• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Executive Summary 2008 Sponsor: Ruedi Water & Power Authority Lead Consultant: Roaring Fork Conservancy Principal Authors: Sharon Clarke, Kristine Crandall, John Emerick, Mark Fuller, John Katzenberger, Delia Malone, Michelle Masone, Albert Slap, Judith Thomas Preface This “State of the Watershed Report,” which comprises water resources. Second, water, at least in Colorado, is Phase I of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, is the bought and sold in the open marketplace as a commod- product of dedicated effort by a host of people including ity. This means that water management is often subject technical experts, government planners and administra- to the ebbs and flows of the free market economy and tors, conservation professionals, and water managers. also to the interests of those who own water rights. Also involved are residents These two factors add unique challenges to any of the Roaring Fork Water- attempts at water resource planning. However, it has shed who care about issues been clear from the beginning of this process that a of water quality and Roaring Fork Watershed Plan is needed and welcomed quantity and have both by those who are charged with managing local expressed that caring by water resources and by the public at large. participating in the public The following report illustrates the current status of meetings, forums, and the Roaring Fork Watershed in terms of its water quality interviews that have been and quantity and its water-dependent ecosystems. It also Paul Hilts part of this project. We points out areas where insufficient data prevent an would like to thank all of these participants for their accurate assessment of that status. Finally, the report time, energy, and thoughtfulness and to invite them, provides a starting point for Phase II of the Plan, which along with all other readers of this report, to stay will translate the data and findings in the report into involved in the future phases of the Roaring Fork recommended action steps aimed at preserving and Watershed Plan. enhancing local water resources. The Watershed Plan had its origins in the Roaring The next step in the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan Fork Watershed Collaborative, an informal group of will be the development of a series of goals and objec- planners, government officials, and interested citizens tives, which are based on the findings of the State of the who began meeting several years ago to discuss issues of Watershed Report. valleywide interest including transportation, affordable These goals and housing, open space and trails, and, of course, water. objectives then will That group eventually appointed a Water Subcommit- be translated into tee to focus on the need to address water concerns in action steps that the valley without regard to political or jurisdictional can be taken by boundaries. When the Ruedi Water and Power Author- water managers, ity and Roaring Fork Conservancy took on their respec- governments, and tive roles of institutional overseer and principal author individual water of the Watershed Plan, the project developed real users. This Phase II momentum. All who will benefit from this plan owe of the Plan will move forward through 2009 and even- gratitude to the groups and individuals who had a role tually will be turned over to local governments and in this work and to the elected and appointed officials water management agencies to adopt and codify within who encouraged them to think beyond their own their individual policy frameworks. As with Phase I, bureaucratic boundaries. Phase II will feature many opportunities for public Few question that healthy water resources, along input, education, and discussion. We look forward to with air, soil, wildlife, and vegetation, are critical to the that process and to a healthy future for the waters of the maintenance of a healthy environment and to the Roaring Fork Watershed. outdoors-oriented lifestyle enjoyed by those of us who live in the Roaring Fork Watershed. Two things set Mark Fuller water apart from these other basic resources. First, water Director is inherently scarce in some areas and becoming more Ruedi Water and Power Authority so. Despite an occasional heavy snow year like 2007-08, ample evidence exists that the arid West is becoming more arid, and that increasing development and popu- The State of the Watershed Report is available lation will bring ever more pressure to bear on existing online at: www.roaringfork.org/watershedplan 2 State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Executive Summary 1. Introduction The State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report is the the state, yielding an average of almost one million acre- result of a growing awareness of the interconnectedness of feet per year. the watershed’s parts. It is becoming more apparent how The purpose of this report is to summarize existing actions upstream affect conditions downstream, and how studies and information in order to present a comprehen- large issues such as increased water development in the sive understanding of the West, drought, climate change, population growth, and watershed’s natural and rapidly changing land uses present serious implications for cultural attributes as well as the watershed as a whole. While environmental concerns issues and challenges that have been jurisdictionally focused in the past, the bear further scrutiny within strengthening commitment across towns, counties, Phase II of the Watershed resource agencies, interest groups, and citizens to a collab- Plan process. The following orative process for addressing water issues has energized executive summary offers Eliza Hotchkiss the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan process of which this an overview of the water- report is the first phase. Additionally, interests throughout focused topics covered the watershed are gaining a better understanding of the within the main report, starting with regional water man- values provided by the watershed’s environmental attrib- agement policies and activities that influence past and utes, ranging from water-based outdoor recreation activi- future development of the watershed’s resources. This ties and their associated economic benefits to the ecosys- executive summary, which mirrors the sequence of the tem services supported by properly functioning streams main report, then covers the watershed’s physical and bio- and their habitats. logical components of water quantity and quality, and The context of the report is grounded in a “water- riparian and aquatic ecosystems, along with key findings shed” perspective, a perspective which also defines the on the condition of these resources in each of nine sub- collaborative effort of the public, non-profit, and private watersheds. With the aim of allowing readers to access sectors to initiate the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. A whatever level of information most interests them, the watershed is defined as the landscape drained by a stream main report is accompanied by an exhaustive complement and its tributaries. The Roaring Fork River’s watershed of appendices and references for those seeking more in- extends from the river’s headwaters near Independence depth information on a particular topic and/or the original Pass to its confluence with the Colorado River at studies. Glenwood Springs, 70 miles down- stream. The river flows through Aspen and joins the Fryingpan River in Basalt and the Crystal River just downstream of Roaring Fork Watershed Carbondale. The Roaring Fork Water- shed (1,453 square miles) is located in Pitkin, Eagle, Garfield, and a small portion of Gunnison counties, in west- central Colorado. It comprises an area of Colorado high mountainous terrain and deep inter- vening valleys, with altitudes ranging from 14,235 feet to 5,717 feet. In addition to its diverse governing entities, the watershed’s land uses cross various management boundaries. Although 76 percent of the watershed is federally managed, the percent of public land within 150 feet of streams is only 32 percent, indicating that a majority of the watershed’s riparian corridors are in private or local government ownership. The Roaring Fork River is the second largest tributary of the Colorado River in State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Executive Summary 3 2. Regional Water Management The adage “everything is connected to everything else” is pressure by many interests to develop water supplies for often called the “first law of ecology,” and could also be future growth and development. What happens in the thought of as the “first law of water management” in Roaring Fork Watershed has a significant impact on water Colorado. During the last decade, Colorado has seen management in the region and in the state, and vice versa. rapidly increasing demands placed on water by both tradi- Water distribution and management in the watershed tional consumptive uses and, more recently, by non-con- is influenced primarily by Colorado’s Prior Appropriation sumptive uses (recreational and environmental). By the Doctrine, which determines timing and allocations of year 2030, Colorado’s population is expected to grow to water rights. Other important factors include water man- about 7.1 million people agement agreements like the Colorado River Compact, from the current estimate of and planning initiatives and policies including the 4.5 million. This population Colorado Interbasin Compact negotiation process, Endan- growth, together with the gered Species Act, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. recent drought (1999-2004) Finally, structural projects

Load more

  32

Copy Link