd home industry and tourism industry that constantly wants to grow with new businesses, restaurants and shops to attract that dollar. Need to work together as a united business community we could have more political clout, clout to protect our resources more locally and have cleaner industries that would be possible with the technology of today. Is there a different way of being, a different way of our valley being, so that we can lead by example: xericscaping, not having the constant mentality of needing to grow 4%/year or we’re failing as a society mentality.

Moss Driscoll

Local budgetary concerns, cooperation between 4 different counties, water groups (conservancy districts, conservation districts, boards, etc.) – challenges of working together with institutional differences. There are many opportunities to work together.
We have a community that cares about water. We have a lot of tools that we might not be using. This does not end today. We’re all talking to each other now. We’re creating a unified voice.

Mark Fuller

RF Watershed Plan
Need local support. Every municipality has passed a resolution in support of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan.

Rachel Richards final comments

Nothing more important than a meeting of the minds and a consensus behind action for addressing our water issues going forward as a community and as a watershed.
Water is a generational issue. They have been thinking about buying water for years, generationally. We must start to think in this way.
Greatest concern – it is invisible and it is incremental, the threat is invisibility, and it is incremental when there is one more take of water here and there, one more loss of pre 1922 rights. To motivate people on something that is invisible and incremental is our toughest challenge. People react to a crisis. They will not react the same to a slow moving train wreck that is drought, climate change, future transmountain diversions from our valley.
Solutions – we have the tools we need.
Local successful example of working regionally and being successful with RFTA – many municipalities supported transport program. So successful there were 3 taxation causes that passed.
Your choice – your water practices choices in your house, your lawn, your water features, landscaping, how you dispose of waste, doing things right.
Your neighborhood’s choice – HOA, pesticides, manual weed removal,
Your town council, to regional management groups, to the state level.
We have so many tools to use. They all add up to vision and an ethic that we can rally around if our efforts are concerted, purposeful and unified. We make this a visible issue. One people can see and feel and understand and how it affects their property, environmental, recreational values and future generations.
This meeting is a tremendous kick off for these efforts.
Watershed plan is a guiding document
We’re going to protect our watershed

Roaring Fork Watershed Summit Notes - June 10, 2010

2010-06-10T21:10:00.000-07:00

Group Five – Discussion Notes
Moderator: G. Moss Driscoll, Esq.

Group Members: Cliff Simonton, Eagle CountyJim Pokrandt, Colorado River Water Conservation DistrictTamra Allen, Garfield CountyRuss Arensman, City of GlenwoodKathleen McIntyre, U. of Michigan

Question: What are some of the connections between Representative Curry’s speech and your own individual involvement with water issues?
Cliff: Incorporation of water issues into Eagle County land-use planning process.
Tamra: Addressing water-related impacts from land-use during recent redrafting of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution (“ULUR”).
Jim: Explanation of the River District’s role and purpose; explanation of Fry-Ark conditional rights and the connection between the Fry-Ark Project and the Basalt Project.
Russ: Explanation of the development of Glenwood Springs whitewater park; construction of new city wastewater treatment facility.

Question: Given that we have two county planners in this group, how do you each view the connection between local land-use planning and regional or watershed-based water resource management?
Tamra: Explanation of the provisions in updated GarCo ULUR relating to House Bill 1041, relating to the development of major new water supply infrastructural projects.
Jim: Noting that while 1041 powers are important, particularly in terms of giving West Slope counties and municipalities veto authority over Front Range water supply development projects, watershed management is also clearly a matter of local land-use planning decisions, like required setbacks and issues relating to local water providers.
Cliff: Following up Jim’s comment by emphasizing that H.B. 1041 is still the key tool for local water management, given the “immense power” it gives to counties and municipalities. Cliff explained Eagle County’s role in defining 1041 powers, through the dispute over Aurora and Colorado Springs’ Homestake II Project. More recently, EagleCounty came to agreement with the cities for the development of the Homestake II water rights as part of a new groundwater project at Camp Hale. The Camp Hale project will benefit both East and West Slope water interests, providing water to in-basin sources under former decrees to the Wolcott and Piney reservoirs. The agreementbrokered over the Homestake II water rights therefore shows that 1041 powers continue to ensure that new Front Range water supply projects are mutually beneficial to West Slope water interests.
Russ: Returning to the issue of adequate local water supplies, Glenwood Springs recently broke ground on the city’s new wastewater treatment plant, after encountering funding issues. The new plant will be relocated from the existing plant’s current location, in part due to the potential developmental value of the property at the current plant site. The new location will be downstream on the Colorado River. One benefit of the new location is that it gives the city the option to eventually provide wastewater treatment services to West Glenwood, which currently receives wastewater treatment services through a local service district. Consolidation would provide better services toratepayers, help payoff the new plant’s loans, and help manage the city’s existing water supplies. The new plant will cost approximately $30 million, requiring the city to increase sewer rates by about 20 percent each year for at least this year and the following two. One reason for the higher costs is attributable to the energy demands that the new plant will have, primarily in the form of pumping requirements to get water over a slight elevation gain at the beginning of the new route to the new plant.Tamra: Noting the important role of small service districts that supply municipal water supplies to unincorporated areas like Aspen Glen and other subdivisions between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale.

Roaring Fork Watershed Summit Notes - June 10, 2010

2010-06-10T21:07:00.000-07:00

Group Five Continued:

Question: How have local governments handled the new authority created in House Bill 1141 (2008), which requires local governments to determine that a proposed development with fifty or more units will have a sufficient water supply. In particular, how have local governments made the determination of adequacy?
Tamra: Explaining that for the most part, local governments simply defer to the determination of a licensed state engineer, given the practical and financial challenges for local governments to assuming new responsibilities.
Cliff: Noting the financial challenges local governments are currently facing, and contrasting the four counties in the watershed. Pitkin County, in particular, has the financial resources, not to mention political support, to implement expensive and innovating new programs, potentially like that related to H.B. 1141.

Question: To bring this discussion full-circle, the real question is how to harness the public resources within the watershed – whether they be financial, human, or even institutional – to ensure the lasting protection of local water resources?
Jim: Noting that the reality is that the State still has no official statewide water plan or policy, and that therefore the real question is how to put local water resources to use on the West Slope – but also noting the inherent uncertainty surrounding new, “junior” water rights. Part of this uncertainty is due to the uneven effects of the Cameo Call, which can result in increased demand on Ruedi Reservoir, while also cutting off the Twin Lakes Project. On the other hand, the Shoshone Call allows junior water rights in the RFW to remain in priority, despite the Cameo Call being in effect for other parts of the West Slope.

Question: Jim, will you discuss the role of the Shoshone Call in ensuring adequate flows at the City of Glenwood Springs’ new whitewater park, as well as some of the recent press surrounding the future of the plant’s operations?
Jim: The Shoshone Plant, which is just upstream of Glenwood, on the Colorado River, is the second major call on the river, and usually ensures over 1200 c.f.s. in the Colorado River. The effect of the call is to cut-off upstream diversions, while allowing for continued diversions in areas like the Roaring Fork Watershed. The Cameo Call also helps to meet downstream water demands, thus delaying the potential effect of the Cameo Call. Therefore, “without the Shoshone water right, Glenwood Springs would have no recreational whitewater industry.” Given the importance of the Cameo Call, one growing concern for local water management is the possibility of any changes to the current Shoshone Call regime. For example, Denver has many water rights in the Upper Colorado River Basin that are affected by the Shoshone Call, including undeveloped conditional rights that could potentially be perfected ifthe call regime were to be modified. Denver also happens to be one of Excel’s largest customers. Any such changes could, of course, affect junior water rights in the Roaring Fork Watershed. This type of proposal could also surface from a group of Front Range water providers, many of which stand to likewise potentially gain from changes to theShoshone Call regime.

Question: Russ, can you tell us about whether the Glenwood Springs has considered the possibility of filing for a recreational inchannel diversion water right for the city’s whitewater park, and if so, what the status is of this possibility?
Russ: Explaining that city council recognizes that it benefits both from the remaining high flows in the Roaring Fork River, as well as favorable operations on the Colorado, largely due to the Shoshone Call. The city council, also recognizes that the city is in a “unique position” to protect flows in the Roaring Fork Watershed, with the potentialfiling of an RICD right on for the city’s new whitewater park. Securing such a right, however, could cost as much as between fifty and one-hundred thousand dollars. So at this time, the city council’s official position is that it is “considering” filing for such a right. In addition, the city is “looking into” the possibility of adding additional parkfeatures upstream of the Colorado-Roaring Fork confluence.

Question: There has also been reports that Basalt and Carbondale are considering filing for RICD water rights on the Roaring Fork. Are there potential opportunities for a coordinated effort in developing such rights? What perhaps are some of theinstitutional and political barriers to making such a coordinated effort a reality?
Cliff: In addition to the financial differences between the various local governmental entities in the valley, there are also political differences, and even different value systems. Eagle County, for example, is very supportive of recreational uses of water – both in terms of skiing and whitewater rafting. Pitkin County os more focused on theenvironment; whereas Garfield and Gunnison counties both value their agricultural heritage. One example of the institutional differences that persist is the variations in authority between home-rule and non-home rule counties.

Roaring Fork Watershed Summit Notes - June 10, 2010

2010-06-10T21:06:00.000-07:00

Group 7 and 11: Sharon Clarke, Sandy Jackson, Ken Kolm, April Barker, Dee Malone, Amanda Barker, Jeremy Heiman, Chris Sturm, and Matt Kondratieff

What are water-related threats, issues, or concerns in the Roaring Fork Watershed that affect your sphere of influence or concern you the most?

Need to determine what is sustainable
Land use conversion from agriculture to urban and the groundwater implications of these conversions.
Our river corridors are filling up with people.
The groundwater recharge area above Aspen (Northstar Area) sustains the RF. Need to protect and restore this are to ensure that it can function as well as possible.
Loss of connectivity between the uplands and riparian areas
Issue of leaky ditches and how improved efficiency can influence groundwater supply
Identify beneficial uses and how much water we need to meet these uses.
Lawns are very water consumptive; which leaves less water for groundwater recharge.
Identify what are the best uses of available water.
We have a disconnected river system.
Urban/rural difference in value of houses versus hay meadows
Protection of Open Space is needed because that is why people want to move and visit here.
Loss of cottonwood galleries; cottonwoods along ditches provide good habitat
Education-people need to understand connection between land use and our rivers
Need to have more people involved from the ag community; why weren’t more ag people invited to the summit.
Need to manage development; laying of impervious surfaces impacts our rivers
Better stormwater management
Have communities work together to share ideas
Channels were formed by a range of natural variability, changes to the natural hydrograph impacts our rivers. Need to add variability to our hydrograph, a stable non-variable managed hydrograph does not translate to ecosystem health. Include both timing and quantity.
Baseflows are too low, causing increased icing in the winter; Sept to April spawning periods, very important to have overwintering habitat and access
White water park design and construction can impact fish; inhibit connectivity and access to deep pools

What are some solutions to these threats, issues, or concerns?

Need to identify projects that have the best chance of success.
Have birders and landowners meet and identify birds on their property and good habitat to attract birds.
Montana has public access from high water bank to bank, makes it easier to manage connectivity
Restoration of riparian areas to capture peak flows and slowly release
Look at management indicator species and work to monitor and maintain these.
Look at the water management/conservation from the energy perspective
Solutions need to come from the ground up
Get better media involvement
Have a watershed muse to translate technical info to landowners.
Get beyond blame to solutions
Protect ag
Continue to have these types of summits and expand to landowners

What most needs to happen to create a unified voice for the Roaring Fork Watershed?
Didn’t have time for this question.

What's Happening Now with the Watershed Plan?

2010-03-18T13:51:00.001-07:00

After a series of public meeting between August and October of 2009, work is still going on behind the scenes on the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. Plan organizers are taking comments on objectives and recommended actions from these public meetings and organizing them in a way that makes sense geographically, topically, and strategically. The Technical Advisory Group will take these draft objectives and recommended actions and make revisions based on real-world situations and possibilities. Once this process is accomplished, a draft plan will be written. At that time there will be more opportunity for input from stakeholders and the public. If you have quesitons about current work on the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan email Mark Fuller at fulcon@comcast.net. For more information on the plan visit www.roaringfork.org/watershedplan.

There is Still Time to Make Comments!

2009-10-16T12:19:00.000-07:00

Even though the five public meetings have come and gone, you still have the opportunity to comment on the draft objectives. In the green sidebar to the right, under Blog Archive, click on the triangle next to August. Choose which of the seven topic areas you'd like to read and comment on. At the bottom of the comments is a box to enter your comments. Please add whatever thoughts you have on these objectives. THANKS!

Upper Roaring Fork & Castle/Maroon Poll Results

2009-10-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

Lower Roaring Fork & Cattle Creek Poll Results

2009-10-01T11:50:00.000-07:00

Upper Middle Roaring Fork & Snowmass/Capitol Creek Poll Results

2009-09-24T08:31:00.000-07:00

Crystal River Poll Results

2009-09-10T09:37:00.000-07:00

Draft Objectives: Climate Change

2009-08-21T07:58:00.001-07:00

7. Climate Change

Goal: To understand and minimize the effects of climate change on our water resources.

Objectives:

A. Develop a better understanding of the potential effects of climate change on all of our water issues, and ensure the effects of climate change are considered as we develop responses to our water issues.

B. Ensure that provisions for climate change-driven impacts, as well as adaptations necessary to account for climate change are integrated into master planning and operations planning throughout the watershed.

C. Enhance collaboration among all jurisdictions and key stakeholders (e.g., Aspen Skiing Company) in the watershed to ensure that adequate data are collected to monitor local climate change and assess its impacts.

D. Enhance the knowledge and use of existing state and federal alternative energy grant programs by Roaring Fork Valley decision makers and other key stakeholders.

E. Improve our community’s understanding of the potential impacts of climate change on our water resources.

Draft Objectives: Instream Areas

2009-08-21T07:58:00.000-07:00

6. Instream Areas

Goal: To protect and restore the functions of instream areas.

Objectives:

A. Monitor the condition of the native fish communities and determine limits of acceptable change.

B. Assess instream habitat condition status and trends for all major streams in the watershed.

C. Maintain or increase population size, extent, and purity of all existing cutthroat trout populations.

D. Maintain existing boreal toad populations and, where possible, restore or expand populations.

E. Monitor existing Northern Leopard Frog populations and, where possible, expand populations.

F. Prevent the New Zealand mudsnail and Quagga and Zebra Mussels from establishing in the watershed.

G. Determine the adequacy of recreational access to our rivers and streams, their recreational carrying capacity and the limits of acceptable change.

Draft Objectives: Riparian Areas

2009-08-21T07:57:00.000-07:00

5. Riparian Areas

Goal: To protect and restore the functions of riparian areas.

Objectives:

A. Identify and protect our existing high quality riparian communities.

B. Identify and restore high priority riparian zones so that the riparian zone and the aquatic system are functionally connected again.

C. Identify and minimize impacts from development, land uses, and other activities (e.g., beaver eradication) in riparian areas.

D. Eradicate invasive plant species in riparian areas and prevent their expansion into new riparian areas.

E. Improve our community’s understanding of the importance of riparian areas and riparian issues by educating citizens and decision makers on the importance of riparian areas for a wide variety of wildlife.

F. Assess riparian habitat condition, wildlife status and trends for all major streams in the watershed.

Draft Objectives: Water Quality

2009-08-21T07:56:00.001-07:00

4. Water Quality

Goal: To protect our rivers and streams from any further degradation of water quality and to restore the high water quality of this headwater watershed.

Objectives:

A. Meet state water quality standards in all of our rivers and streams.

B. Keep our rivers and streams free of human-induced pollutants, such as lawn chemicals and discharges from poorly maintained or failed septic systems.

C. Improve our community’s understanding of water quality issues by enhancing public education on the relationship between water quantity and water quality.

D. Improve our community’s ability to address water quality issues by upgrading technology at our wastewater treatment plants to address emerging contaminants.

E. Improve our community’s understanding and enforcement of federal, state and local regulations designed to protect water quality.

F. Obtain water quality data for key parameters on stream reaches where recent data is lacking.

G. Improve our water quality monitoring of lakes and reservoirs.

H. Preserve safe drinking water supplies.

I. Improve coordination of water quality monitoring, analyses, and reporting efforts.

Draft Objectives: Groundwater

2009-08-21T07:56:00.000-07:00

3. Groundwater

Goal: To protect the availability, sustainability and quality of our groundwater.

Objectives:

A. Improve information availability, comprehensiveness, and accuracy on groundwater availability and sustainability, particularly in areas subject to continued development or changes in land use.

B. Improve information availability, comprehensiveness, and accuracy on the susceptibility of the flows in our rivers and streams to pumping of groundwater.

C. Provide and improve opportunities for groundwater recharge, through such methods as maintaining and restoring wetlands and, where possible, restoring overbanking flows.

D. Keep our groundwater free of pollutants, such as discharges from poorly maintained or failed septic systems.

E. Improve our information on the susceptibility of our groundwater resources to contamination, particularly in areas where groundwater is, or will be, utilized as a drinking water supply.

F. Improve our water quality monitoring of groundwater.

G. Improve our community’s understanding and enforcement of federal, state and local regulations designed to protect groundwater availability, sustainability and quality.

Draft Objectives: Surface Water

2009-08-21T07:55:00.000-07:00

2. Surface Water

Goal: To protect the availability and sustainability of our surface water.

Objectives:

A. Improve our information on surface water availability and sustainability, particularly in areas subject to continued or increased diversions, or changes in land use.

B. Identify the optimum flows needed to meet our environmental and recreational needs, including the magnitude, timing, and duration of such flows.

C. Increase flows for stream reaches where Colorado Water Conservation Board instream flow rights are not being met on a consistent basis, or where flows have been significantly reduced from historical flows.

D. Assess flow alteration in stream reaches where flow data are lacking.

E. Identify stream reaches that are vulnerable to increased flow alteration and work to minimize future flow alteration.

F. Provide reliable, real time, and easily accessible information on streams flows, including high and low flows for the Roaring Fork and its major tributaries.

G. Reduce the impacts of drought on our surface waters.

Draft Objectives: Regional Water Management

2009-08-20T07:52:00.000-07:00

1. Regional Water Management

Goal: To ensure that solutions to water management issues meet both our consumptive needs for water and the need to keep water in our rivers and streams for instream uses.

Objectives:

A. Promote communication between the Colorado Basin Roundtable and Roaring Fork Watershed stakeholders on water availability/sustainability estimates and options for meeting Colorado’s future water needs.

B. Improve public education concerning federal and state water policies/programs affecting management of our rivers and streams (e.g., the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program).

C. Encourage collaboration among Roaring Fork Valley decision makers to achieve a unified, watershed position on federal and state water policies/programs affecting management of our rivers and streams (e.g., proposals for reoperation of the Fry-Ark Project, proposals for administration of a Compact Call).

D. Improve public education, communications, and collaboration concerning project proposals which would impact management of our rivers and streams (e.g., the Ruedi Pumpback).

E. Improve collaboration among Roaring Fork Valley decision makers to ensure that land use actions prevent or mitigate potential water impacts in other jurisdictions.

F. Foster communication between local land use planners and state water commissioners on projects of common interest (e.g., development approvals of micro-hydro facilities and ornamental ponds).

G. Promote state regulatory changes to require implementation of augmentation and substitute supply plans which most closely duplicate the natural hydrology of our streams and rivers.

Watershed Plan Purpose

2009-08-19T07:54:00.000-07:00

To plan and work toward an environmentally and economically healthy watershed that benefits all who have a stake in it.

Technical Advisory Group

2009-08-15T14:40:00.000-07:00

Lead: Mark Fuller, Ruedi Water and Power Authority
Planning Team: Sharon Clarke, Tim O’Keefe, and Rick Lofaro, Roaring Fork Conservancy; Bob Schultz, Robert Schultz Consulting LLC; Rose Ann Sullivan, Kootenay Resources

Name, Organization/Agency
Dee Malone, Colorado Natural Heritage Program
Dan Birch, Colorado River Water Conservation District
A’lissa Gerum, City of Glenwood Springs-Planning
Kendall Ross, Colorado Division of Wildlife
Cindy Houben, Pitkin County-Community Development
Bob Harris, Blazing Adventures
Lane Wyatt, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
Tom Kinney, Hill, Kinney & Wood
Lisa Tasker, E.M. Ecological
Ray Merry, Eagle County Planning
Paul Noto, Patrick Miller & Kropf
Kevin Lusk, Colorado Springs Utility
Kerry Sundeen, Grand River Consulting
Kit Hamby, Snowmass Water and Sanitation District
Bill Miller, Miller Ecological
Bill Blakeslee, Colorado Division of Water Resources
Phil Overeynder, City of Aspen-Public Works
David Brown, US Geological Survey
Mark Lacy, US Forest Service
John Sanderson, The Nature Conservancy
Steve Renner, Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety
Mark Gilfillan, Army Corps of Engineers
Sharie Prow, Mt Sopris Conservation District
John Niewoehner, Garfield County-Planning
Ken Kolm, Hydrologic Systems Analysis
April Barker, City of Aspen-stormwater
John Katzenberger, Aspen Global Change Institute
John Emerick, Colorado School of Mines
Bonnie Pate, Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
Clark Anderson, Sonoran Institute

Watershed Plan Meetings to Start August 20, 2009

2009-08-10T11:08:00.000-07:00

There’s an old saying in the West: “Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting”. Despite that, local groups are working together to create a new approach to water management based on research, collaboration, mutual support and education. After studying the conditions in the Roaring Fork Watershed over the last 2+ years, a series of public meetings will get underway next week aimed at developing recommendations and actions which will protect local water resources into the future. The public is invited to attend and help shape that action plan. A series of five public meetings focused on different sections of the Roaring Fork Watershed are planned for the next two months as Phase II of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan enters it most interactive phase. The first of those meetings will be held at the Eagle County Community Building in El Jebel at from 6:30 – 9:00 PM on Thursday, August 20.

“We are excited to be moving forward with the Watershed Plan,” said Mark Fuller, Director of the Ruedi Water and Power Authority, the sponsor of the Plan. “These meetings will involve the public in a meaningful way in discussions about the future of local water resources. It is important that people voice their concerns, priorities and ideas about how we can best preserve the quality and quantity of local waters. We look forward to sharing the findings of Phase I, the State of the Watershed Report, with the public and hearing from them about how we can work together to assure the future of our water.”

The meetings on Phase II of the Watershed Plan will be held at the Eagle County Community Building in El Jebel on August 20th; in Redstone at the Church at Redstone on September 10th; in Woody Creek at the Community School on September 24th; in Glenwood Springs at the Community Center on October 1st; and in Aspen at the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies on October 15th. Each meeting will concentrate on the local elements of the watershed where the meeting is being held. So, for instance, the El Jebel meeting will focus on the Fryingpan River and that part of the Roaring Fork between approximately Wingo Junction and Carbondale, including East and West Sopris Creeks. “We welcome all comments on all parts of the watershed,” said Fuller, “but we hope to make it more relevant by spreading the public meetings around the various sub-watersheds in the valley. Although every part of the watershed affects every other part, we know that the concerns of a fly fisherman in Aspen might be different than those of a rancher in Carbondale or a riverside homeowner in Glenwood Springs.”

The meetings will be facilitated by Bob Schultz, a public consultant from El Jebel. Staff of the Roaring Fork Conservancy, the Plan’s lead consultant, will present a summary of the Phase I findings for the relevant part of the watershed and attendees will work in groups to address the issues identified by Phase I. The ideas generated from the meetings will be reviewed and analyzed by local experts who will prioritize them according to feasibility and effectiveness before including them in the final Plan. Recommendations and implementation strategies will eventually be presented to both local and regional governments and water managers as part of the completed Plan.

The Watershed Plan is being funded by contributions from local governments and agencies and grants from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The budget for Phase II of the Plan is $98,000 and is being administered by the Ruedi Water and Power Authority, a local consortium of County and municipal governments that has worked on water-related issues in the Roaring Fork Valley since 1981. The Watershed Plan grew out of an issues committee formed by the Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative’s Water Committee, an informal group of local planners, agency and government representatives and private citizens which meets periodically to assess local resource and planning issues. Phase I of the Plan was begun in 2006 and completed in December of 2008. Phase II of the Plan is currently underway and is expected to be completed in late 2010. For more information visit www.roaringfork.org/watershedplan.

Phase II Public Meeting Dates Announced

2009-08-05T11:51:00.000-07:00

Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative, Ruedi Water & Power Authority and Roaring Fork Conservancy announce five public meetings to gain public input on the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan.

August 20 - 6:30 pm - Eagle County Community Center, El Jebel

September 10 - 6:30 pm - Church at Redstone, Redstone

September 24 - 6:30 pm - Aspen Community School, Woody Creek

October 1 - 6:30 pm - Glenwood Springs Community Center, Glenwood Springs

October 15 - 6:30 pm - Aspen Center for Enviornmental Studies, Aspen