The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 March 2011 packetHEATHY RIRS AND STRES CITIZENS ADVISORY BOAR Regular Meeting Agenda Plaza One Meeting Room March 17. 2011 - 4 p.m. 4:00 Public Comment 4:05 Board Comment 4:10 Approval of~URutes February 17,2011 meeting 4:15 ACES Tom Cardamone Riparian Restoration Concept Designs for Fred Philips Rock Bottom Ranch and Spring Creek 4:45 Colorado River District Dave Kanzer Funding request for gages Colorado River District 5:00 AdmURistration of Grant Requests John Ely Upcoming regular meeting dates April 21 - Aspen May 19 - Redstone June 16, 2011- Aspen All times are subject to variation without notice Agenda is subject to change HEATHY RIRS AND ST~S CITIZENS ADVISORY BOAR Meeting Minutes February 17,2011 Pitkin County Courthouse Annex Plaza One Conference Room 530 E. Main Street Aspen, CO Board members present: Ruthie Brown, Bil Jochems, Lisa Tasker, Steve Hunter and Greg Poschman Board members absent: Andre Wile Others present: John Ely, Lisa MacDonald, Michael Owsley Public Comment Jasmine DePagter - Thanked the Board for supporting the independent studies on the Castle Creek Hydro Plant and asked what the Board is planning now that the studies have come out. Chairman Poschman stated the Board has not had discussions on future plans. He stated the City is in receipt of the County's letter and comments regarding the project. Board Comments Mr. Jochems attended the Colorado Water Congress in January. He noted a big change on an increased emphasis on the environmental matters, minimum streamflows, contests between municipal and environmental concerns, agricultural transfers, minimize the buy and dry and use more of the alternative loans and leases during dry times but tryng to keep the farmers going. He thought there was an awakening going on that is very healthy. Six hundred people attended and he encouraged other Board members to attend. Approval of ~inutes Ms. Brown moved to approve the minutes of January 17, 2010 upon clarification of the actual regular meeting dates. Staff clarified regular meeting dates will continue to bethe 3rd Thursday of every month at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Hunter seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 to o. Status of the Fund John Ely updated the Board on the status of the fund since the collection of the sales tax in January 2009. The Board will have decisions to make in the near future as to where to apply the resources. Staff will continue to keep the spreadsheets updated and keep the Board apprised of the status of the fund and expenses. Future and Current Work Items John Ely reviewed the future and current work items and asked for feedback on the items as well as ideas for additional projects that the Board should be taking a look at. Discussions ensued regarding the work items. The work items will be maintained to serve as a continuing guide for fund allocation and anticipated expenses. Interbasin Compact Committee Report John Ely went over key points with the Board and requested feedback to include in the County's comments to the Interbasin Compact Committee. The Board discussed the points and John will include the Board's comments in the letter. The County will submit comments on February 24, 2011. Minutes -Healthy Rivers and Streams Citizens Advisory Board February 17,2011 Page 1 Ms. Brown left the meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. Grant and Funding Requests 1. File Management System for Environmental Health Dept. Cindy Houben presented information on the funding request of $20,000 to complete scanning of all on-site wastewater treatment system fies. This process includes researching parcel information, organizing fies, scanning the files, and training Environmental Health staff on use of equipment and proper procedures necessary to maintain fies. The Board asked Cindy to bring the request back to a future meeting. 2. Consultant to review proposed snow dump contamination threshold levels for Com. Dev. Dept. Cindy Houben, Pitkin County Community Development Director, presented information to the River Board on a proposed land use code amendment regarding requirements of snow dump permit applicants to annually test soil at a snow dump site and outline the procedure for how samples are collected, which contaminates will be tested, and when contaminate levels reach a certain threshold that are no longer acceptable. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended the proposed threshold levels should be reviewed by an "expert" with attention to the idea that an acceptable "residential contaminate level" be researched and possibly implemented into the Code amendments. Ms. Houben requested a $7500.00 contribution from the River Board to engage an outside consultant for assistance in reviewing the proposed snow dump contamination threshold levels and to help research an acceptable residential contaminate leveL. Mr. Neiley moved to approve recommendation of a budget allocationfor expert review of acceptable residential contaminate levels for proposed land use code snow dump amendments in the amount of $7,500. Mr. Jochems seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 to o. The Board asked that when the study is completed, Staff report back to the River Board the findings of the expert. Adiourn The Board meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m. Approved:Attest: Greg Poschman - Chairman Healthy Rivers and Streams Board Lisa MacDonald Minutes -Healthy Rivers and Streams Citizens Advisory Board February 17,2011 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 17,201 I TO:Healthy Rivers and Streams Board FROM:Aspen Center for Environmental Studies SUBJECT:Riparian Restoration Concept Design for Rock Bottom Ranch and Spring Creek Backp:round: ACES seeks funding to develop Riparian Restoration Concept Design Plans for its Rock Bottom Ranch and Spring Creek properties. The goal of the plans is to protect, maintain and improve the quality and quantity of water in the Roaring Fork River by restoring the riparian ecosystem through flood buffering, reduction of erosion and filtering through wetlands. Once complete, Restoration Concept Design Plans funded by the Healthy Rivers and Streams Board, will outline work and budget that can be leveraged to multiple outside funding sources. HRSB's intitial investment would produce the plan that when used as a fundraising tool could result in $500,000+ funding for local river restoration efforts. A list of potential sources can be available. Implementation of the Restoration Concept Design Plans will involve local expertise and manpower and will be accomplished within an approximate two year time-frame. In addition to the important habitat work, public education opportunities are abundant at both sites during the restoration process and after in the restored habitat. Project Cost:$46,500 Board Action:Approve $25,000 in funding for Riparian Restoriation Concept Design Plans for ACES' Rock Bottom Ranch and Spring Creek properties. ACES will provide $21,500 in matching contributions. Attachments:Rock Bottom Ranch and Spring Creek Overview Project Budget Fred Phillips Consulting proposals and Statement of Qualifications Letter of Support - Ruedi Water and Power Authority Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Proposal for Riparian Restoration Concept Design Plans at ROCK BOTTOM RANCH and SPRING CREEK ROCK BOTTOM RANCH Restoration involving 1 mile of Roaring Fork River frontage and approximately 25 acres In 1999, ACES acquired Rock Bottom Ranch from the Charlie Cole family with an agreement to protect the property's important riparian habitat and to broaden ACES' educational and scientific outreach programs throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. Rock Bottom Ranch now serves as ACES' mid-valley hub for environmental education, wildlands preservation, and sustainable agriculture. The I I3-acre wildlife preserve and educational ranch is hidden away between the Roaring Fork River and the Crown of Mount Sopris and is located midway between Basalt and Carbondale on the Rio Grande TraiL. Its acreage includes wetlands, spring-fed ponds, a braid of the Roaring Fork River, cottonwood bottomlands, and access to the Pinyon Juniper Woodland on adjacent BLM land. A conservation easement on the property ensures that it will always offer winter range and unobstructed river access for resident herds of elk and mule deer. By employing sensitive management practices, Rock Bottom Ranch helps to enhance the biodiversity and ecological health of the land. This careful stewardship approach provides opportunities for heron, hawk and owl nesting, and provides habitat to a myriad of wildlife including bear, coyote, bobcat, weasel, and beaver. In addition to the riparian corridor, another 28 acres of the Ranch's wet meadows, sub-irrigated pastures and wetland habitat provide forage for wintering ungulate herds and nesting grounds for Wilson's Snipes, as well as Red-winged and Yellow- headed Blackbirds. The Need at Rock Bottom Ranch ACES needs to conduct a study of the river system at Rock Bottom Ranch as it exists today so that the feasibility and interplay of the four following restoration concepts can be determined. I. Rock Bottom Ranch is one of the few remaining naturally braided sections of the Roaring Fork River and as such can absorb and clean flood water. ACES' goal is to determine if the system is functioning well because some braids are abandoned due to reduced natural springtime flows. 2. The river bottom is choked and overgrown with non-native species including reed canary grass. An invasive plant species management plan needs to be determined. 3. ACES has significant senior water rights and would consider leaving a portion of those rights in-stream which would require identifying and analyzing more efficient irrigation and other strategies. 4. ACES would consider creating constructed wetlands to further enrich the riparian ecosystem. Benefits would include floodwater absorption and expansion of vitally important wetland ecosystems. SPRING CREEK Restoration involving three major springs, three creeks and approximately 25 acres Donated to ACES in 2009 by Dr. Richard Timmer, the Sf'ring Creek property, 25 miles east of Basalt, functioned as a fish hatchery from 1938-2007. Located in a montane zone at 8,500' elevation, the property's varied aspects,~' '. :.~. elevations, and soil moisture support numerous ecosystems including sagebrush, oak-mountain shrublands, aspen, Douglas fir and mixed conifer forests, wild meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas. Spring Creek is considered a sacred site for the Northern Utes. A conservation easement has been put in place that will forever preserve this 160- acre f'arcel including the important and unique riparian and wetland ecosystem, significant wildlife habitat and dramatic open space traversed by a public road (thus accessible). The property is unique because of its pristine water resources, including three major springs and three creeks. The three springs, flowing year-round at 58F are exceedingly pure and perfectly suited for rearing and protecting endangered native Cutthroat Trout. The diversity of native wildlife on the property is significant, with an active beaver colony on Spring Creek, elk calving and wintering use, and the presence of mule deer, black bear, mountain lion, golden eagle, wila turkey, and many species of songbirds. Existing buildings on the property provide support facilities for ecosystem stewardship, hatchery management, and environmental education purposes. Future plans for the property include public access for educational purposes related to trout and aquatic ecology, ecosystem restoration, as well as opportunities to preserve and encourage the American tradition of fishing as a way for families and individuals to enjoy being out in nature and to learn to be effective stewards of the natural environment. The Need at Spring Creek at Spring Creek The Spring Creek property has been ecologically compromised from 70+ years of hatchery operation. A plan needs to be determined to restore the site and protect the watershed from flooding, siltation and pollution. A system of springs and ponds will be reclaimed which will hold fish and additional wetlands will be created to protect water quality and provide valuable habitat. Outside Funding Once complete, Restoration Concept Design Plans funded by the Healthy Rivers and Streams Board, will outline work and budget that will be leveraged to multiple outside funding sources. HRSB's intitial investment would f'roduce the plan that when used as a fundraising tool could result in $500,000+ funding for local river restoration efforts. A list of potential sources can be available. Public Education ACES makes 86,000 educational contacts annually and is well positioned to in- volve the public in our restoration efforts and to use the restored sites as outdoor classrooms to educate about the importace of protecting the ecological health of the Roarig Fork Watershed. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Riparian Restoration Concept Plans Rock Bottom Ranch and Spring Creek PROTECT BUDGET Expenses Fred Philips Consulting $24,000 landscape architecture, ecosystem restorationEngineering $5,000Hydrology $5,000Geomorphology $5,000 Wetlands Banking Consultant $2,500 Project Management (ACES) $5,000 Total Project Cost $46,500 Sources of Income Healthy Rivers and Streams Board Individual ACES Donors $25,000 $2 I ,500 Rock Bottom Ranch Restoration Concept Design Project Proposal Prepared for: Aspen Center For Environmental Studies Submitted By: Fred Philps Consulting 401 S. Leroux Street Flagstaff, AZ 86001 March 2011 Rock Bottom Ranch Concept Plan Proposal 1. Introduction The following proposal is in reference to desired planning and design work for the Rock Bottom Ranch project area. II. Scope of Work 1. FPC wil meet ACES (ACES) staff at Rock Bottom Ranch for a day of field investigation. This wil include photographig and locatig key site characteristics needed to develop the concept design. FPC wi use a trble hand held surey unit to locate key site features. FPC wil also work with ACES appointed geomorphologist to discuss hydrology and groundwater on the site. Once the fieldwork is completed we wil fish the day with a braistormig session as to what the concept plan needs to include. 2. rpc wil then develop a concept restoration desig for the Rock Bottom Ranch area. This desig wi include an overal fu color restoration plan for the area, includig sustaiable agrcultue, recreation and aquatic, riparian and upland restoration. This wil be exemplified with plan and sections graphics demonstratig the existig conditions and the proposed restoration actions. The plan wil also include existig pictures of the area, text on the plan explaing the concept and a cost estiate of the concept plan constrction. III. Assumptions 1. ~CES wil provide FPC with digital and hard copies of aerial photos of the site and any curent base plans developed for the area. 2. Proposal does not include a second trp to present the concept design. The design wi be submitted via emai and FedEx. 3. This is a conceptual design only not to be used for constrction. IV. Timeframe '., ¡ FPC wil work withn the tie constraints that the client sets forth. V. Budget The following budget includes the proposed costs for the previously described scope of work. This work wil be biled on a mon thly basis. FPC has offered ACE a 10% price reduction on all bilg rates from their standard fee schedule. Any tie or travel fees not used durg project wil not be charged to ACE. FPC wil not charge ACE for travel tie to and from Aspen, Colorado. (14 hours total travel tie) Rock Bottom Concept Design Rock Bottom Ranch Project Gather information, site visit and concept meeting on site (one day trip to RBR and time for info acquisition)Principal 12 $90.00 Landscape Arcrutect 16 $80.00 ~ ".'(lfli.ll!,hli!l\t.'..:1 :,..: -\ !'...!:."d 1 ';; Car rental (days) Surey unt Rental 2 $60.00 $50.00 Airfare (2 people rounù trip from F1.G) Lodging Per Diem (2 People 2 days) Total , .:~r-:(.:l! ilì ~ !ìr! -'~_', :':-\-'t:l": !\F)f'.' ...::li 2 1 $38.00 Develop Concept Restoration/Recreation PlanPrincipal 20 $90.00 ;- - '-:"'It~ici~'ph¡. ".1- .~~1~:( : ; 1 ;-, " h .: ¡. Landscape At-chitect 40 Autocadd/ Arcdview Operator 40Biologist, ,\1A 6Graphic Designer 12 $80.00 $65.00 $80.00 $50.00 Printing /Equipment Total Lump $200.00 ,, T oral $1,080.00 $1,280.00 $120.00 $50.00 $38.00 $2,568.00 $1,800.00 $3,200.00 $2,600.00 $480.00 $600.00 $200.00 $8,880.00 $11,448.00 Spring Creek Restoration Concept Design Project Proposal Prepared for: Aspen Center For Environmental Studies Submitted By: Fred Philps Consulting 401 S. Leroux Street Flagstaff, AZ 86001 March 2011 Spring Creek Concept Plan Proposal i. Introduction The following proposal is in reference to desired plannig and design work for the Sprig Creek project area. II. Scope of Work 1. FPC wil meet ACES (ACES) staff at Spring Creek for a day of field investition. This wi include photographig and locatig key site characteristics needed to develop the concept desig. FPC wil use a trimble hand held surey unt to locate key site features. FPC wil also work with ACES appointed geomorphologist to discuss hydrology and groundwater on the site. Once the fieldwork is completed we wi finish the day with a braistormg session as to what the concept plan needs to include. 2. FPC wi then develop a concept. restoration design for the Sprig Creek area. This design wi include an overall fu color restoration plan for the area, includig aquatic, riparn and upland restoration. Ths wi be exemplified with plan and sections graphics demonstratig the existig conditions and the proposed restoration actions. The plan wil also include existig pictures of the area, text on the plan explag the concept and a cost estiate of the concept plan constrction. III. Assumptions 1. ACES wil provide FPC with digital and hard copies of aeri photos of the site and any curent base plans developed for the area. 2. Proposal does not include a second trp to present the concept design. The design wil be submitted vi emai and FedEx. 3. Ths is a conceptual design only not to be used for constrction. IV. Timeframe ,FPC wil work within the tie ~onstraints that the client sets forth. v. Budget The following budget includes the proposed costs for the previously described scope of work. This work wil be biled on a monthly basis. FPC has offered ACE a 10% price reduction on all bilng rates from their standard fee schedule. Any tie or travel fees not used during project wil not be charged to ACE. FPC wil not charge ACE for travel tie to and from Aspen, Colorado. (14 hours total travel tie) Spring Creek Concept Design Spring Creek Project Gather information, site visit and concept meeting on site (one day trp to spring creek and time for info acquisition)Principal 12 $90.00 $1,080.00 Landscape Architect 16 $80.00 $1,280.00 :. '; l \11 ii l!"1'1 ii 'i11 l:!l:- I 1....-;,. rl., ~'.,. Car rental (days)2 $60.00 $120.00 Survey unt Rental 1 $50.00 $50.00 Airfar (2 people round trip from FLG)2 $350.00 $700.00 Lodging 2 Per Diem (2 People 2 days)2 $38.00 $76.00 Total $3,306.00 Develop Concept Restoration/Recreation PlanPrincipal 20 $90.00 $1,800.00 !~ : ¡:( \íì H :1.: ili!"I,),~I.'1 i'l Landscape Aochitect Autocadd/ Arcdview Operator Biologist, lvLA Graphic Designer 40 40 6 12 $80.00 $65.00 $80.00 $50.00 $3,200.00 $2,600.00 $480.00 $600.00 Printing /Equipment Total Lump $200.00 $200.00 $8,880.00 Total .,,$12,186.00 . , Fred Philps Consulting, LLC Statement of Qualifcations Executive Summary Fred Philips Consulting, LLC (FPC) is an award winning smal business that has been actively restoring habitat on the lower Colorado River for the past foureen years. Ou experience includes master planning and conceptual resto- ration design of over 30,000 acres of riparian, wetland, aquatic and upland habi- tat. We have alo completed construction design doauents, NEPA compli- ance, bioengineerig project construction, construction management and eco- logical monitorig for over 2,000 acres of habitat on the lower Colorado River. Other experience includes the design and construction of three native plant nurseries, the completion and implementation of a native seed collection pro- gra and successfu acquisition of over I2 milon dollar in grant fuding for restoration projects. We have worked with over 7 Native American Tribes, mul- tiple federal and state agencies and have an active workig relationship with the US Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to implementing large scale restora- tion progras on the lower Colorado River, we also work closely with these communities in developing environmental education progras, volunteer events, restoration workshops. interpretive displays, doauentai fis and ar progras. We take great pride in involving the local community in the process and listening to their needs as well as the needs of the agencies in order to jointly restore their habitats. We hope our proposal shows that we are a very capable team to complete your project needs. ~~~~RUEDI WATER & PO\NER AUTHORITY 0238 Fawn Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 970 963-4959 (ph & fax) March 9, 2011 RE: ACES Funding Request Dear Healthy Rivers and Streams Board This is to express the support of the Ruedi Water and Power Authority for the projects proposed by ACES at Rock Bottom Ranch on the Roaring Fork and at the Spring Creek propert on the upper Fryingpan. These projects, aimed at improving the health of natural waterways, reducing erosion, restoring wetlands and riparian areas and increasing educational opportunities are completely in keeping with the Draft Roaring Fork Watershed Plan that RWAPA and the Roaring Fork Conservancy have recently completed. The Watershed Plan includes goals and objectives that are completely consistent with the,ACES proposal. In fact, the High Priority Projects identified in the Plan include the following: .:. Plan and Implement Key Riparian/lnstream Protection and Restoration Project RI 81a. Working with landowners, resource experts, and other interested parties, plan and implement riparianl instream protection and restoration projects.. .:. Increase Awareness of the Importnce of Riparian Areas RI 01a. Provide education to the public about the important functions of riparian areas, development and other threats to riparian areas, what can be done to protect and restore riparian areas, and potential sources of funding for riparian projects. We could hardly plan for two projects which better mirror these goals. Undertaking high-profile riparian restoration projects in these two important locations under the auspices of an environmental education organization like ACES would be an invaluable demonstration of the Watershed Plan in action. We urge you to support this request. Yours truly, Mark Fuller, Director Ruedi Water and Power Authority MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Aspen. Colorado Basalt, Colorado Carbondale, Colorado Eagle County, Colorado Garfield County, Colorado Glenwood Springs, Colorado Pitkin County, Colorado Snowmass Vilage, Colorado AGENDA ITEM SUMMAY March 17,2011 TO:River Board FROM:Dave Kanzer - Sr. Water Resources Engineer Colorado River District SUBJECT: USGS Stream Gages Information: The Colorado River District has identified some gages and data collection points in our area that require additional funding support to avoid elimination from their gage monitoring program. Requested Board Action: Funding request of $8,100 for partnership of continued maintenance of the Roaring Fork River gage near Aspen and the Hunter Creek gage near Aspen. Attachments - Letter dated October 18, 2010 from the Colorado River District Map of Surface Water Gages Roaring Fork Basin (Please note: larger map wil be available at meeting) John Ely Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund Pitkin County Attorney's Offce; Courthouse Plaza 530 E. Main St. 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 October 18, 2010 VIA E-MAIL Dear John, Being involved with a natural resource management and development, you know the value of good hydrological data. We do too. That's why over the years we have invested a great deal of resources cooperating with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) helping to build and maintain a high quality stream gage network in Western Colorado. In fact, we are the largest financial cooperator with the USGS in the entire State of Colorado. In 2010, the total investment was close to $760,000; in 201 1 it wil cost even more to maintain this monitoring network. As with all of our programs and expenditures, we review our hydrological data collection efforts every year. Doing so helps us determine the relative priorities of these data collection points by considering the uses, costs and benefits of the data to determine if continued funding is warranted. As a result, we have identified some gages and data collection points in your area that require additional funding support to avoid elimination from our program. Specifcally, we'd like to avoid the elimination to the following streamfow gages: Roaring Fork River Near Aspen (period of record: 1964- present) Hunter Creek Near Aspen (period of record: 1950-56; 1969 - present) We recognize the importance of these gages and have provided funding for years to help defray a large portion of the total annual costs (now approximately $16,200 per year) for operation and maintenance. To help us fuher defray these costs and to ensure that these gages continue operating, we would like you to consider partnering with us by contributing up to 50% of the annual costs. We believe it would be a very worthwhile investment for Pitkin County's Healthy River Fund. Than you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you need any additional information please contact me via e-mail (dkaner~crwcd.org) or phone at our offce. Sincerely, /s/ Dave Kaner, P.E. Senior Water Resources Engineer 201 Centennial Street I PO Box 1120 * Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 945-8522 *(970) 945-8799 Faxww.ColoradoRiverDistrict.org i. g e " " " " c~ i i ' ~ i I _ C l b ( " i t . . . . w ,, i ; ~ ' j ' 1 ' C . c n ~ ~n i C D . ;; a . . o - . ~ ~ . I . . _ . - .' ~ l . l O i , * C l t ~ _ _ . _ i - " . "" á ~ : e ~ r o , _ ~ n " " ~ ~ ~ . - . fl o - l l , . ' 0 i 1 ( . " ' 1 . 1 0 . C O II _ A T Q t l "' . h C C O rQ ' ; " l H I \A " o ~ l , . . 1 a. r . I D ~ ' ~ C O " " ii 1 I ' n W U Øl i O A I 1 ' t \I ~ ~ e . t o i: ~ i . r .t P . h f , ~ ~C D . . Ni . . C P E E a 'l t i l " t l l O O I C " , ". . . . , ' : ~ i o . . ti i T H ~ ~ OI - l l ~ . " " ~O O c; , . . . ' ' ' . . ' n i ; Dl " 3 l 4 , ¡V ' " " ' ' ' a . CO Q. q r o . . Jf ' - l . ( " . , . : i i. U r . . N C O . ~~ . ' ? ~T a q l \ C f' \ l t " ' C l I I I l C A l t f t I i t ~ - - ~~ : : : ? D ~ . \ . ei 1 O ' f i; ~ I " " , . . t M l t r r= n .. . . . C l ' " . . . . . Co l l i : L. a , , , ! 1 I M : h C . ,, _ M ) I f . C 1 on . , . , . " . . ~Q o ~ . , . . . am T O . C O ¡ c~ , . s r . . IU & " AT ~. ? "" " r l L . .CJ .. . " f R . T .. . 1 I C O /' , '" " oi r n i C J r e . . l l r M ~. C O .L . ~~ l ' . .. . I C i- . . . 0 C .'C , : ; - : c I ' I : I C' I C M ó JJ t q n , u . . t ' C C CI Q , & N . ¡- ' l - i . C O ., ...- - JI .' ~. : co l t o ~, , " . . h \;h L . . ' , a - fl " " Su r f a c e W a t e r G a g e s Ro a r i n g F o r k B a s i n ¡. C o l o , a d . . R l y O ' D l a " l t J ~.. .( i ' ~ai l . t ~ A J ¡~ ' C O .. . ~r ' A 1 W o Ø W . ,. r ' t i r l N j ~ C "E M L o E c o , .. . .l - r t l l . . ~ . . If I . . u i . r. o .. ~ . , . . ~~ l \ t i 0 0 · rw ' l ' l H I ) l , , ~ C M n - 4 ~ ~ lt ' t _ N o : N i ~ i ~ R . . ~ i l I l 6 T " " " . " ~ C D lI . c o e ' . . . ~ : l u . a ; . & C \ l l l 1 t : "o c i i . . . ~ , . " i . ø i . , ! f ~ l h ~ : - . . ~ ~ M . . . n i ' f î r A l l ~ P ' ~ l i E . C O . 'C R ( I ! " l . A " t r l V L " ~ 4 ' T l ' ~ . . r . . ç i , . . . N G c C U ~ 4 . . \/ . . a i . , c r F \ c o ' ' ' N i ~ m : t . ' I . r . ~ - e o . ~ . : ~ ~ "' W I l r M f ' r . c o . " i C o . I Ø i ~ ~ I f ~ .- l ~ ~ ~ M - t O t . . t J . ~ ' i i 'l t l i l l ~ f ' C l t . ' _ . w .. . . ' ' ' . . i . . r . " l m : ~ ' ! ' ~. ~ ~ " l f e o _ l ~ ,. . G i , ¡ . ~ . . . O M L r " i . i . i -~ t o ( r _ _ . . ~ O I i - I . " 1 ( " - U I ~ oi O o . ~ " r 4 l . . . . . R . . . t . c o ~~ i . t o ~ . l : : . ~ l . t ~ ~ ~ . 1 I , . a - t ; r : H. l i ' l l c : ! ; ~ I r ' J f l h ~ J l . _. O ~ _ . . . , , : : : ~ . . ~ : - : ~ l t ' . t J l l l t l t h f V . l f t . A ~ T . . . i ~ A : ~ J i t " . ~ , l t " l t Q C A . ; I . U M l l O . C O eM n _ ~ : - J I . e O C A t F W , - . . ~ " " T " t , f I " C O . ~~ I . r . . , Q j A ~ N . . . ' ' 1 . c o i - , l - ~ ~ " ' ~ " ø a . f " fI ' l p . i i C A f L l ( t l f , . c : 1 . t " " A : . . 1 0 ~. . I l t . . . A Ø . . i ; . . ~P ( " . . . c o . t I Q / . - C . U . . '1 L : : t P C O - D . n ,1 ¡ . . . _ a . 9 P f i t e n r _ ti r . ; : i CP P . k h f . i " _c e ' .: ' 1 t e : l t H . . . .~ " " " - . . .. . - a ; Cf ( r ( ' I A:' C , " I , c o _t W f o i t ; f l r t . . Mt o . . . I C l I 1 e "" _ " - 0 0 ~. . ~" ~1 ' . . . f . .. \ ¡ _ ' c . . 1Q ~ \ : ll ~ n . ' P f r . i ~ (4 1 t : l 1 . l : ' I m J I r r . i' . ~ ' ' ' O O ~. I i; cn . _ ,. . e o c o . ., . AGENDA ITEM SUMMAY March 17,2011 TO:River Board FRO~:John Ely SUBJECT: Administration of Grant Requests As we are all aware, up to this point in the life of the fund, we have not been particularly flooded with requests for funding. In fact, the fund has only contributed $43,000 to the Roaring Fork Conservancy for Phase II of the Watershed Report and $9,000 for two years contribution to the maintenance of the Emma stream gage located on the Roaring Fork River at Hook's Bridge. However, at this point, it is a safe prediction that requests to the fund for grants or awards will increase. At this point, we anticipate requests for funding from the Colorado River District, ACES and the Roaring Fork Conservancy, as well as Pitkin County's General Fund. As these requests continue to increase, it is recommended that the Board consider and adopt a system of criteria for evaluating requests so that recommendations for awards or denials of an award can be explained and justified to the public. The first distinction I think we should make is between projects that are being handled by us directly and those projects to which we are merely contributing funds or other assistance but are not the part with ultimate responsibility or control of the work. These criteria are intended to apply only to that latter group of projects for which we do not have ultimate responsibility and control. I believe the first issue to be discussed is that of when we want to review requests for funding. If we adopt a fixed time for acceptance, review and award for requests for money, then we will be in a better position to assess our own finances in relation to the projects that we are ourselves prosecuting and the status of tax collections. Also, by having a set time for acceptance of requests, we will be in a position to evaluate these requests against each other and in effect have a competition for the amount of funds we have determined to make available for funding requests. By not establishing a set time or times for review of requests, we will be operating on a sort of first come, first serve basis. However, this approach does give flexibility to those entities requesting funding from us and opens up their ability to request money coincidentally with the time that they actually need the funds. I recommend that we establish a set time or times so that grant requests can be reviewed together. r J Mmh '7,2011 2 ADMINISTRATION OF GRAT REQUESTS The next issue to be discussed I believe is whether or not to place a limitation on funding. The manner in which a limitation on funding would be conducted would be to discuss the issue of grants at some point in the calendar year, vis-à-vis the rate of tax collections and anticipated tax collections versus projects that we are actively undertaking and a recognition of what tye of balance of funds we wish to carry forward into future years. Setting limitations on the funds available for grants would not necessarily limit the entities to which we award money, but may by implication put us in a position of not being able to award the full amount of a request. The next issue to be discussed is the criteria upon which to evaluate requests for funding. Typically, the way such developed criteria are utilized with a scoring grid to evaluate how a particular funding request complies with or satisfies the established criteria. The criteria may be weighted so that more important criteria, as determined by the Board, will result in a favorable scoring. A suggestion for criteria that we could utilize may consist of the following: . The percentage of the funding request to the overall project budget . The strength and number of other committed sources of funding . Whether or not the project is complete or has begun to be undertaken . The viabilty of the requesting party; is it an entity that has been II existence for some time . The degree to which the project coincides with the stated goals of our program and fund . The degree to which the project is visible or utilizable by the general public . The fiscal viability of the proposed project, in other words, will the grant lead to a finished product or will the completion of the project stil be in doubt without additional funds . The viabilty of the project to be translated to other areas or repeated, in other words, is the proposed project a one-time event or could it possibly be repeated and the benefits of the work translated or duplicated to other communities in the state or other aspects of our watershed This list is by no means exhaustive and could certainly be shortened or lengthened to more accurately reflect the concerns of the Board. A final consideration to be discussed is whether or not to impose conditions upon the grant or award of funds. The previous three awards of funds from our program have simply been with our blessing and a trust that the funds will be utilized for their stated purpose in the best manner possible. If the award of funds or a grant program develops further it may be appropriate to review how these monies are spent or to work with the requesting entity to provide assistance if needed. Conditions to be considered may include: . Whether or not to make a flat payment at the time of an award or to make progress payments based upon the progress of actual work performed LJ March 17, 2011 3 ADMINISTRATION OF GRANT REQUESTS . Whether or not to request progress reports on the project with schedules of anticipated completion . Whether or not to require that some aspects of the project be made available to the public so that other individuals or entities may benefit from the work . Whether or not to evaluate the status of work and determine whether or not to continue funding the project consistent with an award or to stop funding the project Attached are the forms currently used by the Healthy Community Fund. Requested Board Action: Informational - Discussion and comments from the Board . 0,, ,M~ ~ : 1. S c o r e e a c h a p p l i c a t i o n u s i n g 2 0 1 1 G r a n t C r i t e r i a S c o r e C a r d Co m m u n i t y G o a l s : Co n t e n t o f A p p l i c a t i o n : ~ O u t c o m e s P l a n : Ov e r a l l Q u a l i t y o f A p p l i c a t i o n : Bu d g e t I n f o r m a t i o n : To t a l : ma x . 1 0 p o i n t s ma x . 5 0 p o i n t s ma x . 2 0 p o i n t s ma x . 1 0 p o i n t s ma x . 1 0 p o i n t s ma x 1 0 0 p o i n t s 2. E n t e r s c o r e s o n t h e 2 0 1 1 S c o r e S u m m a r y S p r e a d s h e e t 3. E m a i l y o u r c o m p l e t e d 2 0 1 1 S c o r e S u m m a r y S p r e a d s h e e t t o Mi t z i L e d i n g h a m ( m i t z i . l e d i n g h a m ~ c o . p i t k i n . c o . u s ) b y Fr i d a y , S e p t e m b e r 1 0 t h , 2 0 0 9 . . ~ L_ ", "- ! - ¥ ' " ~ ¡ ¡ ~ 20 1 1 G R A N T C R I T E R I A S C O R E C A R D ': ; ë ! ' C : ¡ l a m e ; ." : m . ) t , n : r e ' : ; l . e s : e d : Re : J l , e s : ~ , ~ : o ; J a r : " e ' r s n , c o . ~ . , r ' l . . a ~ + Ap p l i c a t i o n Re v i e w C r i t e r i a Po i n t s Sc o r e Co m m e n t s Po s s i b l e Co m m u n t y Go a l s : TO T A L : 10 I' . l i s s i o n f u l f i U s a C o m n i u n i t i G o a l a n d s a t i s f ~ s t h a b a l l o t l a n g u a g a 5 Do e s n o t du p l i c a t e s e p / i c e s o r p r o g r a n i s 5 ~I C ' : - S : . ' : f ' g r a n : o - : s c , : b t ~ ' . ' ! ; a : r : ~ ~ : : : s : h e a g t n c j " s i n i : : a ( O f o . f f = - f ; . n : : ( 0 1 , ' O : ! : t ( ë g e - n c : t s ; ' Co n t e n t o f A p i c a t i o n : TO T A l : 50 BA C K G R O U N D : 5 .A g e n c : / h a s a t r a c t r a c o r d o f s u c c e s s f u l s e p / i æ Co l l a b o r a t e s a M p a r t n e r s ' . ' , i t h o t h e r a g e n c i e s 10 Sa p / e s p e o p l e w h o l i v e a n d : Q ( w o r k i n P i t k i n C o u n t : i 10 PU R P O S E : Id a n t i f i a s o t h e r f u n t j n - ; i p a r t n e r s 5 /. l : u ' : h e - a . o . o i : c c n : 1 . : S f ' : . l , e - c o " , ' n : : / g r a n : : c i i t o . : - ( c y t f L , n o : n g t r o t : o : h : - ( S O i . ; f C : - S ' i's : h f ' a , o p i : . c n : t ' , c i r J : ; n g : o 0 . . . . ë ' ( s . ~ ' " : h t : ( f l : n o : n g ' NE E D S A S S E S S M E N T : Se p . ' i c e s p r o . . i d e d a d d r e s s a n e s s e n t i a l c o n i n i u n i t ! n e e d 10 ~J : l S : ! : . ; C ' g f n c , / h e ~ ; - e : r - e i : a ò t e f : t : h c - o f o r a s s f ' s s : n g c o r : l f : i . n . ~ ; n C ' = o s ; - EM E R G I N G I S S U E s : Id e n t i f i e s t r e n d s e f f e d i n g t h e i r s a r ' / i æ a r e a 10 ~~ S : n t c p . o i : c c n : h e ~ - : . o i ë n s : 0 c o j i . s : o . o : - ' e : ~ : l n : . . ' ; . s , O o n s - e : o : ' e - n o s ; - . ,- "' " , ¥ , ~~ . Ou t c o m e s P l a n ( r e ; i u u : s o f S 5 . 0 0 : i o r n ' r e . ¡ . ¡ . S o r p n , . o S o n l ) TO T A L : 20 Pr e s e n t s a n o u t c o m e s p l a n . i n c l u d i n g g o a l s . o b j e c i v e s a n d o u t c o m e m e a s u r e s 10 Ou t c o m e s p l a n is a p p r o p r i a t e a n d do a b l ¿ .: , f f ' : . l , e S : ã : e - C g o C ' I ' s ( - : c " ; S : , c a n a t t , ' c : e - o : c : h f ' a g e - n c : ; s c i : e - r c r ' i ' f f : s s ¡ C ' n ' 10 ls : h e - f e a ( : - c i : S : : C , o i a n f C ' ( c C ' r i - : c : : n g : ' c l , o O c : ë ~ n : 1 : e ë g r n : : ; s e f f e c : . . . . l : n e s s ' ~i O ' t S : 1 : t e , o , O i . ' c a n : C ; t e ( . ~ . . 0 - 5 c f : b l e c c r : r : l : n . : / C ' ~ . : : c C ' r : " t s ' Ov e r a l l Q u a l i t y of A p i c a t i o n TO T A L : 10 .' : p p l i c a t i o n i s c o n i p l c t c 5 Do ~ s : . : : - ê , O p i : c a : : c i n f C ' I ' i c - . : : : 1 : : - g r c n : g ~ ; : ~ ; . ¿ ' n t s ; - , ' s : h t : n f c l ( m c : . : c n t J ' ; . S t n : l t O : . ~ O ( O i . g ! : ' Ap p l i c a t i o n i s c l ¿ a r . c o n c i s c a n d ', V e i l ',' ; r t 1 e n 5 : s : 1 : : - C , C P i ' , ' . c : ; C ' n : - n g a g : n g a n a l : ë S : : : 0 ( : - ë O ' Bu d t I n f o r a t i o n : TO T A L : 10 Pr e s e n t s a c c u r a t e b u o ; i e t s a n d f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t s 10 Do ; - s : . ï : ~ e g e n c y . " ' ë : e - f e - a : : s : : c p i a n s : 0 s e C í : ' ' C l : n o i , ' g . ~ f . . ' n r : : n g : C ' C O f : p : l : e c c : . . . . . : ; l : S ' TO T A L SC O R E 10 0 Ad d i t i o n a l N o t e s o r C o m m e n t s :