2001 Strategic Plan

trategic S Plan Protection Association Adopted February 2001 Upper South Platte Watershed Vision A Healthy Watershed—Now and in the Future Mission The Upper South Platte Watershed Protection Association seeks to protect the water quality and ecological health of the Upper South Platte Watershed, through the cooperative efforts of watershed stakeholders, with emphasis placed on community values and economic sustainability. articipants in PPlanning Process Members of the General Public and Representatives from: Alma Aurora Water Resources Bureau of Land Management Centennial Water & Sanitation District Center of Colorado Conservancy District Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Division of Water Resources Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado State Forest Service Colorado State Trust Land Board Colorado Trout Unlimited Denver Regional Council of Governments Denver Water Department Douglas County Environmental Protection Agency (US) Fairplay Fairplay Sanitation District Forest Service (US) Jefferson County Jefferson County Soil Conservation District Park County Park County Advisory Board on the Environment Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments Sierra Club Teller Park Soil Conservation District United States Geological Survey Upper South Platte Conservancy District USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service History Two issues contributed to the initial Source Water Assessment Programs interest in getting this group together. First, (SWAP) require water providers to in 1994/95, the USFS did a study of seg- look at areas that impact their water ments of the South Platte within Forest quality. Service boundaries to assess whether any Based on these two issues, Denver river segments within the boundaries might and Aurora pulled together interested qualify for designation under the Wild and parties to assess if there were ways to Scenic Rivers Act, based on Outstandingly protect the ORVs without Federal des- Remarkable Values (ORVs). ignation, and to begin to look at source The Denver Water Board and other water in the watershed. The plan was Front Range water providers were con- to bring “all” interested parties to the cerned that designation would require table. the abandonment of some senior water Out of these meetings, came sever- rights, and that designation would give al subcommittees, including one on water quality. Denver and Aurora hired facilitators to work with the subcommittees. As this group began discussing alternative scenarios to Wild and Scenic designation, “up-river” entities became concerned that such an alternative proposals would lead to long- term financial burdens on them for pol- lution abatement, without protecting the ORVs. At that time, some up-river Robert’s Tunnel brings water from Dillon entities would have preferred designa- Reservoir in Summit County into the North tion over an alternative they felt only Fork of South Platte between Bailey and represented the interests of Front Grant. The South Platte supplies water to 75% of Colorado’s residents, either from Range entities. native supplies or transmountain diversions. The water quality subcommittee intensified its efforts, and sought the USFS operational control of the direct involvement with other South river, negatively impacting their ability to Platte entities, including the up-river operate their water rights. entities. In early 1998, this group Secondly, EPA guidelines on began working on a Memorandum of History...continued Understanding (MOU) and Bylaws. Under coordinate planning and development, the MOU, everyone agreed that whatever optimize data collection, involve the came out of the newly created “Upper public in planning, and give first priori- South Platte Watershed Management ty in planning to cooperative projects Program” should be looked at as volun- among members. tary, not regulatory. • Understand the watershed by By August of 1998, Park, Jefferson, identifying current and future contami- Teller and Douglas Counties, the City of Aurora, Denver Water, the State Trust Land Board, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the Center of Colorado and the Upper South Platter Water Conservancy Districts signed the MOU, and began working on incorporating as a nonprofit entity. Under the MOU, the parties agreed to the following preliminary list of water quality goals: 1.) Protect water quality in the Upper South Platte River and its tribu- taries to support beneficial uses, which Events like the Buffalo Creek Fire helped bring watershed stakehold- could include drinking water supply ers to the table. Here a burned over area, five years after the fire; grasses have returned, but trees are not expected to return naturally and cold water fisheries. for hundreds of years. 2.) Sustain the productivity and diversity of the ecological systems nation trends that jeopardize water within the watershed. quality, use the best scientific informa- 3.) Address water quality impacts tion for resource allocation and land related to water quantity management. management discussion, incorporate 4.) Manage nonpoint pollutant the effects of growth and development sources including grazing, forestry, in the basin, and protect historic and transportation corridors, mining, ero- cultural resources. sion, and septic systems. • Prioritize watershed issues to 5.) Minimize impacts of disastrous incorporate diverse community values, events, such as the Buffalo Creek Fire. incorporate desired ecosystem conditions based on historic and current con- The list of preliminary objectives agreed siderations, and prioritize contamina- upon by the group to attain these goals includ- tion concerns using water quality stan- ed: dards as preliminary objectives. • Develop a Coordinated • Implement effective manage- Watershed Management Program to ment strategies and practice adaptive History...continued management to bridge the gap the Agency that it should be a voting mem- between science and management, ber. The Forest Service continues to and to blend the objectives of the decline participation at that level, in part Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking because it feels its participation might be Water Acts. in conflict with the Federal Advisory • Maintain and improve water Committee Act. However, Forest Service quality and related resources to participation has been increased recently, achieve of streams, and sustain or with the inclusion of the Forest Service’s improve habitat for valuable renewable Upper South Platte Restoration Project as resources. a subcommittee of the Association. Federal agencies, including the Forest In August 1998, Lisa McVicker, an Service, opted for limited participation as attorney and Board member of the Center members of the Watershed Advisory of Colorado Water Conservancy District, Group (WAG), instead of full membership. prepared Articles of Incorporation for the Some agencies have remained active Upper South Platte Watershed Protection Association to submit to the Secretary of State’s Office. In September, Lisa prepared an application for determination of nonprofit, exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service, which the group received in October, 1998. Once the Association received determination from the IRS, it began applying for grants. The first grant to the Association was a Regional Geographic Initiative Grant from the EPA for development of a DATA INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT (DIA). The Association hired Brown and The Upper South Platte Watershed is home to several endangered and Caldwell to perform the inven- threatened species, like the Pawnee montane skipper, a butterfly that lives tory and assessment. no where else in the world. The DIA was designed to: 1.) Identify and document through the WAG, while others have not available data and responsible entities participated very much. related to watershed land use activi- Members of the group met repeatedly ties, water quality, environmental qual- with the Forest Service, the largest ity, and Geographic Information landowner in the watershed, to convince System (GIS) information. History...continued 2.) Identify and rank existing and example, members have learned more potential sources that can affect water about the Total Maximum Daily Load quality and ecological health within the watershed. 3.) Assess water quality and stream health conditions in the watershed. 4.) Prioritize areas for potential protection or restoration activity and areas requiring further study. The DIA was completed by reviewing existing studies and information, and by making contact with a variety of entities and agencies. Brown and Caldwell found that only one stream segment—Craig Creek in the Lost Park Wilderness—in the entire 2600 square mile watershed is “not impaired”. The Association works to educate stakeholders through meet- In late 1999, the Association applied ings, seminars, field-days, and by supplying educational materi- for and received a Sustainable als to schools within the watershed. Here interested citizens participate in a tour of the Trumball demonstration area on Development Challenge Grant from EPA. Denver Water lands near Deckers. The demonstration is a This grant provided funding to hire a coor- cooperative effort of the USFS, CSFS, Denver Water, the dinator and undertake a major watershed Association, and others, designed to to evaluate sustainable protection and monitoring planning forestry techniques. process. (TMDL) process and its possible A hiring committee advertised for the impacts on the watershed and member

Load more