HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 July 2011 packetAll times are subject to variation without notice
Agenda is subject to change
HEALTHY RIVERS AND STREAMS
CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
Courthouse Plaza Building
Plaza 1
Aspen, CO
July 21, 2011 - 4 p.m.
4:00 Public Comment
4:05 Board Comment
4:10 Approval of Minutes
May 19, 2011 meeting
4:15 1. Update of financial status
2. Reiteration of goals for 2011
4:30 North Star proposal
4:45 Septic system improvement plan
5:00
Executive Session
a. In stream flow strategies
C.R.S. 24-6-402 (4)(b)
b. Busk/Ivanhoe change application
C.R.S. 24-6-402 (4)(b)
Upcoming regular meeting dates
Aug 18 – Aspen 4:00 pm
September 15 –Aspen 4:00 pm
October 20 - Aspen 4:00 pm
Minutes –Healthy Rivers and Streams Citizens Advisory Board
May 19, 2011
Page 1
HEALTHY RIVERS AND STREAMS CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
Meeting Minutes
May 19, 2011
Redstone Inn, Redstone CO
Board members present: Ruthie Brown, Bill Jochems, Lisa Tasker, Greg Poschman,
Andre Wille, Rick Neiley
Board members absent: Steve Hunter
Others present: John Ely, Lisa MacDonald, Michael Owsley
Public Comment
Michael Owsley thanked the River Board for meeting in Redstone.
Board Comments
Chairman Poschman introduced two letters into the record. The Board received a letter from the Crystal
Valley Environmental Protection Association concerning dams on the Crystal River and e-mail
correspondence from Dee Malone regarding her opposition to dams on the Crystal River.
The Board also received a request from Western Rivers Institute for grant funding of the public forum
concerning the City of Aspen’s Hydroelectric Facility. The Board concluded that it does not fall into its
newly adopted protocol and guidelines for funding requests and declined the request.
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Brown moved to approve the minutes of May 19, 2011. Ms. Tasker seconded the
motion. Motion passed 5 to 0.
Mr. Wille joined the meeting at approximately 4:30 pm.
River District and West Divide Water Conservancy District diligence filing for conditional
water rights on the Crystal River
John Ely discussed the diligence filing as outlined in the agenda item summary. Discussions ensued
concerning the application.
Chuck Downey asked the River Board to take the step and file a statement
Ms. Brown moved to recommend filing at statement of opposition to the Colorado River
Conservation District and the West Divide Conservancy District diligence filing for
conditional water rights on the Crystal River. Mr. Jochems seconded the motion. The
motion passed 6 to 0.
Discussion of Wild and Scenic designation of the Crystal River
John Ely discussed the designation of the Crystal River as wild and scenic. Discussions ensued regarding
the designation process.
The process is either controlled by either the Department of Agricultural or the Department of Interior,
two divisions of the administrative government, meaning either the USFS or BLM. These two
organizations oversee and shepherd any recommendation for the designation. It is a two-step process.
One is determination of eligibility is that the river or a segment is free flowing, this has already occurred.
Second is that there is one outstanding remarkable value. Values can include ecologic, scenic,
recreation, aesthetic, fishing & wildlife, or historic to name a few. There is no stated expiration for
designation.
Minutes –Healthy Rivers and Streams Citizens Advisory Board
May 19, 2011
Page 2
The three classifications associated with wild and scenic are wild, scenic or recreational.
Mr. Ely recommended we not discard the designation, but given our resources and current projects, it
should not be a top priority. It may present itself as a viable tool to accomplish other things, such as
better management of streamflow or water quality.
Coal Creek and Crystal confluence area potential projects
Sharon Clarke of the Roaring Fork Conservancy presented potential project areas along Coal Creek and
the Crystal River to the Board. Steep slope and geological instability along with past mining, grazing,
roads, railroads and development all have contributed to the stream degradation found in the Crystal
Watershed. A goal would be to work with potential partners such as the USFS, CDOT and the DOWon
projects to bring restoration to severely impacted areas.
The Board asked Ms. Clarke to come back with a formal proposal that includes costs specific to the
healthy rivers fund.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at approximately at 6:35 pm.
Approved: Attest:
Greg Poschman – Chairman Lisa MacDonald
Healthy Rivers and Streams Board
h&rs sales tax
HR&S 0.1% SALES TAX
HR&S 2009 2010 2011 2011 vs budget vs 10 act
0.1% Actual Actual Budget Actual YTD % chg % chg
Jan 84,102.25 91,167.65 91,794.36 94,190.24 2.6% 3.3%
Feb 78,633.26 83,134.56 83,706.05 83,170.60 -0.6% 0.0%
Mar 83,148.21 86,152.22 86,744.46 101,518.83 17.0% 17.8%
Apr 33,405.54 33,488.35 33,718.56 35,017.99 3.9% 4.6%
May 25,041.03 24,236.97 24,403.58 26,958.70 10.5% 11.2%
Jun 44,138.22 46,353.67 46,672.32 -100.0% -100.0%
Jul 58,639.78 67,890.64 68,357.34 -100.0% -100.0%
Aug 55,055.55 58,467.08 58,869.00 -100.0% -100.0%
Sep 42,191.08 44,309.47 44,614.07 -100.0% -100.0%
Oct 28,985.96 30,109.37 30,316.35 -100.0% -100.0%
Nov 28,200.74 31,255.74 31,470.60 -100.0% -100.0%
Dec 87,914.33 95,266.41 95,921.30 -100.0% -100.0%
Total 649,455.95 691,832.13 696,588.00 340,856.36 -40.12% -36.09%
696,588.00
Page 1 C:\Users\janea\Documents\Jane\jme\water\HealthyRivrs&Streams\HRS2011SalesTax.xlsx
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
February 17, 2011
TO: River Board
FROM: John Ely
SUBJECT: Future and Continuing Work Items
The following work items are listed for informational purposes and will be
discussed further at the Board’s meeting and can serve as a continuing guide for fund
allocation and anticipated expenses.
I. Instream Flow Protection and Enhancements
Agricultural Efficiencies
The idea behind this approach to stream flow enhancement is recognition that
there is no longer free water on any of our streams outside of the early season runoff
period. Therefore, if we are going to improve our flows the water must come from
somewhere else. If we are not drying up land that is currently being irrigated, then
perhaps improving the methodologies in current irrigation practices will realize benefits
to area rivers and streams by being able to deliver the same amount of usable water to
an ultimate consumer while relaxing an irrigator or ditch company’s current or future
potential diversions. As straightforward as this idea sounds it has not been done in
Colorado to my knowledge. An engineering methodology needs to be developed,
perhaps with assisting legislation as well as meeting the varying concerns of irrigators
and ditch companies.
Trust Agreement Additions
This item reflects the continuation of our pursuit to dedicate existing County
water rights to the Pitkin County/CWCB Trust Agreement. Additional work will also try
to reduce the transactional cost for these dedications and thereby enhance the use of
this methodology elsewhere in the state.
Water Right Acquisitions
Opportunistic purchases of water rights may present themselves from time to
time to the County. As an example, water rights associated with Maroon Creek were
recently being made available in relation to the Buttermilk Metropolitan District Service
Contract with the City of Aspen. This particular event has not produced any water rights
for acquisition, but the availability of water right acquisition is not possible to predict.
Recreational In-Channel Diversion
2
February 17 , 2011
Future and Continuing Work
Items
The County application for its RICD at the location of the proposed kayak park on
the Roaring Fork River just upstream of the confluence of the Frying Pan River was filed
in water court at the end of 2010. This application will be progressing through the water
court this year although it is not expected that a final decree will enter until at least
2012. In the near term, allocation needs to be made for construction of the actual
infrastructure at a time and sequencing to best minimize costs.
Fry-Ark Project Diversion/PSOP
With the results of the 2010 general election and changes to the Colorado federal
delegation, it is logical to assume that renewed efforts to enact this federal legislation
will occur and possibly conclude. Our efforts continue to be to position the County to be
part of any deliberative process for prospective legislation and to participate in the
drafting of this potential legislation to effect the inclusion of beneficial language for the
County and the river systems on the west slope.
Potential Wild and Scenic Designation for the Crystal River
A Phase I analysis of the potential Wild and Scenic Designation of the Crystal was
concluded by the United States some years ago. An earlier effort for designation was
abandoned in the early 1990s. It is unclear how this designation would benefit the
Crystal River and how that benefit could be quantified but without pursuing this option,
we would be limiting ourselves in the future to a consideration of less than all possible
alternatives to maintain instream flows in the Crystal River.
Analysis of the North Star Preserve
Over the years since the County acquired ownership of this property, natural
flooding of the area has decreased, a deepening of the river channel, not of river depth,
has occurred and a general degradation of the fishery now exists. The reasons for these
occurrences are unclear but as the County still controls the land there is an opportunity
to correct the situation. Additionally, in the past, North Star represented a natural
wetland above the City of Aspen that served to decrease the danger of flood and
replenish flows to the Roaring Fork River later in the year. If this function could be
restored, it could benefit the upper Fork late-season flows without the prospect of the
creation of a storage reservoir.
II. Opposition to Potentially Damaging Developments
West Divide Conservancy District and Colorado River District Conditional
Rights in the Crystal River Drainage
Conditional water rights for storage and diversion exist in the name of these two
entities along the mainstem of the Crystal and several tributaries. These rights are set to
lapse and be abandoned without a diligence application being filed by May of 2011. It
appears that the entities may abandon the more unrealistic storage rights on the Crystal
itself but we will not know what plans they will seek to preserve or establish, if anything,
until May. The County needs to be prepared to evaluate and oppose this diligence
application if appropriate.
3
February 17 , 2011
Future and Continuing Work
Items
Basalt Water Conservancy Exchange Applications
The County will continue its objections to this entity’s exchange application
concerning contracts for water supply utilizing Ruedi Reservoir. As originally applied,
these exchange applications would allow for depletions in the Roaring Fork drainage
above the point of replenishment, the confluence of the Frying Pan and the Roaring
Fork River.
City of Aspen Hydroelectric Power Plant
It is anyone’s guess as to the direction this proposed project will take in the
future. The initial review of the City’s project has been completed.
III. General River Protection Strategies
Septic Repair/Maintenance Program
As previously discussed, seed money from the river fund might be used in a loan
program established through the creation of a special district with repayment through
property tax collections. Additional work needs to be concluded on the program for
allocation of resources and the establishment of a special district.
Upper Roaring Fork River Analysis
Work initiated last year by MEC, Bill Miller, will conclude this summer with
hopefully far-ranging applications for its conclusions. However, I would foresee future
enhancements of this work to continue through time to increase our chances of a
successfully managed flow in the Roaring Fork above the confluence with Castle Creek.
Roaring Fork Drainage Gage System
The river fund will continue to support at least one gage in the valley, as well as
contemplate future support of additional existing gages. This effort however, will only
be complete upon a full analysis of the entire drainage and identification of appropriate
locations for gages and the establishment and maintenance of these gages. A project of
this type will probably continue over numerous years and involve partnerships with
other jurisdictions and conservation entities.
Ground Water Mapping and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management
Administration) Flood Mapping
These two efforts have already been directed and budgeted and hopefully will
conclude in 2011.
Invasive Species Control
4
February 17 , 2011
Future and Continuing Work
Items
In the past, we were requested by RWAPA (Ruedi Water and Power Authority) to
assist with the cost of zebra mussel control at Ruedi Reservoir. I would anticipate a
continued participation with RWAPA in this regard and perhaps an expansion of
previous minimal efforts.
Continued Support of Partners in River Protection
In the past year, the river fund has been used to support the Roaring Fork
Conservancy and the Ruedi Water and Power Authority. This year I would anticipate
requests for continued support from these entities as well as additional grant requests
from other entities including the Pitkin County General Fund.
Requested Board Action: Informational – Discussion and comments from the
Board
Proposal
Geomorphic Assessment of the Impacts of Groundwater
Changes on Wetlands
North Star Nature Preserve, Pitkin County, Colorado
Amendment #2 to
Scope of Work for
Evaluation of River Health
Roaring Fork River near Aspen, Colorado
Contract # 114-2010
Submitted to:
Mr. John Ely
Pitkin County Attorney
530 E. Main St., Ste 302
Aspen, CO 81611
Submitted by:
William J. Miller, Ph.D.
Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc.
2111 S. College Ave., Unit D
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-224-4505
June 17, 2011
Proposed Roaring Fork SOW amendment 2 Page 2
Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. June 17, 2011
OVERVIEW
Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. (MEC) is currently conducting an evaluation of river health
on the Roaring Fork River between the Salvation Ditch and Castle Creek. Pitkin County (Client)
has expressed an interest in the geomorphic conditions upstream of the Salvation Ditch within
the general area of the North Star Open Space.
MEC subconsultant, Ayres Associates would conduct a geomorphic assessment of the impacts of
groundwater changes on the wetlands and grasslands along the valley floor and evaluate the
current characteristics of the Roaring Fork River upstream of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado. It is our understanding that the level of the shallow groundwater table that maintains
the valley floor wetlands within the North Star Nature Preserve has been slowly dropping,
causing the wetlands in the open space to recede and partially dry up. The area to be assessed is
generally bound by the edge of the valley floor to the west, the Roaring Fork River to the east,
and extending about a mile from the Stillwater Ranch Parcels on the north to the James H. Smith
North Star Open Space on the south. In addition, the character and morphology of the channel of
the Roaring Fork River along the project reach has changed over time, both naturally and
artificially, and currently provides minimal or degraded aquatic habitat.
MEC Senior Aquatic Ecologist, Bill Miller will accompany Ayres Associates’ Project
Geomorphologist, Mr. William Spitz, PG, and complete a visual evaluation of instream habitat
conditions in the proposed project area. Ayres Associates’ Project Geomorphologist, Mr.
William Spitz, PG, will conduct the following tasks in performance of the geomorphic
assessment:
Task 1 – Conduct a brief review of available literature, maps, and data pertinent to the project
area and geomorphic conditions therein. This includes reviewing existing 2008
orthophotography and 1-ft contour mapping covering the area, which has already been
obtained from the City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS department.
Task 2 – Perform a site reconnaissance to document and assess the existing geomorphic
characteristics and groundwater conditions within the North Star Nature Preserve. Specific
conditions to be documented will include tributary inputs, man-made features such as
diversions and irrigation channels, existing wetland conditions and extent, river oxbows and
cutoffs, river connectivity, and any other features or factors that may be impacting the
shallow groundwater table and wetlands.
The site reconnaissance will also include an evaluation of the current morphology of the
project reach of the Roaring Fork River with regard to existing aquatic habitat and will assess
the potential for incorporating restoration measures within the existing channel and
reestablishing old river oxbows and floodplain cutoffs along the project reach of the river to
assist in improving the quality of aquatic and riparian habitat.
A handheld sub-meter GIS-based GPS unit will be used to record the locations and/or extents
of significant geomorphic features as described above. The GPS unit will also be used to log
the locations of all ground photos obtained during the site reconnaissance.
Proposed Roaring Fork SOW amendment 2 Page 3
Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. June 17, 2011
Task 3 – All data and information collected in the field will be compiled, reviewed, and
analyzed with regard to identifying factors that may have a direct or indirect impact on
wetland conditions and potential actions or countermeasures that may be implemented to
reduce or counter further decreases in shallow groundwater levels associated with local
wetlands. The collected data and information will also be used to evaluate the characteristics
of the current river channel and to assess where and how rehabilitation and restoration
measures can be incorporated into the project reach of the river.
Task 4 – Once the wetland analysis and river rehabilitation assessment have been completed,
a Draft Letter Report will be provided that documents existing conditions of the wetlands,
river, and floodplain within the project area, discusses the impacts of specific features on
wetland and river stability, and provides recommendations for rehabilitating and/or
increasing wetland and riverine habitat within the project area. Following a review of the
Draft Letter Report by the CLIENT, a Final Letter Report will be submitted that addresses
review comments and any edits or changes identified in the draft report.
Schedule
It is anticipated that the site visit and field reconnaissance will be conducted once Notice to
Proceed (NTP) has been received. The site visit should be conducted following the spring runoff
on the Roaring Fork River, which generally occurs from mid May to mid-late July. However,
this year’s high snow pack could extend the run off longer than usual. Conducting the visit after
run off in a period of stable flows will allow any remaining snow in the area to melt, which will
provide optimal conditions for field observations and access. In addition, conducting the field
reconnaissance after the spring runoff will allow observations to be made of wetland response to
both snow melt and to river and tributary flows. The site reconnaissance is tentatively scheduled
to be conducted either during the last week of July.
Unless otherwise requested, the Draft Letter Report will be submitted 90 days following
completion of the site visit. The Final Letter Report will be submitted no later than November
15, 2011 and will include revisions and responses to any review comments from the CLIENT.
Unless specified otherwise by the CLIENT, two copies of the Draft and Final Letter Reports will
be submitted along with a CD containing electronic files of the reports and all information, data,
and pictures obtained and/or compiled during the course of this assessment.
Proposed Roaring Fork SOW amendment 2 Page 4
Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. June 17, 2011
Cost Estimate
The following not-to-exceed estimate represents the costs necessary for completion of the tasks
described above.
Task 1 – Literature and Data Review
Labor Hrs Rate Amount
Senior Geomorphologist 12 $130.00 $1,560
CADD 1 $70 $70
Subtotal $1,630
Task 2 – Site Visit and Geomorphic Assessment of Existing Conditions
Labor (includes travel) Hrs Rate Amount
Senior Geomorphologist 32 $130 $4,160
Senior Aquatic Ecologist 32 $150 $4,800
Subtotal $8,960
Direct Costs Units Unit Cost Amount
GPS & Digital Camera 2 days $75/day $150
Travel, Per Diem (GSA rate) 6 days $71/day $426
Travel, Lodging 4 days $165/day $660
Misc. Expenses 1 $25 $25
Subtotal $1,261
Task 3 – Field Data Compilation, Review, and Analysis
Labor Hrs Rate Amount
Senior Geomorphologist 24 $130 $3,120
CADD 1 $70 $70
Subtotal $3,190
Task 4 – Draft and Final Letter Reports
Labor Hrs Rate Amount
Senior Geomorphologist 24 $130 $3,120
Senior Aquatic Ecologist 10 $150 $790
Word Processor 2 $75 $155
Subtotal $4,075
Direct Costs Units Unit Cost Amount
Misc. (copies, binding, postage, etc.) 1 $50 $25
Subtotal $25
Total Tasks 1 through 4 $19,141