CPRW/Co Conservation Exchange Science & Monitoring Team Meeting Tuesday, 9/1/2015 9:00 to 12:00 pm Innosphere Building 320 East Vine Drive Fort Collins, CO North Conference Room Attendees: Notes: Name Aggett, Graeme Boschmann, Nate Dadisman, Nancy Dahl, Jamie Giordanengo, John Heath, Jared Kampf, Stephanie Kovecses, Jen Max, Joel Oropeza, Jill Perrot, Danielle Petrzelkca, Jen Piehl, Brad Piske, David Rhoades, Chuck Strevey, Hally Sturtevant, Bob Wilson, Codie Affiliation Lynker Tech WRV CO State Forest USFS/RMRS Aloterra City of Fort Collins CSU CPRW Larimer County City of Fort Collins City of Greeley City of Greeley JW Associates Trout Unlimited USFS CPRW American Society of Foresters CSU/Kampf lab 9:00 am 9:30 AM: social & networking time Introductions of all stakeholders present at the meeting. Joel M. explained his new role with the County and what was discussed during the resiliency planning charrette. Hally S. introduced herself as the new program assistant for CPRW. Joel M gave an update on the State of Colorado s Recovery & Resilience Office s application to the Natural Disaster Resilience Competition. As part of Larimer County s efforts to develop a county-wide resilience plan, a charrette with county stakeholders was held Oct. Ideas for projects to be submitted to the NDRC competition were developed and will be refined by the State s Recovery office. Winning the competition may bring in 10 s of millions of dollars into the state. 9:30 10:30 am: Brad Piehl from JW Associates presentation for the Upper Poudre Recovery and Resilience Watershed Plan 1
Project overview Project will be 14 months in length. Our first steps are to create a model to select post-fire priority areas, conduct rapid field assessments at priority areas, and report on these sites. During our October meeting we will re-address issues, threats, goals and objectives; field assessments and spatial analysis we conduct this fall and treatment and implementation options. We will also begin discussing and working on the watershed resiliency portion of the project. There is a CDBG-DR Implementation grant due in January for post-fire restoration projects, and we will need to identify areas for projects and plans for restoration prior to then. Post-fire restoration goals discussion 1) Minimize impacts to water quality of River and main tributaries from the High Park Fire that are experiencing increased erosion, sediment and deposition 2) Protect and enhance ecological health of the watershed 3) Protect life and safety including threats to houses, buildings, roads and infrastructure Chuck noted that nutrients and carbon storage should be considered to add to the second goal because preventing erosion should not be the only goal. If you have soil with adequate nutrient production/carbon storage it will support healthy ecosystems. Jen brought up the point that we don t have a goal regarding reforestation of burned areas- should we consider this? Or is it just included within the goal of enhancing ecological health? Jamie D: assumed that the term ecological health encompassed potential reforestation if needed. Chuck pointed out that we should acknowledge the concern of planting trees with the public. It s good to be aware of this concern, but maybe not include it as a goal. Perhaps the best option is to just monitor areas that we think may not recover on their own, and decide the best course of action when necessary. Stephanie K. discussed how ponderosa are sensitive to climate change. We should consider this prior to planting trees, because it is possible in the future the climate will not be supportive of pondo at elevations where they occurred prior to the High Park Fire. The group concluded that this idea should be saved for the watershed resiliency planning instead for an overall forest health goal in the future. Basic tasks Watershed prioritization (modeling approach) List of potential projects Review/revisions Field verify projects o Metrics to decide what needs to happen at sites Revise prioritization and projects Create conceptual plan for grants in January 2
Prioritization model (for protection of water supply) Peak flow, sediment, distance to water supply, burn severity risk, debris flow risk Do we want to add veg cover/ comp? Stream/river function? We may need to modify as we progress to meet our goals Stephanie K.- bare soil may be a better indicator than veg cover. She may have some remote sensing sources that we theoretically could use. Combining a mix of field verification and remote sensing would give a good sense of problems at our priority areas. The LIDAR happened in fall 2014, lots of data, Stephanie will inquire about it to see if it is available for CPRW use. However, Stephanie pointed out that at this point burn severity might not be best indicator. Rills that have formed may be something else to look at in the field Brad P.- another option for analysis for river and stream function is using sediment transport capacity and deposition as indicators. After discussion, it might be best to change distance to water supply to distance to the main stem of the Poudre. Jen K.- We are trying to find places with large amounts of sediment, but sediment has moved through the system, so what is a good way to pick these sites out? Codie W. s research found that hillslopes aren t producing as much sediment unless there are rills or large storm events. Most of the sediment is coming from streams. Break 10:45-12pm: Project Priorities Review and Discussion Skin Gulch Update Brad had John G. give a brief review of the work that has so far been completed at Skin Gulch. In Reach B- no heavy machinery is allowed, but there are handwork possibilities upstream. Upstream is also designated wilderness. Codie W. noted that her research has found the main channel at Skin Gulch is causing peak turbidity from her data. Unnamed 2&3 Mix of private, city and USFS land. This has created some challenges for actually being able to do any work. Even though the area is small, it causes a lot of problems (the private landowner road). Initial discussion was around fixing the road- may be possible with our current funding if we can make a watershed connection as to why rehab on the road is beneficial. Old Flowers Road 3
Road above channel has moved in some spots. There was not money to fix the old (first) road that was causing problems. Need to contact someone to see what the status is. Monument Gulch Road Unusual land ownership, USFS thinks they own the road, but there is no documentation that they do. The tributary has moved and is now eroding the road. Hill-Watha Very steep on the hillslope. This is one of Codie s research sites. It was been mulched a few times (up to 70% mulched), but the mulch has not stayed in place. Codie mentioned that maybe we need to install something that would slow the water down in the ephemeral channels, or at least have a focus on keeping the channels stable during high flows. In August there was a rain even that had probably over 30mm of rain an hour. Chuck also noted that this section releases at least 2x as much nitrate compared to other drainages. *Brad also had a few other priority sites listed that we did not discuss in detail 3 Way Rapid and HC 3 Cedar Gulch Stevens Gulch Lewstone Creek Fish habitat structures (South Fork) Rist Canyon In 2014 there were no road closures but not sure if this was due to lack of rain or the expanded culvert. An area to keep watch on in the future. Other work in the Watershed CDOT is working on a project along the Poudre (however, they can only work in the ROW areas). Would be good to communicate with them to see what they are doing and where they are seeing problems. Joel M mentioned that he will touch base with the road and bridge people to see if they have noticed problem areas. Also he noted that Larimer County may be more focused on flood restoration at this point in the BT and LT than post-fire restoration. John G. review on rapid field assessment to ID post-fire restoration areas Channel evolution model to determine if stream is eroding/incising (still in development). While at locations, we will also observe upland areas. Need a balance between efficiency and ability to replicate. Hillslope point counts, looking for gully erosion. NRCS and FEMA have methods developed that they use to estimate risk to infrastructure and property. Will need to be based on goals of restoration and also needs of the site. 4
Also might be a good idea to arrange meetings with people who are familiar with priority areas to better understand how they have changed over time. Brad concluded presentation, and left time for Jen s announcement. CPRW update Jen shared with the group that the Board voted to make CPRW s reach not just the Upper Watershed, but from headwaters to confluence. City of Greeley and City of Windsor have expressed interest and need for assistance to CPRW. Something to be aware of as we move forward, CPRW still needs to figure out how this would work, but it is a direction we will be headed to in the near future. 5