Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.06.07 OSTB Reg Minutes_S MINUTES OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD REGULAR SESSION June 7, 2018 Town of Basalt Council Chambers 101 Midland Ave.,Basalt OSTB Present: Graeme Means Howie Mallory Amy Barrow Michael Kinsley Wayne Ives, Dist. 1, Chair Dist. 2 Dist. 3 Dist. 4 Dist. 5 Conf Phone Staff Present: Gary Tennenbaum, Dale Will, Paul Holsinger, Suzanne Wolf Richard Neiley, Fran Soroka BOCC Present: George Newman Others Present: April Long, City of Aspen Stormwater Manager; Seth Mason, Lotic Hydrological; Ginny Parker, Emma Resident; Tom Cardamone, Emma Caucus member Graeme Means called the meeting to order at approximately 9:10 a.m. The OSTB Trustees and OST staff welcomed Michael Kinsley to his first meeting representing Commissioner District 4. PUBLIC COMMENT George Newman reported the Rio Grande Trail's Wingo Bridge wooden decking is splintering and needs to be either resurface or replaced. Gary Tennenbaum responded repairing the bridge's decking would be included in a future annual budget. APPROVAL OR THE MINUTES Howie Mallory moved for the OSTB to approve the regular and executive session minutes for 5/3/2018 as amended. Wayne Ives seconded. Motion passed. (4-0)Michael Kinsley abstained. Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan (Plan) Gary provided the Plan's historical background and open space's goals for the project. OST has been working cooperatively on this project since 2016. This is a shared project between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County with OST and Healthy Rivers & Stream funding the County's share. The project is a holistic examination of the upper Roaring Fork River valley from Independence Pass to Jaffee Park. The project has morphed into a tool for all upper Roaring Fork River users, water rights holders and municipalities to find ways to collaboratively work together to utilize water efficiently, improve water quality, improve water flows and riparian health. DST's objective is to glean insight on how our property management actions can best maintain the health of the river. Today's presentation is for the OSTB to provide Plan comments and to decide whether to recommend the BOCC to continue support of the Plan moving forward. There are no budget impacts at this time. The Aspen City Council and Healthy Rivers & Streams Board will also review the plan. The Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan Executive Summary is incorporated as part of this record as `Exhibit A. ' 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 1 of 9 April Long introduced and Seth Mason conducted the Plan's presentation. The Plan examines the upper Roaring Fork River main stem and major tributaries to above Brush Creek; examines the factors that contribute to the existing conditions; examines the physical and biological relationships; relationship of flows and the flood plain; all these aspects in concert while pursuing programmatic solutions that will enhance the river's health. Besides the scientific aspects the Plan also brought together stakeholders and public input. The Roaring Fork River stretch through the City of Aspen faces multiple threats. Within the City the stormwater outfalls discharge into the river, the City is downstream from significant water diversions (Transmountain diversions reduces flow by 40%), plus the City is built along the river's edge causing a lack of riparian areas. Colorado Water Quality Control Division (CWQCD) designated this stretch of the river as impaired. To meet river flow targets that could meet the existing flow gaps and protect the river's aquatic ecosystems would need 4,000-acre feet of water above Difficult Creek. (Visually, 4,000-acre feet would be about ten times the size of Grizzly Reservoir) Stakeholder discussions included a variety of alternative actions; different utilization and release schedules, programmatic opportunities, Salvation ditch agreements and how alternative City storage could augment Salvation ditch needs, and non-diversion from City ditches. The Plan's next phase work will utilize the developed data simulation tools to analyze the river's needs while seeking action opportunities to meet those needs. Utilizing the Plan's analytical data tools to calculate projected flow gaps by comparing existing stream flows to prior years. April summarized that understanding our complex water system can be overwhelming and technical When contemplating how to make water decisions those decisions need to come down to the day that the water is needed and how much water is needed and how effective that action will be before a project is even contemplated. Because a water project could destroy relationships, have legal ramifications and cause enormous expenditures. What the Plan did find is that the community highly values the water resource. The participating stakeholders recognize the need and are ready to partake in difficult creative water management conversations to improve this valuable resource. Discussion Michael Kinley asked why the Plan has based important data numbers on prior estimates. Seth responded the flow data is based on Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that are part of the Senate bill that authorizes the development of water projects. For purposes of this Plan project, the Fish &Wildlife Service data is known and accepted data. Decision was made early in the process to utilize available data and not conduct a massive new study. Michael expressed concern that such a pivotal number in the report is part of a bureaucratic sales pitch to Congress. Gary contributed that to conduct a new study would cost a fortune. The Plan's models illustrate how 4,000-acre feet would affect each stretch of the river over time. The simulation modeling tools allow the flow numbers to be any amount. Seth continued the Plan is using available tools (data) to make commentary about the relative degree of in-stream flow gaps. Coming up with 4,000-acre feet of water would be a herculean undertaking. Michael continued that by the Plan prominently highlighting '4,000-acre feet' then that number in effect becomes the gospel leading to future project rationalizations that are doomed to fail Gary clarified the Plan's intention is to illustrate how much water is needed to effect change for any segment of the river. The Plan will be amended to note the 4,000-acre feet number reflects an amount that has been used in the past. Water is a critical component when Open Space contemplates the purchase of any conservation easement or fee property. OST can now use these simulation tools when planning property actions especially within the upper Roaring Fork valley. 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 2 of 9 Michael remarked the Plan mostly references irrigation efficiencies with little reference about the results of domestic efficiencies. Both irrigation and domestic efficiencies potentially avoid dams and create capacity resilience that can withstand droughts. April responded the City's water source is from Castle and Maroon Creeks improving domestic /commercial efficiencies affect those sources, but not the health of the upper Roaring Fork River, which flows through the City and is above those tributaries. Michael felt the response did not address the overarching water issue. Graeme Means asked whether recent programs that allow ranchers to return / release water back into a river could be a tool in the Roaring Fork River watershed. Seth responded these types of innovative releasing tools were included in the stakeholder conversations. There are some on- going concerns about exposing a water right to any source of quantification like the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) leasing program. Any legal issue surrounding a water right is a concern. Other non-CWCB lease back tools work best in areas that do not have complex water rights issues. The upper Roaring Fork does have the potential for some innovative opportunities, which continue to be discussed with the stakeholders. April contributed over the past five years the City has participated in a non-diversion agreement on the Wheeler Ditch and it is contributing in a small way to meet the minimal in-stream flow. This action also reduces raw-water irrigation. Wayne Ives asked whether a comparison could be made between the Crystal River Plan and the URFR Plan. Seth responded the stakeholder dynamics are very different. Roaring Fork has more consensus about river health and more legality concerns. Geography issues are similar with the greatest river impacts below water diversion infrastructures,. The Crystal area is more about stakeholder trust building on an individual basis. Amy Barrow noted the Plan illustrates how challenging it is do anything with the water and questioned how action projects will evolve from the Plan. Gary replied there are North Star habitat improvement projects in the works and OST will be consulting with Seth. The projects will not create additional water for the City, but it will improve the quality of habitat and overall ecology through the river's North Star stretch. Seth contributed that it is best to think of projects as incremental seed changes supporting long-term implementation goals. Howie Mallory questioned whether the City's grey-water program would have any river impacts. April responded the City's grey-water program's infrastructure is installed, but the City is still dealing with permits from the State. It is odd that the grey-water is clean enough to return to the river yet not clean enough to irrigate a golf course. The re-use line runs from the sanitary treatment facility to irrigate Burlingame properties and the golf course. Currently these areas are irrigated with raw water from Castle and Maroon Creeks once the system is functioning it will reduce the diversion from these trbutaries. The critical river segments are upstream from these tributaries and thus does not meet the acre-feet in-stream gap. The additional acre-feet of water needs to be above the Salvation Ditch diversion. Howie questioned whether the grey-water could be delivered further into the City. April responded it would be an infrastructure challenge but could be the kind creative solution worth exploring. While it seems absurd to pump water upstream to solve this problem, it may actually be part of a solution. 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 3 of 9 Graeme asked about the role of beavers. Seth replied there are possible beaver management opportunities in areas like North Star and Brush Creek. Beaver activity has the potential to increase the aquafer storage capacity. Beavers are a tricky approach; heavy beaver activity can alter recreation activity. See Board Action below. Emma Open Space Agricultural Structure Update Section 4.2.2 of the Emma Open Space Management Plan allows for the development of agricultural structures with consent from the Conservation Easement holder Roaring Fork Conservancy. Through Pitkin County's formal bid process, Two Roots Farm was awarded a ten- year lease in early 2018. Staff worked with the lessee to determine potential facility locations. OST conducted an online public survey with four options; Option A (location site), Option B (location site), Option C (no structure) and Other which allowed participant to offer a location or other thoughts. One hundred nine public responses were submitted with 89 for Option A, 6 for Option B, 7 for Option C no structure (the majority of seven responses were averse to public funding private enterprise), 3 for either A or B as long as location met the lessee needs, one proposed locating near the cottonwood trees, 2 were against any structures on open space and one proposed utilizing the Emma Townsite location. The Emma Caucus was provided a site visit on March 29th and on April 30th the Caucus conducted a special meeting to discuss the options and process. Emma Caucus did not vote, but submitted a summary of members that did comment. Summary of the public survey results and the Emma Caucus comment are included in this meeting's materials.' Staff is recommending the OSTB support a$10,000 budget supplemental to contract an architect for structure designs and develop cost estimates for a range structure design scenarios. Staff will research structure construction funding strategies including County funded and leased back to lessee, privately funded, and/or a combination of fiinding sources. Public Comment Tom Cardamone offered comments primarily as the Executive Director of the Watershed Biodiversity Initiative (WBI) also as a member of the Emma Caucus who supports Emma OS agricultural project. Eagle County has identified the general Emma area as a likely location for a wildlife crossing. Tom referenced the success of the Banff wildlife crossings could be applied in this area. There is potential to connect Maroon Bell Snowmass area through Light Hill to Lake Christine wildlife areas and beyond to Red Table wilderness area. Keeping this potential in mind, Tom commented to keep the Emma Open Space as open as feasible with structures as far west as possible. Noting hoop houses are moveable structures. The lessee's current 8 foot fencing creates a barrier that is problematical, as would any other agricultural production protective fencing. Gary added the Emma OS management plan speaks to discussing a wildlife crossing possibility with Eagle County. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)will be major contributor in these discussions. Gary added the biggest difficulty is the Emma /Basalt area is heavily developed. The Willits development area was a wildlife crossing area and the wildlife still try to cross there. Graeme added his observations of Croatia's coastal highway where he encountered several very 1 06/07/2018 OSTB Meeting Packet:Memo -Emma Open Space Structure Update and Public Process;Emma Public Survey Results;Emma Caucus Comment, 5/07/2018; Emma Open Space Agricultural Structure Web posting. 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 4 of 9 wide landscaped wildlife crossings. Michael questioned Tom whether the agricultural fence location was more critical factor than the structure location. Tom responded that both are of concern, but the wildlife conflict increases if operations move further east. Best to keep potential barriers to the west. Emma resident Happy Day Ranch owner, Ginny Parker commented she faces a dilemma. She wants the Emma lessees to be successful but sees OST actions that supply agricultural facilities on public land is in direct competition with the area's private property owners who are trying to make a go of their agricultural businesses. It seems to her that the only way for some private owners to succeed is to sell their land. Ginny would like to see OST funds spent on maintaining assets and not funding operations in competition with the areas private enterprises. She also added from her ranching experience not all agricultural endeavors succeed and then what happens when all this money is spent building facilities and ultimately the agricultural endeavor proves unsustainable. In sixty-five years, her land has not been able to turn a profit. Everyone in her family have other jobs to keep the ranch functioning. Dale Will reminded the board of Ginny's generous donation of a public trail easement across her property known as Nancy's Path that connects to adjacent public lands. Board Comments Wayne Ives questioned whether the Emma agricultural structure could be a multi-user facility. Would other OST properties be a better location for multi-users processing? Wayne remarked that he foresees the agricultural program will continue to generate discussions about the need for agricultural facilities. Gary responded fixture management plan processes need to view the agricultural areas holistically and to pose the structure questions in that process whether for a new property or updating a property with agricultural leases and no facility structure. Amy Barrow commented that shared facilities would be more efficient than having twenty-seven barns. Gary added OST would supply to the board a summary of discussions conducted with local small growers about their facility needs when the board reviews the final Emma OS structure designs. Wayne asked for a breakdown of infrastructure costs that Two Roots has incurred (fencing, irrigation improvements etc.) This would illustrate to the public that OST is not funding the lessee's entire infrastructure needs. Graeme expressed his thoughts about the Emma Caucus' three areas of concerns; 1)why build on open space land, 2) why is OST fund subsidizing, 3) why is OST competing with private interests. Agriculture is part of OST's mission, which includes supporting local food production. Sustainable agriculture requires facilities. Subsidizing is a difficult question. Large corporate agricultural farms receive big federal subsidies while small producer receive none and must comply with same safety and health standards regulations as the large producers. Competing with private interests is a concern, but OST's agricultural leases are available for all to apply. By OST encouraging sustainable agriculture, it is helping to create a market for local produce that did not exist five to ten years ago when restaurants were not interested in locally raise produce. OST's support of local food production benefits all local producers. Some public education outreach about why OST is supporting local food production may be in order. 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 5 of 9 Amy Barrow agreed with Graeme's comments. OST's agricultural leases are visibly producing. She agreed that a concerted public information effort is in order. Including what OST is and is not providing for lessees. OST needs to be judicious on how to expend OST funds. The agricultural lessees are working the land for mutual public benefit. Michael questioned who would own the Emma OS structure. Paul replied Pitkin County. Michael questioned how the structure's aesthetics would be determined. Michael noted when considering the economics of farming that OST's agricultural land ownership removes the speculative land value market from the economics of firming. Gary offered to report back on how the City of Boulder, Boulder County and Larimer County balance the economics of their agricultural programs with private farms. Graeme responded about the structure's architectural aesthetic considerations. The structure will be next to the hoop house. The design will need to be in scale and capture new functional ways of firming. Using functional modem materials. Dale Will added to the comments about the economics of agriculture. The valley's speculative land market is squeezing out agricultural lands. Over many years, the OST program has spent millions of dollars on conservation easements that directly subsidize the landowner/rancher to continue agricultural activities yet this kind of subsidy is not questioned. Michael commented that the housing program was meant to keep housing affordable. DST's overarching program purpose is not exactly meant to make farming affordable. Is there value in a County policy that supports affordable agriculture regardless whether it is on easement or fee owned land? Gary responded that preservation of agriculture is a huge piece of OST's charter. And that includes all types of agriculture. The amount of OST funds spent on conservation easements makes a strong supportive statement. Conservation easements have provided landowners the wherewithal to continue agricultural endeavors on the land. Gary added the Emma structure aesthetics is an iiiiportant board decision. The structure could be cheaply constructed, but is that what the board wants? Staff will be presenting design options. Ultimately, any structure is removable. Howie Mallory supports Graeme's responses about the Emma Caucuses concerns. Howie also agreed that purchased conservation easements are huge subsidies that keep landowners in agricultural business and have raised very little controversy. Demonstrating that the public supports OST's agricultural mission statement. Not every OST property can accommodate agriculture and or local food production. One of the board's challenges is to review types of opportunities on a case-by-case basis. Howie agrees additional public outreach about OST's agricultural program is needed. He supports staff's recommendation while being mindful of a potential wildlife bridge concept as presented by Tom Cardamone. Graeme noted board consensus to move the Emma structure project forward. He suggested public outreach addressing OST's objectives to protect agriculture. Dale proposed a policy development similar to the creation of the Biodiversity Policy. Paul added that the existing 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 6 of 9 Agricultural Lease Policy and Procedure can be expanded upon. Gary responded that staff will bring options on how to accomplish this to the next meeting. Michael suggested today's meeting minutes be forwarded to Ginny Parker and Cathy Markle. See Board Action below. Suzanne Wolff entered the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Paragon Enterprises Referral Dale provided location and historical context. Ted Koutsoubos and his partners own three lots situated between Brush Creek Road, Brush Creek Trail and Sky Mountain Park. The Brush Creek Trail easement is along one of the property lines and was a dedication resulting from prior approvals. Paragon Enterprises building rights are not in question. Staff is recommending that the previously negotiated environmental protections built into prior land approvals be reiterated in the board's referral Including that human activity above Upper Wiese Ditch area be restricted to mirror Sky Mountain Park's closure dates from December 1 to May 15. And any dog on the property must be leashed or kenneled. A well fenced area adjacent to a house is an acceptable kennel area. Discussion Howie asked whether invisible fencing was allowable. Suzanne Wolff stated that invisible fencing does not meet Pitkin County's kenneling requirement. See Board Action below. Torn Cardamone left the meeting at 11:40 a.m. Red Mountain HOA Rockfall Mitigation The Red Mountain HOA property dedication closed last week. Dale reported the property inspection revealed additional rockfall mitigation beyond what was originally anticipated. Richard Neiley added the rockfall mitigation work is estimated between $270,000 to $295,000. The HOA has put $156,000 into escrow toward the mitigation work. Contractors and County Engineer are reviewing the property to come up with a firmer estimate. Staff is recommending a budget supplemental up to $150,000 subject to a final mitigation contract. Discussion Wayne questioned whether it is necessary to mitigate all the rockfall hazards. Richard responded that of the identified five rockfall hazards, one is very close to the property border. If that rockfall hazard is identified as outside the property then one of the Red Mountain property owners will cover that mitigation. Howie questioned what will trigger the release of the Red Mountain HOA mitigation payment. Richard replied the mitigation contractor will be Rock Solid and when the work is completed the funds will be released upon the mutual consent the HOA and County. HOA's escrowed funds are held by Land Title. See Board Action below. BOARD COMMENTS 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 7of9 Wayne announced that the Crystal Caucus will be holding a special meeting next week about the Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail planning. The meeting is organized around several wildlife experts to answer caucus member questions. BOARD ACTION Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan Michael Kinsley moved for the OSTB to recommend to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners to continue movingforward with the Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan. Wayne Ives seconded. Motion passed. (4-0) Howie Mallory was not audible at the time of the vote. Emma Open Space Structure Planning Michael Kinsley moved for the OSTB to continue the structure planning process for the Emma Open Space. Amy Barrow seconded. Motion passed. (5-0) Emma Open Space Budget Supplemental Wayne Ives moved for the OSTB to recommend to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget supplemental to contract a firm for design structure options and associated cost estimates for Emma Open Space not to exceed$10,000. Michael Kinsley seconded. Motion passed. (5-0) Paragon Enterprises Referral Michael Kinsley moved for the OSTB to require in the Paragon Enterprises referral that no human activity will be allowed above the Upper Wiese Ditch from December 1st to May 15th and all dogs must be leashed or kenneled on the property. Amy Barrow seconded. Motion passed (5-0) Red Mountain HOA Rockfall Mitigation Wayne Ives moved for the OSTB to recommend to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget supplemental up to$150,000 for rockfall mitigation on Red Mountain Open Space subject to a final contractor contract.Amy Barrow seconded. Motion passed (4-1 abstain) Michael Kinsley abstained. EXECUTIVE SESSION The OSTB moved to enter executive session in accordance with CRS 24-6-402(4)(a)(b) and (e) for the purpose of discussing acquisitions, attorney consultation and negotiations at 11:56 a.m. The OSTB adjourned executive session at 1:26 p.m. REGULAR SESSION II OSTB reconvened in regular session at 1:26 p.m. for additional Board Action. OSTB Present: Graeme Means, Wayne Ives, Amy Barrow, Michael Kinsley 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 8 of 9 Staff Present: Gary Tennenbaum, Dale Will, Paul Holsinger, Richard Neiley, Suzanne Wolff; Fran Soroka BOCC Present: George Newman BOARD ACTION Verena Mallory Trail Easement Wayne Ives moved for the OSTB to recommend to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioner to accept the Verena Mallory Trail Easement from Aspen Valley Land Trust.Amy Barrow seconded. Motion passed(4-0) Howie Mallory was not present. ADJOURN The OSTB meetings of June 7, 2018 were adjourned at approximately 130 p.m. Appro -d: Attest: a, 0 eans, Chair Fran Soroka PI; in County Open Space& Trails Board Pitkin County Open Space& Trails Administrative Specialist 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Minutes Page 9 of 9 Exhibit A: 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan 12017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the early 2000s, several studies were completed that showed riparian and in- stream habitat degradation in the stretch of the Roaring Fork that flows through Aspen. In 2012, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division placed that stretch on Colorado's list of Impaired Waters. Several factors can impact the health of aquatic and riparian plants and animals such as water quality and near-stream land use activities. However, fluvial ecologists generally treat streamflow as the "master variable" exerting the largest influence on river ecosystem conditions. Therefore, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County began the process of an Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan, focusing on identifying impacts caused by modified patterns of streamflow and developing goals and strategies for managing land and water to improve or protect river health in the upper Roaring Fork watershed. The City and the County worked with a team of consultants and local stakeholders to prioritize ecological considerations and develop tools to assist in predicting effectiveness of various management alternatives. Streamflows in the upper Roaring Fork watershed are heavily modified due to transmountain diversions and in-basin agricultural and municipal diversions. Transmountain diversions reduce the average annual water yield in the Roaring Fork River above Mill Street by approximately 40%. An additional 10% reduction in average annual yield is due to agricultural and municipal uses near the City of Aspen. Of this 10%, approximately one quarter is used by the City of Aspen for water amenities on the pedestrian mall, irrigation of public parks, and support of the stormwater treatment wetlands at John Denver Park. Reductions in streamflow during late summer and fall low-flow periods can negatively impact habitat quality and availability for fish and insects. Reductions in flow also reduce a streams ability to assimilate solar radiation and chemical compounds that find their way to the river, potentially, degrading water quality conditions. Alterations of peak flows limit a stream's ability to replenish important spawning habitat for native and sport fish, to maintain the physical shape and dynamics of the stream channel, and to replenish riparian vegetation and alluvial aquifers with water. 3,000 of additional water is needed to meet ®®®® Q deficit occurs daily Flowtargets recommended ®®® �� /Q November-May acre feet by the CWCB to protect aquatic ecosystems in the Roaring Fork River through the City of ®®®® 75 /Q 0 deficit occurs Aspen in dry years July-October The importance of ecological streamflow protections was recognized during the development of the Fry-Ark project and flow targets were incorporated into that project's Operating Principles. Additionally, minimum in-stream flows necessary to meet environmental needs on many streams reaches in the upper Roaring Fork watershed were quantified and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), which obtained water rights to protect those needs in the 1970s. More recently, local conservation organizations commissioned special studies to investigate the flood iii Exhibit A: 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes magnitude and recurrence interval necessary to maintain spawning habitat for trout. These numeric targets provide a starting point for identifying the locations and times of year when river health might be most impacted by streamflow alteration. of additional water is needed to meet �O/O 4,000 monthly flow targets recommended deficit due to by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water diversions acre feet Operating Principles to protect0 aquatic ecosystems in the Roaring Fork River above Difficult Creek Approximately 15%of this deficit is due to native water supply limitations.The rest of the deficit results from '5% deficit due to native supply trans-mountain diversions. Management recommendations for peak flows are regularly met on the Roaring Fork River. Recommended low flow thresholds, however, are not met on some sections of river during average and dry-year conditions. Minimum flow shortages are particularly prevalent on Hunter Creek, the Roaring Fork River between Lost Man Creek and Lincoln Creek, and on the Roaring Fork River through Aspen. Some shortages are due to the lack of native/natural water supply, indicating that in some locations and at some times of the year, the existing recommendations for minimum streamflows may need refinement or are not necessarily ideal targets for management activities. The largest shortages occur in late summer months and on the mainstem Roaring Fork typically below Stillwater Lane, where water diversions that support agriculture, ponds, private landscaping, and parks deplete late-summer streamflows. In general, shortages are more acute during dry conditions than during average or wet conditions. Developing viable strategies for addressing shortages to environmental water needs requires an understanding of the full suite of water uses in the Upper Roaring Fork watershed. While some shortages are natural and unavoidable, most of the shortages result from surface water diversions. It is important to recognize that the uses of water that impact river health are often vital to the functioning of local economies and ways of life. Therefore, the viability of efforts to manage water for the protection and benefit of the environment depend on a broad understanding of how water moves through the upper Roaring Fork watershed, the values associated with various water use types, and the difficult trade-offs associated with any change in existing water management. Stakeholders and members of the public participated in an exploration of geographic priorities, community values regarding the various ecosystem attributes, and the types of water management actions that the City of Aspen and Pitkin County may employ to improve river health (e.g. water transactions, water storage, channel reconfiguration, infrastructure upgrades, etc.). Geographic priorities identified by the community aligned with environmental flow need shortages. Though the consulting team had anticipated that there would be a clear preference for managing to improve or protect ecological conditions on the section of the Roaring Fork that flows through Aspen (and there was), Hunter Creek and the upper iv Exhibit A: 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Roaring Fork were also called out as important areas for consideration, as portions of each are frequently dried up by water diversions. In ranking exercises and small-group discussions, ecological integrity received the highest allocation of points as a priority water use- both because of its singular importance for community members, and because of its function in supporting recreation and other uses. Domestic water supply was a close second in priority water use. The high allocation of preference points to managing for ecological integrity and domestic water supply—and the significant potential that management of one attribute will come at the expense of the other—confirms the critical importance of understanding the impacts of domestic water supply development on the ecological health of streams and rivers. The inverse is equally true. Responses indicated the local community is resistant to managing for river health at the expense of domestic supply reliability. The potential for conflicting management goals is high, which speaks to the need for continued engagement with stakeholders and members of the local community when conducting these types of planning efforts. Communications with stakeholders elucidated important community preferences for general categories of water management actions. The management actions considered by stakeholders ranged from water system efficiency upgrades to reservoir construction (Table 3).These actions were primarily relevant to managing low flows, since modifications of this aspect of streamflow are widespread in the upper Roaring Fork watershed. Sensitivity around ongoing legal cases—one involving Pitkin County and administration of transmountain water rights, the other regarding water supply development planning by the City of Aspen—prevented evaluation of any single specific action in detail. Nonetheless,this project did include a high-level effort to vet previously proposed management actions with stakeholders and community members. In addition to clarifying community values and preferences for water use, stakeholders weighed the potential ecological benefits of several water management opportunities against the financial, legal, administrative, and political constraints (and other tradeoffs) each posed.This process helped identify a number of management activities that may be used to effect positive change in measures of river health on the Roaring Fork River. Management opportunities that warrant further investigation include: • Optimization of the Twin Lakes Exchange • Joint Operation of City of Aspen Municipal Supply and Salvation Ditch • Dry-Year Municipal Raw Water Supply Reductions • Maroon Creek Municipal Water Right, CWCB lease or dedication • Dry-Year Water Leasing with the Salvation Ditch Company • Hunter Creek Cutthroat Trout Management • Hallam Lake Cutthroat Trout Introduction • North Star Preserve Wetland Drain Removal Moving forward, the City and the County should capitalize on the trust and relationship-building that occurred during this project among diverse stakeholders. Water supplies in the upper Roaring Fork watershed are finite, support a diversity of V Exhibit A: 6/07/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes uses, and are fully allocated at certain times of year. Management actions that support or improve one use opportunity for one type of water need may reduce use opportunities for another. For example, improving late summer flows in the Roaring Fork River through Aspen might be achieved through a reallocation of City of Aspen- owned water from public parks and fountains to the river. Alternatively, low flow conditions might be improved through leasing programs or contractual relationships that allow for temporary reallocation of water from irrigated agriculture to the river. Both of these actions would likely benefit aquatic plants and animals but may do so at the expense of aesthetic enjoyment of water features in the City of Aspen or at the expense of water amenities, green viewscapes, and agricultural production in McClain Flats. In order for either option to proceed beyond conceptual planning levels, there will need to be widespread buy-in from key water users and the local community. In the course of this study, the entities that participated had the opportunity to discuss their goals for the river, concerns about current conditions, and interests in future river management. In discussing principles for building trust and mutual understanding, stakeholders underscored the importance of open, interest-based discussions when exploring creative, nuanced ways for managing the river to meet a multiplicity of needs. Stakeholders also highlighted a preference for improved dialog between City of Aspen and Pitkin County regarding river health and water planning issues moving forward. vi