HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/16/2021 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 046, 2021, MAKING S Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 16, 2021
City Council
STAFF
Matt Zoccali, Environmental Regulatory Affairs Manager
Mark Kempton, Water Production Manager
Cyril Vidergar, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2021, Making Supplemental Appropriations, Appropriating Prior Year
Reserves, and Authorizing Transfer of Existing Appropriations for Post-Fire Watershed Restoration Treatments
and Operational Costs Associated with Treating Fire-Impacted Water Supplies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider an appropriation of funds for the unanticipated needs of post-fire
watershed restoration treatments and operational costs associated with treating water supplies impacted by
the 2020 Cameron Peak wildfire.
This AIS summarizes the current and anticipated impacts from the 2020 Cameron Peak wildfire on water
quality, water treatment and water supply planning, and expected funding needs for post-fire watershed
restoration and to support water treatment operations in 2021. Staff will also provide a summary of an IGA for
cost-sharing the needed post-fire watershed restoration treatments with partnering public water providers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The unprecedented 2020 summer and fall wildfire season resulted in nearly 400,000 acres of burned
landscape in critical watersheds that provide source water supplies to communities in Larimer and Weld
counties, including Fort Collins and Greeley. These communities receive water supplies from the Cache La
Poudre River, the Colorado-Big Thompson (CB-T) system, and associated high mountain reservoirs, which
were impacted by the Cameron Peak and East Troublesome wildfires. Northern Water (Conservation District)
is managing the response and recovery to the East Troublesome Fire. The work proposed in 2021 pertains
specifically to impacts from the Cameron Peak Fire. The after-effects of widespread forest fires typically
include more frequent and flash flooding following rain and snowmelt runoff events, leading to increased ash
and sediment in rivers, increased likelihood of debris flows, and an overall degradation of water quality,
particularly after thunderstorms.
The water quality impacts of post-fire debris and sediment flows following rain events are often sudden,
severe, and can render the Poudre River water supply temporarily untreatable. In these cases, as followed the
2012 High Park Fire, the ability to rely on Horsetooth Reservoir water is critical for the continuity of water
treatment operations. Real-time water quality sensors on the Poudre River ensure changes in water quality are
detected early enough to allow City water utility operations to effectively bypass the river water until conditions
improve.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
The primary purpose of post-fire treatments like the application of mulch or other groundcover, is to decrease
erosion and hold soil in place, thereby giving the chance for vegetation to reestablish and minimize the
downstream impacts to property, infrastructure, water quality and aquatic life. In cases where stabilization is
not feasible or is ineffective, downstream treatments like wattles or sediment catchment basins are designed to
spread out, capture or relocate sediment and debris, keeping it off roadways and away from homes and water
supply infrastructure, and out of the main river channel.
POST- FIRE WATERSHED RECOVERY APPROPRIATION
A group of regional stakeholders, referred to as “Water Providers”, worked with a consultant (JW Ass ociates)
to develop an initial watershed assessment of post-fire conditions to identify priority areas for mitigation
treatments. (Attachment 1) The assessment incorporated various public data sets including slope, soil burn
severity, debris flow probabilities, and hillslope sediment delivery estimates. Other factors considered included
the location of key water supplies, land ownership and management designations (e.g., Federal Wilderness
Areas). This approach has initially identified approximately 10,000-18,000 acres of moderate to severely
burned areas that meet criteria suitable for treatments, at an estimated cost of $19 - $38 million dollars,
depending on the type and extent of treatments.
The typical types of treatments considered included aerial wood shred mulching, installation of straw erosion
wattles, sediment catchment basins, and stream grade control structures. Studies conducted after the 2012
High Park Fire, supported a broader body of research showing that wood mulching is highly effective a t
reducing hillslope erosion. The working assumption when approaching this type of post-fire mitigation work is
that there is greater cost-benefit to holding the sediment on the hillslopes than later dredging it out of the river,
reservoirs, and diversion structures. While the treatment needs far outweigh the financial resources available
for post-Cameron Peak Fire work, the prioritization process for selecting treatment areas will allow the City and
other Water Providers to maximize the benefit of all available financial resources.
Many uncertainties remain around the extent and timing of the start of post-fire recovery work. As soon as the
weather and ground conditions allow, the areas initially identified as highest priority for treatments need to be
field-verified to ensure the feasibility of actual treatment application and construction. The target start for aerial
mulching is May - June, or as soon as target areas are snow-free. A second assessment of needed treatment
will likely occur in Fall of 2021 to identify remaining treatment needs not addressed during the initial
implementation phase (Spring and Summer of 2021). This future work would be addressed with any remaining
funds from 2021 and future appropriation requests as needed.
Other uncertainties include the ultimate number of cost-sharing partners, the amount of available State grant
funds, the outcome of efforts with Federal and State delegates to appropriate additional funding assistance,
and the possible eligibility of use of said funds on USFS lands, including in federally designated Wilderness
Areas. Staff are engaged in discussions with various State and Federal agencies as well as Congressional
representatives and State leaders to convey the need for additional funding resources for fire recovery.
Ultimately, the availability of additional State and Federal assistance funds could significantly increase and in
turn, would greatly help minimizing post-fire impacts to water supplies. The timing on any of these decisions is
unknown and the urgency of the work requires moving forward with currently available resources.
Proposed Post-Fire Emergency Watershed Treatments & Associated Costs ($4,000,000)
• Aerial Wood Mulching of highest priority areas = $1,000 - $3,000 / acre
o $3.7 Million addresses 2,500 - 7,500 acres out of the 10,000 acres identified as highest priority.
• Wattles, stream grade control, sediment catchments = $265,000
• Project Management Support = $35,000
WATER TREATMENT OPERATIONS
Staff estimates unanticipated operating and capital costs for the Water Treatment Facility associated with the
wildfires of up to an additional $1,000,000 in 2021. As more is known about the impacts of both fires on the
City’s water quality and water supply, work items and estimated costs may be revised. In the meantime,
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
Utilities staff will work to mitigate unanticipated costs and find innovative and practical solutions to this
unprecedented event.
2021 Unanticipated Water Treatment O&M and Capital cost estimates ($1,000,000)
• Poudre Intake sediment removal = $500,000
• Additional water treatment chemicals = $300,000
• Solids handling/drying temporary improvements = $50,000
• Water treatment and watershed studies/monitoring = $50,000
• Joe Wright Reservoir Mitigation = $50,000
• Potential water restrictions outreach and staffing = $50,000
The Water Shortage Action Plan (adopted by Council in 2020) outlines a process for reviewing and evaluating
demand management needs to respond to potential water shortages, which could be exacerbated by post-fire
impacts to water quality. Facing uncertainty around water quality this year, staff is working to be prepared for a
potential water shortage. On March 18, staff will get input from Water Board on a voluntary approach, to create
customer awareness, as monitoring and evaluation continues. Following Water Board’s review, a
recommendation will be provided to the City Manager.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR COST-SHARING CAMERON PEAK WILDFIRE RECOVERY
TREATMENTS
The City, City of Greeley and Larimer County propose entering into an IGA regarding cost-sharing and
reimbursements for post-fire treatments approved under the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) assistance program. Staff will bring a resolution for approval
of the IGA for consideration on April 20, 2021 with second reading of the appropriation ordinance.
(Attachment 2)
The purpose of the NRCS EWP Program is to fund emergency hillslope stabilization measures on private and
State lands, designed for the protection of life and property, including community water supplies. Larimer
County and Greeley were approved as fiscal sponsors for this program and contracted with the NRCS for the
use of and reimbursement of recovery expenses up to 80% for construction and 100% for technical assistance.
The 20% cost share for construction projects (treatments) will be shared between participants of this
agreement. Under Greeley’s sponsor agreement, they will be responsible for addressing necessary watershed
and water supply protection treatments and Larimer County will address private resident needs and critical
road, bridge, and other infrastructure outside of the public right of way. The City does not anticipate cost-
sharing for projects under the County’s scope of EWP work, except for where a particular project provides
mutual benefit for water supplies as well as private property infrastructure.
The proposed IGA identifies the City, Greeley and Larimer County as the Managing Entities and is designed to
allow additional parties (Participating Entities) to join, as they can bring funding for projects relevant to their
interests. This structure provides flexibility for adding partners as treatment needs are identified and enables
participants to direct funding to projects that address their specific values at risk.
The proposed agreement has provisions for identification and funding of projects based on share interest of
parties. It specifies that Greeley will receive reimbursement of 80% of costs of work completed under the
NRCS EWP contract and the remaining 20% cost-match will be divided among the Managing and Participating
Entities for the specified projects. The conventional cost-sharing methodology is based on proportional use of
Poudre River water supplies.
In addition, the IGA identifies the agreement between the City and Greeley to share the cost for a project
manager to be employed by the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) for the purpose of
supporting implementation of EWP projects. The need for this position will depend upon the scope of work for
2021 - 2022.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 4
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
In October 2020, Council approved a two percent water rate increase one year earlier than previously planned,
which provides approximately $600,000 to address post fire needs. (Attachment 3) In addition, there are
$1,800,000 in unused funds from the Horsetooth Outlet Project, and operating revenues in the Water Fund that
exceeded projected 2020 budget. In total, there are approximately $5,000,000 of Water Fund funds available
for fire recovery needs.
In addition to anticipated revenue and reserves proposed for application for post-2020 fire watershed recovery
needs, the incremental $600,000 of Water Utility revenues referenced above will be accompanied by
contribution on behalf of the General Fund of the 6% “payment in lieu of taxes and franchise” (PILOT) collected
from water customers, pursuant to Art. XII, Sec. 6 of the City Charter and City Code §§ 26-118(c) and 26-714.
This amounts to $36,000, the inclusion of which makes the total amount requested for appropriation in the
proposed Ordinance $5,036,000.
Staff proposes that this requested appropriation for 2021 be funded with these identified resources. Use of
these funds would not require an additional rate increase at this time, nor would it impact the current timeline
or funding for planned capital investments. It is anticipated, however, that additional appropriations and/or rate
increases may be needed in future years.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff met with the Water Board and the Council Finance Committee throughout this process. Specific details
are as follows:
Utilities Water Board
At its February 18, 2021 meeting, the Water Board unanimously voted to recommend that Council adopt both
the appropriation for wildfire response and recovery as well as the request for the City to enter into an IGA for
cost-sharing of post-wildfire watershed recovery work with the City of Greeley, Larimer County, and other local
water providers. (Attachment 4)
Council Finance Committee
At its February 22, 2021 meeting, the Council Finance Committee unanimously voted to approve sending
forward for Council consideration an appropriation request for post-fire response and recovery and the request
to enter into an IGA for cost-sharing post-wildfire watershed recovery work. (Attachment 5)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A City Wildfire Response and Recovery team was convened the afternoon that the Cameron Peak Fire ignited,
on August 13, 2020. Since that day, the team has been coordinating and meeting with our partners at the City
of Greeley, Larimer County, Northern Water Conservancy District, the Coalition for a Poudre River Watershed,
the Tri-Districts, and others. City staff are also participating members of several sub-groups associated with
the Larimer Recovery Collaborative, an effort led by Larimer County Office of Emergency Management. This
includes a regional Public Information Office (PIO) communications subgroup that is coordinating outreach
efforts. In addition, the Collaborative is looking at all aspects of recovery, such as infrastructure,
communications, water, debris management, public health, economic health, and individual needs, such as
spiritual care and community advocacy.
A draft Communications and Engagement Plan is being developed to communicate with internal and external
stakeholders, key businesses, and the community. Communications and outreach efforts will focus on
watershed/wildfire recovery, water restrictions and water quality. Several communications and outreach efforts
are currently being planned, including internal and external websites and dashboards, a collaborative project
with Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed that includes recovery time-lapse footage, social media,
education programs with a forestry class at Front Range Community College, and more.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 5
Staff will provide quarterly updates to Council on activities and expenditures related to watershed recovery,
water supply and quality, water shortage response planning, and water treatment operations for the remainder
of 2021.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Watershed Hazards Assessment and Treatments (PDF)
2. Intergovernmental Agreement (draft) (PDF)
3. Work Session, October 13, 2020 (PDF)
4. Water Board Minutes (draft) (PDF)
5. Council Finance Committee Minutes (draft) (PDF)
Prepared by;
JW Associates
Breckenridge, Colorado
jw-associates.org
Montgomery Reservoir
Lake Creek
above Twin
Lakes
Cameron Peak Fire
Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and
Targeting Prioritization
North
Catamount
Reservoir
February 2021
34
34
287
36
287
34
14
14
14
Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS
Legend
6th Level Watersheds
Cameron Peak Watersheds
Post-fire Watershed Composite
Lowest
Low
Moderate
High
Highest
\
0 2 4 61
Miles
ATTACHMENT 1
Table of Contents
Introduction 1 ...................................................................................................................................
Zones of Concern 3 ..........................................................................................................................
Watershed Hazard Analysis 6 ...........................................................................................................
Component 1 - Soil Burn Severity 8 .......................................................................................................
Component 2 - Hillslope Erosion Hazard 12 ..........................................................................................
Component 3 - Debris Flow Hazard 15 .................................................................................................
Component 4 - Composite Road Hazard 18 ..........................................................................................
Post-fire Composite Hazard Ranking 21 ................................................................................................
Post-fire Treatments 24 .....................................................................................................................
Mulch Treatments 24 ..............................................................................................................................
Other Upper Watershed Treatments 26 .................................................................................................
Sediment Basins 28 ................................................................................................................................
References 30 ...................................................................................................................................
Appendices
A - Small Watersheds Data
B - Soil Burn Severity Ranking
C - Post-fire Composite Hazard Ranking
D - Roads Composite Ranking
E - Zone of Concern Treatment Maps
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting page i
List of Tables
Table 1. Cameron Peak Fire Burned Area by Ownership. 1 ...................................................................
Table 2. Cameron Peak Fire Burned Area in Wilderness Areas. 3 .........................................................
Table 3. Cameron Peak Fire Zones of Concern 4 ...................................................................................
Table 4. Sixth- & Seventh-Level Watersheds in the Cameron Peak Fire Hazard Analysis. 7 ..................
Table 5. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Soil Burn Severity. 10 ............................................................
Table 6. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Hillslope Erosion. 13 .............................................................
Table 7. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Debris Flow Hazard. 16 .........................................................
Table 8. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Roads Composite. 19 ............................................................
Table 9. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Post-fire Hazard Composite. 22 ............................................
Table 10. Cameron Peak Fire Preliminary Mulch Areas. 25 ....................................................................
Table 11. Preliminary Mulch Areas within Zones of Concern. 26 ...........................................................
Table 12. Preliminary Estimates of Wattle Areas and Costs. 27 .............................................................
Table 13. Preliminary Estimates of In Channel Grade Control Structures and Costs. 27 .......................
Table 14. Preliminary Estimates of Sediment Basin Costs. 29 ................................................................
List of Figures
Figure 1. Cameron Peak Fire Land Ownership. 2 ..................................................................................
Figure 2. Cameron Peak Fire Zone of Concern. 5 ..................................................................................
Figure 3. Cameron Peak Fire Soil Burn Severity Map. 9 ........................................................................
Figure 4. Cameron Peak Fire Soil Burn Severity Ranking Map. 11 ........................................................
Figure 5. Cameron Peak Fire Hillslope Erosion Ranking Map. 14 ..........................................................
Figure 6. Cameron Peak Fire Debris Flow Ranking Map. 17 .................................................................
Figure 7. Cameron Peak Fire Roads Composite Ranking Map. 20 ........................................................
Figure 8. Cameron Peak Fire Post-fire Hazard Composite Ranking Map. 23 ........................................
page ii Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Post-fire Watershed Hazards, Treatments & Targeting
Introduction
This report presents a post-fire watershed hazard analysis completed to identify post-fire hazards
to water supply, including the methods and results of an assessment of the Zones of Concern,
post-fire watershed hazards, and potential treatments to minimize effects and target locations for
those treatments. Water supplies for the cities of Fort Collins and Greeley, as well as a portion of
the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, are at risk from post-fire sediment yield, peakflow and
debris flow increases.
The Cameron Peak Fire burned 208,913 acres in Larimer County in Northern Colorado between
August and October 2020 (Figure 1). This fire is the largest recorded wildfire in Colorado history.
Drought conditions in the summer and fall of 2020 in Colorado also led to the 2nd and 3rd largest
wildfires in Colorado History. The conditions were summarized in the US Forest Service Burned
Area Emergency Response (BAER) as follows.
“On the Cameron Peak Fire, extreme temperatures, low humidity, rough terrain and
gusty winds reaching over 70 miles per hour contributed to extreme fire behavior and
rapid rates of spread. Another contributing factor to fire growth was the large amount of
beetle kill trees and the drought-stricken Ponderosa Pine, Engelmann Spruce and mixed
conifer stands available as fuel.”
The Cameron Peak Fire burned primarily on USDA Forest Service land within the Arapaho and
Roosevelt National Forests (Table 1). However, the fire also burned a large area of private land
and additional federal land within Rocky Mountain National Park.
Table 1. Cameron Peak Fire Burned Area by Ownership.
Land Ownership Area (acres)
City of Fort Collins 2,000
City of Greeley 199
Colorado Division of Wildlife 863
Colorado State Land Board 1,834
Colorado State University 594
National Park Service 7,502
Private 21,697
USDA Forest Service 174,071
page 1
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Figure 1. Cameron Peak Fire Land Ownership. NORTHMIDDLEMOUNTAINGlendevey12942ftLaramieRiverWHighway14E D IC IN E B O W M O U N T A I N S WilleyLumberCampNEVERSUMMERMOUNTAINSLuluCity11005ft10700ft8320ftGREENRIDGEManhattanRedFeatherLakes12694ftC a chelaPoudreR iv e rCachelaPoudreRiver BULWARKRIDGEMUMMYRANGEEggersGlenEchoKinikinikRusticSpencerHeightsBoxPrairieC O N T IN EFORESTCA NEstesParkP R INGG U L C H RexLivermoreO9897ft10725ft7648ftLarimerPoudreParkMasonvilleBelGlenHavenBIGTHOMPSONCANYONDrakeLittleDamCedarCove2872873434343414141414Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMALegendCameron Peak Fire6th Level WatershedsLand OwnershipPrivateFederal (BOR, FWS, NPS)US Forest ServiceBLMStateLocalNGO/Land TrustWilderness Areas\02461Milespage 2
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
The fire burned portions of various special management area designations including Bliss State
Wildlife Area, Bobcat Ridge Natural Area, CSU Pingree Park Campus, Sheep Creek Research
Natural Area, State Forest State Park and four wilderness areas (Table 2).
Table 2. Cameron Peak Fire Burned Area in Wilderness Areas.
Zones of Concern
Zones of Concern (ZoC) are source water areas (i.e. watershed areas) above important surface
water supply features such as intakes, upstream diversion points, and drinking water supply
reservoirs. High hazard small watersheds are typically steep, erosive and/or prone to debris flows.
In post-fire conditions, these watersheds have a higher potential than others to deliver higher
peak flows, and contribute increased amounts of sediments and debris, to important water
supply features located within the within Zones of Concern. Zones of Concern were initially
identified in the Cache La Poudre Wildfire/Watershed Assessment (JW Associates 2010) and then
modified in the Cache La Poudre in the Upper Poudre Watershed Resilience Plan (JW Associates
2017). Post-fire sediment and runoff traveled much further than was expected following the High
Park Fire (2012). Therefore, the Cache La Poudre Zone of Concern was extended upstream for this
analysis. Zones of Concern were identified in the Big Thompson River in the Small Watershed
Targeting & Zones of Concern Prioritization for the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (JW
Associates 2020).
The Zones of Concern for the Cameron Peak Fire are shown on Figure 2 and displayed in Table 3.
Table 3 also displays the percentage of moderate and high soil burn severity within each Zone of
Concern. A number of the Zones of Concern have relatively large percentages of moderate and
high soil burn severity. A Zone of Concern with 20 percent or higher would be expected to have
adverse effects from post-fire hydrologic changes. Some Zones of Concern, such as Cache La
Poudre, are quite large and have higher than 20 percent.
Recommended treatments for reducing post-fire effects for these Zones of Concern will be
described later in this assessment.
Wilderness Area Area (acres)
Cache La Poudre Wilderness 22
Comanche Peak Wilderness 40,374
Neota Wilderness 24
Rawah Wilderness 5,168
page 3
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 3. Cameron Peak Fire Zones of Concern
Zone of Concern Water Supply Agency
Area
(acres)
Moderate & High
Soil Burn Severity
(acres)
Moderate & High
Soil Burn Severity
(%)
Barnes Meadow Reservoir Greeley 1,931 675 35%
Cache La Poudre River Numerous 219,655 51,486 23%
Chambers Lake Water Supply & Storage Company 16,632 2,850 17%
Comanche Reservoir Greeley 7,565 1,756 23%
Hourglass Reservoir Greeley 2,765 244 9%
Joe Wright Reservoir Fort Collins 3,828 136 4%
Lower Big Thompson Northern Water 35,355 636 2%
North Fork Big Thompson Northern Water 43,146 3,988 9%
Peterson Lake Greeley 1,683 423 25%
Skyline Ditch Water Supply & Storage Company 2,360 1,036 44%
Totals 334,922 63,231
page 4
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Figure 2. Cameron Peak Fire Zone of Concern. 36343434342877141414Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGSLegendCameron Peak FireZones of ConcernCameron Peak WatershedsLand OwnershipPrivateFederal (BOR, FWS, NPS)US Forest ServiceBLMStateLocalNGO/Land Trust\02461Milespage 5
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Watershed Hazard Analysis
This analysis identifies watersheds that could pose a threat within the identified Zones of
Concern, ranks the watersheds in terms of risk to the system and targets these watersheds for
appropriate post-fire treatments. The analysis of watershed hazards is based on small (seventh-
level or HUC 14) watersheds. Some of the HUC14 watersheds were created for the Upper Poudre
Watershed Resilience Plan (JW Associates 2017) and the Small Watershed Targeting & Zones of
Concern Prioritization for the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (JW Associates 2020). Additional
HUC14 watersheds were delineated for this analysis. There are 26 sixth-level (HUC12) watersheds
that were mostly or partly burned in the fire. Within this area there are 170 seventh-level (HUC14)
watersheds were part of the hazard analysis (Table 4 and Appendix A). The total area of the
seventh-level watersheds is 287,478 acres which is larger than the burned area because some
watersheds were only partly burned.
The small watersheds (Seventh-level or HUC14) were delineated with the goal of identifying
hazards in specific small watersheds that would be targets of post-fire actions. These watersheds
were analyzed and ranked based upon the following hazard components;
1.Soil Burn Severity
2.Hillslope Erosion
3.Debris Flow
4.Road Composite
5.Post-fire Composite Watershed Rank
The calculation of ranking for each seventh-level watershed was completed as follows:
6.Calculate each component hazard based on the percentage of each small watershed (or
other metrics).
7.Scale the results so that they fall within the five categories with a reasonable distribution.
8.Round the scaled result to the nearest whole number (retain the number for Composite
Hazard Ranking).
9.Create a map of the results using the following scheme:
Category 1 - Lowest
Category 2 - Low
Category 3 - Moderate
Category 4 - High
Category 5 - Highest
page 6
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 4. Sixth- & Seventh-Level Watersheds in the Cameron Peak Fire Hazard Analysis.
Sixth-Level Watershed 12 Code HUC
# of Seventh-
Level
Watersheds Area (acres)
Laramie River-Rawah Creek 101800100101 7 6,320
Headwaters North Fork Thompson River 101900060102 6 11,059
Miller Fork 101900060103 7 8,933
Outlet North Fork Thompson River 101900060104 5 5,498
Upper Buckhorn Creek 101900060301 15 26,306
Middle Buckhorn Creek 101900060302 9 18,434
Redstone Creek 101900060303 2 4,398
Lower Buckhorn Creek 101900060304 6 10,193
Cedar Creek 101900060601 6 9,411
Beaver Creek 101900070101 6 12,447
Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre River 101900070102 3 6,697
Pennock Creek 101900070103 2 3,410
Little Beaver Creek 101900070104 6 11,562
Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River 101900070105 5 11,754
Hague Creek 101900070201 4 8,685
Headwaters Cache La Poudre River 101900070202 1 1,378
La Poudre Pass Creek 101900070203 3 2,775
Joe Wright Creek 101900070204 11 15,941
Willow Creek-Cache La Poudre River 101900070205 10 17,995
Sheep Creek 101900070206 8 13,966
Roaring Creek 101900070207 4 6,836
Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River 101900070208 22 37,739
Bennet Creek 101900070209 5 9,210
Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River 101900070210 5 8,695
Elkhorn Creek 101900070301 8 11,737
South Fork Lone Pine Creek 101900070601 4 6,098
Total 170 287,478
page 7
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Component 1 - Soil Burn Severity
The intensity of a wildfire behavior is described such as ground fire (low intensity), crown fire (high
intensity), etc. Fire intensity is related to the impacts on vegetation, primarily mortality of trees.
But in terms of watersheds and downstream water sources, the primary dependence is on the
effects of the fire on the soil. Therefore, soil burn severity (SBS) is a critical factor for evaluating
potential increases in post-fire runoff and sediment yield. The U.S. Forest Service Geospatial and
Technology and Applications Center created Burned Area Reflectance Classification (BARC) maps
derived from satellite imagery. The US Forest Service BAER team then conducted field
verification surveys to adjust the BARC and create the final SBS map (Figure 3).
The SBS is classified into four groups; unburned, low, moderate and high. Unburned and low SBS
areas have little to no impacts from the fire. Moderate SBS areas have some substantial effects on
soil including the consumption of the duff and litter layers. In these areas, the amount of
precipitation that can be adsorbed by the soil before runoff is reduced substantially. High SBS
areas have more effects on soil including the consumption of the duff and litter layers, and the
loss of most of the organic layer, including the loss of roots in the upper soil layers. High soil burn
severity areas can also exhibit hydrophobic layers in specific soil types that inhibit water
infiltration.
The SBS watershed ranking used the following formula to calculate the metric (where WA =
Watershed Area):
Soil Burn Severity Metric = [WA in Moderate + 2*(WA in High)]/WA
Based upon this analysis, there are 32 small watersheds that received a SBS Hazard rank of
Highest (Table 5). The categorized SBS hazards by small watershed are displayed in Appendix B
and on Figure 4.
page 8
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Figure 3. Cameron Peak Fire Soil Burn Severity Map. 34342873628734141414Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGSLegend6th Level WatershedsCameron Peak WatershedsSoil Burn SeverityVery Low or UnburnedLow Soil Burn SeverityModerate Soil Burn SeverityHigh Soil Burn Severity\02461Milespage 9
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 5. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Soil Burn Severity.
6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed
Bennet Creek UT to Bennett Creek
Kyle Gulch
Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Twin Lakes
UT1 to Headwaters CLP
Upper Black Hollow Creek
Lower Black Hollow Creek
Sheep Creek-Black Hollow
Crown Point Gulch
UT2 to Headwaters CLP
Mineral Springs Gulch
Hague Creek Upper Hague Creek
Lower Hague Creek
Joe Wright Creek Upper Chambers Lake
Lower Chambers Lake
Laramie River-Rawah Creek Upper Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Laramie Lake
Middle Laramie River-Rawah Creek
UT2 to Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Two and One Half Creek
Little Beaver Creek Upper Little Beaver Creek
Middle Little Beaver Creek
UT to Little Beaver Creek
UT to Upper Little Beaver Creek
Jacks Gulch
Lower Little Beaver Creek
Miller Fork UT1 to MIller Fork
UT3 to MIller Fork
Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper Fish Creek
Roaring Creek Roaring Creek
Sheep Creek UT3 to Sheep Creek
Lower West Fork Sheep Creek
Upper Buckhorn Creek Cascade Creek
page 10
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Figure 4. Cameron Peak Fire Soil Burn Severity Ranking Map. 34342873628734141414Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGSLegend6th Level WatershedsCameron Peak WatershedsSoil Burn SeverityLowestLowModerateHighHighest\02461Milespage 11
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Component 2 - Hillslope Erosion Hazard
High-severity fires can dramatically change runoff and erosion processes on hillslopes in
watersheds, particularly if followed by high-intensity rainfall events. Sediment yields from
hillslopes burned at a moderate to high severity tend to be an order of magnitude higher than
those burned at low severity (Johansen et al. 2001, Gannon et al. 2017). High-severity fires
increase erosion susceptibility by exposing soils as more of the forest floor is consumed, which
increases both sediment and water yields (Wells et al. 1979, Robichaud and Waldrop 1994, Soto
et al. 1994, Neary et al. 2005, and Moody et al. 2008). High-severity fires also can cause the
development of hydrophobic layers, a formation consisting of a waxy, water repellent layer,
created by fire-induced volatilization of organics. These hydrophobic layers reduce infiltration
rates which exacerbates runoff (Hungerford et al. 1991).
The delivery of hillslope sediments to streams has numerous ramifications for water supply
infrastructure, including both the physical effects of sediment deposition in surface waters as well
as chemical changes to water quality. Increased nutrients in the sediments can promote growth of
algae, affecting water taste and odor. Increased concentrations of dissolved organic carbons can
form potentially carcinogenic by-products during disinfection and increased metals can increase
treatment costs (Writer and Murphy 2012).
Colorado Forest Restoration Institute (CFRI) completed detailed hillslope erosion analysis for the
Cameron Peak Fire (CFRI 2021). The results of that analysis were used for this analysis of post-fire
erosion hazards. CFRI also completed an analysis that routed the predicted hillslope erosion to
streams, which was also used for this analysis. The predicted hillslope erosion delivered to
streams was ranked for all small watersheds. Based upon this analysis, there are 33 small
watersheds that received a Hillslope Erosion Hazard rank of Highest (Table 6). The categorized
Hillslope Erosion Hazard by small watershed are displayed in Appendix C and on Figure 5.
page 12
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 6. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Hillslope Erosion.
6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed
Beaver Creek Comanche Reservoir
Bennet Creek UT to Bennett Creek
Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Headwaters CLP
UT1 to Headwaters CLP
Upper Black Hollow Creek
Lower Black Hollow Creek
Sheep Creek-Black Hollow
Crown Point Gulch
Twin Lakes
UT4 to Headwaters CLP
Tunnel Creek
Hague Creek Upper Hague Creek
Lower Hague Creek
Joe Wright Creek Upper Chambers Lake
Lower Chambers Lake
Lower Fall Creek
Laramie River-Rawah Creek Upper Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Middle Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Two and One Half Creek
UT1 to Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Little Beaver Creek Upper Little Beaver Creek
UT to Upper Little Beaver Creek
Middle Little Beaver Creek
UT to Little Beaver Creek
Miller Fork UT3 to MIller Fork
UT1 to MIller Fork
Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper Fish Creek
Roaring Creek Roaring Creek
Sheep Creek Sheep Creek
UT1 to Sheep Creek
Upper Buckhorn Creek Cascade Creek
Willow Creek-Cache La Poudre River Upper Willow Creek CLP
Lower Lower Willow Creek CLP
page 13
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Figure 5. Cameron Peak Fire Hillslope Erosion Ranking Map. 34342873628734141414Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGSLegend6th Level WatershedsCameron Peak WatershedsHillslope ErosionLowestLowModerateHighHighest\02461Milespage 14
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Component 3 - Debris Flow Hazard
The US Geological Survey (USGS) has been calculating post-fire debris flow hazards and
probabilities across the western United States. Their methodology, which was updated in 2016,
can be found at -
https://landslides.usgs.gov/hazards/postfire_debrisflow/background2016.php
The USGS calculates both probability of occurrence and expected volume of debris flows, and
then combines those calculations. The USGS calculated debris flow probability and volume at
both a small watershed scale and a channel segment scale. Based upon this analysis, there are 33
small watersheds that received a Debris Flow Hazard rank of Highest (Table 7). The categorized
Debris Flow Hazard by small watershed are displayed in Appendix C and on Figure 6.
page 15
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 7. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Debris Flow Hazard.
6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed
Bennet Creek UT to Bennett Creek
Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Crown Point Gulch
Dry Creek
Sheep Creek-Black Hollow
UT2 to Headwaters CLP
Twin Lakes
UT1 to Headwaters CLP
Mineral Springs Gulch
Peterson Creek
UT4 to Headwaters CLP
Tunnel Creek
Elkhorn Creek Headwaters Elkhorn Creek
Headwaters North Fork Thompson River UT1 to Headwaters NF Big Thompson
Laramie River-Rawah Creek Upper Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Middle Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Little Beaver Creek UT to Little Beaver Creek
Jacks Gulch
Middle Little Beaver Creek
Lower Buckhorn Creek Little Bear Gulch
Middle Buckhorn Creek Bear Gulch
Miller Fork UT1 to MIller Fork
Black Creek
UT3 to MIller Fork
UT2 to MIller Fork
Upper Miller Fork
Outlet North Fork Thompson River UT4 to Outlet North Fork Big Thompson
UT2 to Outlet North Fork Big Thompson
Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper Fish Creek
Sheep Creek UT3 to Sheep Creek
UT1 to Sheep Creek
Upper Buckhorn Creek Cascade Creek
UT2 to Upper Buckhorn Creek
Upper Sheep Creek
page 16
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Figure 6. Cameron Peak Fire Debris Flow Ranking Map. 34342873628734141414Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGSLegend6th Level WatershedsCameron Peak WatershedsDebris FlowLowestLowModerateHighHighest\02461Milespage 17
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Component 4 - Composite Road Hazard
The hazard posed by roads was evaluated by looking at three types of road hazards: overall road
density, the density of roads in close proximity to streams, and the density of road/stream
crossings. These road features all pose risks for flooding and possible contributions to debris
flows in vulnerable watersheds.
Roads can convert subsurface runoff to surface runoff and then route the surface runoff in a ditch
or on the road surface to stream channels, increasing peak flows (Megan and Kidd 1972, Ice 1985,
and Swanson et al. 1987). Forest roads are usually the largest source of long-term sediment in
forested watersheds (Elliott 2000, MacDonald and Stednick 2003). Roads can be even more
hazardous in post-fire hydrologic conditions with increased peak flows and sediment yields.
Road Density
Watersheds with higher road densities have a higher sensitivity to increases in peak flows, and
therefore flooding, following wildfires. Road density in miles of road per square mile of watershed
area was used as an indicator of flooding hazard.
Roads Close to Streams
Roads close to streams can become major sources of sediment during flooding or higher post-
fire peak flows. In order to quantify this effect, the density of roads near streams was calculated by
calculating the length of roads located within a 100-meter stream buffer.
Road/Stream Crossings
Road/stream crossings are locations where overtopping of roads, clogging of culverts and
subsequent erosion and possible blow out can occur. The number of road/stream crossings were
manually acquired using the road and stream layers in combination with aerial imagery
verification. The number of road/stream crossings was divided by the watershed area (acres) to
determine the road/stream crossing density.
Composite Roads Rank
The results for all three roads rankings were combined and ranked from 1 (low potential) to 5
(high potential) to create the Composite Roads Ranking. Based upon this analysis, there are 34
small watersheds that received a Composite Roads rank of Highest (Table 8). The categorized
road hazards by small watershed are presented in Appendix D and on Figure 7.
page 18
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 8. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Roads Composite.
6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed
Bennet Creek Kyle Gulch
Upper Bennett Creek
Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow
Cedar Creek Upper Cedar Creek
Middle Cedar Creek
Elkhorn Creek Upper Manhattan Creek
UT4 to Elkhorn Creek
UT5 to Elkhorn Creek
Swamp Creek
Laramie River-Rawah Creek Upper Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Laramie Lake
Lower Buckhorn Creek Little Bear Gulch
Lower Lower Buckhorn Creek
Middle Buckhorn Creek Upper Middle Buckhorn Creek
Bear Gulch
UT to North Fork Fish Creek
Miller Fork Lower Miller Fork
UT2 to MIller Fork
Outlet North Fork Thompson River Dunraven Glade
Middle Outlet North Fork Big Thompson
Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper South Fork CLP River
Ratville
Pennock Creek UT1 to Pennock Creek
Redstone Creek Middle Redstone Creek
Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River Lower Sevenmile Creek
UT to Sevenmile
South Fork Lone Pine Creek Bellaire Creek
Upper Buckhorn Creek Upper Upper Buckhorn Creek
Middle Upper Buckhorn Creek
UT2 to Upper Buckhorn Creek
Lower Upper Buckhorn Creek
Box Prairie Creek
UT1 to Upper Buckhorn Creek
Eld Creek
page 19
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Figure 7. Cameron Peak Fire Roads Composite Ranking Map. 34342873628734141414Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGSLegend6th Level WatershedsCameron Peak WatershedsRoads CompositeLowestLowModerateHighHighest\02461Milespage 20
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Post-fire Composite Hazard Ranking
The Post-fire Composite Hazard Ranking combines the four components (Soil Burn Severity,
Hillslope Erosion, Debris Flow Hazard and Composite Roads Hazards) by numerically combining
their rankings for each small watershed and then re-categorizing the results. The Post-fire
Composite Hazard Ranking will be used as the basis for targeting small watersheds for post-fire
treatments.
The results of this calculation were ranked from 1 (lowest Post-fire Composite Hazard) to 5
(highest Post-fire Composite Hazard) to create the Post-fire Composite Hazard Ranking. Based
upon this analysis, there are 34 small watersheds that received a Post-fire Composite Hazard Rank
of Highest (Table 9). The categorized ranks by watershed are displayed in Appendix C and on
Figure 8.
page 21
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 9. Highest Ranked Watersheds for Post-fire Hazard Composite.
6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed
Bennet Creek UT to Bennett Creek
Kyle Gulch
Upper Bennett Creek
Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Headwaters CLP
Upper Black Hollow Creek
Crown Point Gulch
Mineral Springs Gulch
Sheep Creek-Black Hollow
UT1 to Headwaters CLP
Twin Lakes
Tunnel Creek
Lower Black Hollow Creek
Dry Creek
Joe Wright Creek Upper Chambers Lake
Lower Chambers Lake
Laramie River-Rawah Creek Upper Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Laramie Lake
Middle Laramie River-Rawah Creek
UT2 to Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Two and One Half Creek
Lower Laramie River-Rawah Creek
Little Beaver Creek UT to Little Beaver Creek
Middle Little Beaver Creek
Jacks Gulch
Middle Buckhorn Creek Bear Gulch
Miller Fork UT2 to MIller Fork
UT1 to MIller Fork
UT3 to MIller Fork
Black Creek
Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper Fish Creek
Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River Lower Sevenmile Creek
Sheep Creek UT3 to Sheep Creek
Upper Buckhorn Creek Cascade Creek
UT2 to Upper Buckhorn Creek
page 22
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Figure 8. Cameron Peak Fire Post-fire Hazard Composite Ranking Map. 34342873628734141414Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGSLegend6th Level WatershedsCameron Peak WatershedsPost-fire Watershed CompositeLowestLowModerateHighHighest\02461Milespage 23
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Post-fire Treatments
Mulch Treatments
Mulching is one of the most effective post-fire treatments (Robichaud et al. 2010) and has been
proven to reduce rainfall splash and surface runoff, increase soil moisture and, consequently,
improve revegetation. Wood mulch has been increasingly used in as a post-fire treatment in
Colorado, including after the High Park Fire (2012). Unlike agricultural straw mulch, which can
bring invasive weeds and during dry weather can be moved off site by wind, wood mulch can be
made from trees burned in the fire, thereby minimizing the risk of introducing any noxious plants
or foreign materials. It is also less prone to being blown off-site during windy periods. The wood
mulch used following the High Park Fire survived the 2013 Flood, which dumped 12 inches of rain
in two days on the burned area. Some recent studies by RMRS found that the wood mulch
treatments used in the High Park Fire were 79% effective at reducing hillslope erosion (REF).
Mulching can also reduce the rapid overland flow on moderate and high burn severity soils,
thereby reducing post-fire peak flows from rainfall events. Mulch used in combination with other
treatments in channels or further
downstream can increase the
effectiveness of the combined
treatments. In general, mulch is
recommended to be used when there is a
large percentage of a watershed that
contains moderate and/or high burn
severity and there is a value at risk
downstream.
Initial estimates of the amount and
locations for mulch treatments were
completed for the Cameron Peak Fire
burned area. These treatments are
directed at minimizing the post-fire
effects on both water supply and water
quality downstream of the burned watersheds. The estimates were made using the following
approach;
1.Slopes between 20-50 precent were identified in the burned area.
2.Areas that have been identified as moderate and high soil burn severity were delineated within
those slopes
3.Polygons were created from contiguous areas from steps 1 & 2 above to identify the potential
mulching areas.
page 24
Wood Mulch Application in High Park Burned Watershed
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
4.Polygons were accumulated within watersheds (HUC14) that were identified as highest post-fire
hazard and located within Zones of Concern.
5.The treatment effectiveness of those identified mulch polygons was evaluated by comparing
them to the total area burned at moderate and high burn severity.
Table 10 displays the results of the mulch area analysis and how it focuses the mulch treatments
to targeted ares. The Zones of Concern were all evaluated to determine if additional mulch
treatments outside of the Highest Hazard watersheds would increase the effectiveness of the
mulch treatments.
Table 10. Cameron Peak Fire Preliminary Mulch Areas.
Table 11 displays the preliminary mulch polygons for each Zone of Concern. The costs are also
estimated using a preliminary estimate of $3,000 per acre for wood mulch. Since the polygons are
preliminary it is expected that about 60 percent of those areas would be screened to actually be
mulched. That 60 percent expectation is allied to the cost estimates.
Area (acres)
Moderate & High Soil Burn Severity on slopes >20%51,471
Moderate & High Soil Burn Severity on slopes 20-50%45,744
Preliminary Mulch Polygons Identified 31,164
Mulch Polygons in Highest Hazard Watersheds 21,253
Proposed Mulch Polygons in Zones of Concern 18,831
Proposed Mulch Polygons in Zones of Concern outside
of Wilderness Areas 10,602
page 25
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 11. Preliminary Mulch Areas within Zones of Concern.
Maps showing the mulch treatments by Zone of Concern are presented in Appendix E.
Other Upper Watershed Treatments
There are two suggested upper watershed treatments that can be used in conjunction with
mulching. These are; wattles and in-channel grade control. These treatments have been used
effectively following the High Park Fire of 2012 and in other wildfires throughout Colorado and
the Western US.
Wattles
Wattles are long, round tubes of straw that are traditionally used around construction projects.
They have been used successfully to reduce hillslope erosion in post-fire environments
(Robichaud et al. 2010). The US Forest Service has recommended that wattles be constructed
from coconut husks and aspen instead of the traditional agricultural straw to limit the introduction
of invasive weeds and other non-native plants. Coconut husks and aspen are likely more dense
which makes them more stable but will require more labor for installation.
The quantity and locations of wattles are difficult to determine without more detailed analysis and
field verification. It is expected that wattle locations will be determined during field verification
for other watershed treatment projects. Preliminary estimates of the amount and cost of wattles is
presented in Table 12.
Zone of Concern
Area
(acres)
Moderate &
High Soil Burn
Severity (acres)
Preliminary
Mulch
(acres)
Preliminary
Mulch
Effectiveness
(%)
Preliminary
Mulch outside
of Wilderness
Areas (acres)
Preliminary Mulch
Effectiveness
outside Wilderness
Areas (%)
Barnes Meadow Reservoir 1,931 675 273 40%250 37%
Cache La Poudre River 219,655 51,486 13,667 27%7,770 15%
Chambers Lake 16,632 2,850 1,478 52%634 22%
Comanche Reservoir 7,565 1,756 546 31%2 0%
Hourglass Reservoir 2,765 244 135 55%126 52%
Joe Wright Reservoir 3,828 136 116 85%18 13%
Lower Big Thompson 35,355 636 3 0%3 0%
North Fork Big Thompson 43,146 3,988 1,587 40%1,587 40%
Peterson Lake 1,683 423 157 37%157 37%
Skyline Ditch 2,360 1,036 869 84%55 5%
Totals 334,922 63,231 18,831 10,602
Costs (@ $3,000/acre)$33,895,800 $19,083,600
page 26
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 12. Preliminary Estimates of Wattle Areas and Costs.
In-Channel Grade Control
In-channel grade control structures are used in very small headwater channels that are in danger
of downcutting. They are typically made from large rocks and/or trees that are found close to the
site. They are usually installed in a series of 10 or more. Areas that are identified for the use of
these structures would be burned areas where there is no riparian vegetation and the burned
areas surround the channel. These channels would likely be in steep channels greater than 10
percent.
Locations for in-channel grade control structures would need to be identified in the field,
although some analysis tools could be used to provide initial estimates. They would be targeted
within mulch polygons. Because the locations are usually on steeper ground and not necessarily
close to roads, they would be installed by hand crews. The materials costs would be minimal but
crews of 2-3 people would need a day to install 10. They would likely not be installed in
Wilderness Areas. Table 13 provides assumptions and cost estimates for in-channel grade control.
Table 13. Preliminary Estimates of In Channel Grade Control Structures and Costs.
Quantity
Estimated number of wattle locations 20
Average area of wattle application 1 acres
Number of wattles (assuming 75 per acre)1,500
Wattle cost $100
Installation cost per wattle $50
Total estimated wattle cost $225,000
Quantity
Estimated number of grade control locations 25
Field Crew days per location 3 days
Field Crew cost per day $1,700
Filed Supply cost per day $300
Installation cost per location per day $2,000
Total estimated wattle cost $150,000
page 27
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Sediment Basins
Recent wildfires in Colorado have resulted in significant impacts to watersheds from increased
sediment yield and debris flows following post-fire rainstorms. A number of the large fires (e.g.
Hayman Fire 2004, High Park Fire 2012 and Waldo Canyon Fire 2012) resulted in impacts to water
quality and water supply infrastructure. Post-fire hillslope and upper watershed channel
treatments and mitigation measures were in many cases inadequate to reduce the impacts to
water supply infrastructure. Post-fire sediment basins of various designs have been used with
some success in reducing the impacts from wildfires during runoff events following wildfires.
Sediment basins near the bottom of the highest hazard watershed should be considered. These
would be recommended
only where there is a
combination of lack of
ability to complete upper
watershed treatments and
location of values at risk just
downstream of the
watershed. A number of
different types of sediment
basins have been used in
post-fire environments in
Colorado. The type of
structure depends on the
expected sediment volume,
suitability of the site, access
to the location, and
downstream values or
structures. Sediment basins
usually require cleaning out following significant storms and removal after they are not longer
needed.
A total of 10 locations have been identified as potential for sediment basins. These locations
would need to be evaluated further for the factors mentioned above. Table 14 provides some
ranges of cost estimates based upon past experience.
page 28
Sediment Basin in Soldier Canyon after High Park Fire of 2012
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Table 14. Preliminary Estimates of Sediment Basin Costs.
Low Estimate High Estimate
Estimated number of sediment basin locations 5 10
Design costs (10 basins)$25,000 $50,000
Installation costs $50,000 $200,000
Annual Maintenance per year $5,000 $25,000
Number of years installed 10 10
Maintenance and removal costs - lifetime $50,000 $250,000
Total estimated wattle cost $525,000 $4,550,000
page 29
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
References
Colorado Forest Restoration Institute. 2021. Post-Fire Erosion Predications for Northern Colorado
Wildfires.
Gannon, B., Wolk, B., Wei, Y., Kampf, S., Jones, K., MacDonald, L., Addington, R., Cheng, T., and Cannon,
J., 2017. Connecting forests and water: Fuel treatment assessment and planning tools. Colorado
Water, 34: 9-11.
Hungerford, R.D., M.G. Harrington, W.H. Frandsen, K.C. Ryan, and G.J. Niehoff. 1991. Influence of Fire on
Factors that Affect Site Productivity. In: Neuenschwander, L.F., and A.E. Harvey. Comps. Management
and Productivity of Western-Montane Forest Soils. General Technical Report INT-280. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. pp 32–50.
Johansen, M.P., Hakonson, T.E., and Breshears, D.D., 2001. Post-fire runoff and erosion from rainfall
simulation: Contrasting forests with shrublands and grasslands. Hydrological Processes, 15:
2953-2965.
JW Associates. 2010. Cache La Poudre Wildfire/Watershed Assessment. Available at www.jw-
associates.org.
JW Associates. 2017. Upper Poudre Watershed Resilience Plan. Prepared for the Coalition for the Poudre
River Watershed. January 2017. Available at www.jw-associates.org.
JW Associates. 2020. Small Watershed Targeting & Zones of Concern Prioritization for the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project. Prepared for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Distirct. October 2020.
Available at www.jw-associates.org.
Moody, J.A., D.A. Martin, S.L. Haire, D.A. Kinner. 2008. Linking runoff response to burn severity after a
wildfire. Hydrological Processes 22: 2063-2074.
Neary, D.G.; Ryan, K.C.; DeBano, L.F. (eds) 2005. (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire
on soils and water. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p. Available at: http://
www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_4.pdf
Robichaud, Peter R.; Ashmun, Louise E.; Sims, Bruce D. 2010. Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hill-
slope stabilization. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-240. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 62 p.
Robichaud, P.R., and T.A. Waldrop. 1994. A Comparison of surface runoff and sediment yields from low-
and high-intensity prescribed burns. Water Resources Bulletin 30(1):27-34.
Soto, B., R. Basanta, E. Benito, R. Perez, and F. Diaz-Fierros. 1994. Runoff and erosion from burnt soils in
Northwest Spain. In: Sala, M., and J.L. Rubio (eds). Soil Erosion and Degradation as a Consequence
of Forest Fires: Proceedings. Barcelona, Spain: 91–98.
page 30
Cameron Peak Fire - Draft Watershed Hazards, Treatments and Targeting
Wells, C.G., R.E. Campbell, L.F. DeBano, C.E. Lewis, R.L. Fredriksen, E.C. Franklin, R.C. Froelich, and P.H.
Dunn. 1979. Effects of Fire on Soil, a State-of-Knowledge Review. General Technical Report WO-7.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, DC. p 34.
Writer, J.H. and Murphy, S.F., 2012. Wildfire effects on source-water quality: Lessons from Fourmile
Canyon fire, Colorado, and implications for drinking-water treatment. U.S. Geological Survey Fact
Sheet 2012–3095, Boulder, CO, 4 pp.
page 31
Page 1 of 16
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
REGARDING REHABILITATION WORK FOR THE CAMERON PEAK FIRE
THIS AGREEMENT dated ____________________, 2021, is entered into by and between
the following Parties: the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation
(“Fort Collins”); the City of Greeley, a Colorado municipal corporation (“Greeley”); and Larimer
County, Colorado (together, “Managing Entities”).
RECITALS
A. The 2020 Cameron Peak Fire (“Fire”) has burned over 200,000 acres in the watersheds of
the Cache la Poudre (“Poudre”) River and Big Thompson River.
B. The Fire has also burned large areas in and impacting private properties, and public
infrastructure serving such properties, including roadways, bridges, culverts, and other public
service facilities outside of the public right of ways.
C. Greeley and the Water Supply and Storage Company immediately undertook measures to
mitigate hazards and damages to drinking water supplies at the Chambers Reservoir.
D. The Managing Entities each divert and treat, and/or take deliveries of water from the
Poudre River watershed and the Colorado Big Thompson (“CBT”) Project, and/or maintain public
infrastructure supporting private properties located in the basins affected by the Fire.
E. Through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, administered by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS"), United States Department of Agriculture, Greeley and
Larimer County separately received funding for post-fire mitigation and infrastructure protection
efforts related to the Fire (“EWP funds”).
F. In addition to EWP funds, various funds, grants, programs, and other monetary and other
resources may be or become available to assist the Managing Entities to address and mitigate
damages from the Fire in the Poudre River and CBT Project watersheds (“non-EWP funds”).
G. Use of EWP funds may be restricted to pre-approved scopes of services and a local
government “cost-share”, with EWP funds applied to a percentage of the project’s costs, and the
entity(s) awarded the funds being responsible for the remaining percentage. Terms and scopes of
services applicable to use of non-EWP funds will be set forth in a separate agreement(s).
H. The Managing Entities desire to coordinate efforts to acquire the most funding possible
and to efficiently and effectivity utilize EWP funds to address and mitigate damages from the Fire
in the Poudre River and CBT Project watersheds.
I. Greeley and Larimer County agree to be the main contacts and contracting parties for EWP
funds.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 16
J. All Parties agree to independently engage other federal and state agencies as practical, for
the purposes of seeking and acquiring non-EWP funds, as defined below. As set forth herein,
Greeley and Larimer County will coordinate with Fort Collins and other contributing parties to
this Agreement to acquire and seek reimbursements under grant and program funding
requirements.
K. Fort Collins and other water users that become contributing parties to this Agreement will
also contribute matching funds to the cost-share portion of certain projects, as may be required by
the terms associated with EWP funds applied under this Agreement.
L. The Managing Entities desire to work with the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed
(“CPRW”), a Colorado nonprofit corporation, to manage certain projects undertaken under this
Agreement, as set forth in Paragraph 7.
M. The Managing Entities also desire to include other impacted water users in these efforts,
including water providers and local governmental entities that may desire to become Parties in the
future. The pressing need for this Agreement, and the shifting nature of Fire impacts have made
it difficult for these other water users and entities to complete their internal evaluations and
processes regarding whether to become a Party. Consequently, this Agreement includes a process
to add “Contributing Parties” to this Agreement.
N. The Managing Entities desire to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to coordinate
emergency stabilization and restoration services, e.g., hillslope mulching, debris catchment
systems, vegetation matting, seeding, rock netting, on the targeted public and private lands burned
by the Fire.
O. The Managing Entities wish to record their mutual understanding in intergovernmental
agreements.
P. The Managing Entities enter this into agreement pursuant as permitted §29-1-203, C.R.S.
Q. Pursuant to Art. II, § 16 of the Fort Collins City Charter, the Fort Collins City Council,
may, by ordinance or resolution, enter into contracts with other governmental bodies to furnish
governmental services and make charges for such services or enter into cooperative or joint
activities with other governmental bodies.
R. Pursuant to Section 02.07.040, Greeley Municipal Code, Greeley may enter into contracts
with other governmental bodies to furnish governmental services and make charges for such
services or enter into cooperative or joint activities with other governmental bodies, the entry into
such contracts being subject to the approval of the Greeley City Council under certain
circumstances.
S. The authority for this Agreement is, without limitation, Section 18 of Article XIV of the
Colorado Constitution; Section 6 of Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; Section 29-1-203,
Page 3 of 16
C.R.S., and provisions of the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act, Section 24-33.5-701, et seq.,
C.R.S., as amended.
T. It is in the best interest of the citizens of Fort Collins, Greeley, and Larimer County for the
parties to enter into this intergovernmental agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, it is agreed by and between Fort Collins, Greeley, and Larimer County as
follows:
AGREEMENT
1. AUTHORITY. This Agreement has been duly adopted by the Parties' governing bodies
and the undersigned representatives are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of each
respective Party.
2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated as
if fully restated in their entirety.
3. PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT.
3.1. Principals. For purposes of completing the work described in this Agreement,
portions will be delivered within the scopes of the respective funding award contracts
secured by Greeley and Larimer County, and each funding recipient will take the lead in
preparing and submitting reimbursements for costs associated with such work, as follows:
1. Category 1 – watershed work. Greeley will take the lead for purposes of
initiating access to EWP funds and establishing the initial scope of qualifying
watershed work, including hillslope and stream channel stabilization, erosion
control, water supply infrastructure protection, and water quality work.
2. Category 2 – property and infrastructure work. Larimer County will take
the lead for purposes of initiating access to EWP funds and establishing the initial
scope of qualifying services for addressing impacts to private residences, roads,
bridges, culverts and other public facilities outside of the public right of ways.
3. The Managing Entities will share responsibilities for mutually beneficial
portions of qualifying Category 1 and 2 services and coordinating with third party
project management services for Category 1 work.
3.2. Addition of Parties. Any other water user or local agency in the Poudre River
watershed or that takes delivery of CBT Project water may become a “Contributing Party”
to this Agreement by completing the Schedule of Participants addendum to this Agreement
in the form of Exhibit B to be signed by all Parties.
3.3. Withdrawal of Parties. Any Party may withdraw itself from this Agreement by
providing written notice pursuant to Paragraph 12. The withdrawing Party shall continue
to be responsible for any commitments or contributions made prior to withdrawal.
Page 4 of 16
4. FUNDING.
4.1. EWP Technical Assistance Funds. The Managing Entities will initially pay for
Technical Assistance costs associated with NCRS-approved Work completed under this
Agreement, which initial costs will be $75,000 and $150,000 for Greeley and Larimer
County, respectively ("TA Funds"). Costs associated with Work performed pursuant to
approved TA Fund scopes are 100% reimbursable. Parties may pursue additional TA funds
for work later approved by NRCS during the term of each respective funding contract.
4.2. EWP Construction Funds. In 2020, NRCS awarded up to $500,000 and
$1,920,000 in Financial Assistance funds ("FA Funds") to Greeley and Larimer County,
respectively, for aerial mulching and enhanced mitigation efforts. Parties may pursue
additional FA funds for work approved by NRCS during the term of each respective
funding contract.
Under the terms and conditions of the FA Fund contracts, award recipients are required to
expend 20% of matching funds. Based on the foregoing, the total amount of funds
available, including local match for Work (defined below) to be performed is
approximately $510,000 for Category 1 services and $2,304,000 for Category 2 services.
Costs for work performed pursuant to FA Fund contracts are up to 80% reimbursable.
4.3. Other funding. The Parties may pursue non-EWP funds and resources to complete
projects associated with the Work. The Parties will work in good faith to equitably share
costs for such work, based on a “percent of Poudre River water use” cost-share model, or
as may be identified in separate agreements for such projects.
4.4. Local Matching Funds. Under the terms and conditions of their respective notices
of award for the FA Funds (a/k/a EWP funds), the Parties are required to expend a certain
amount of matching funds.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the estimated amount of initial funds available for the most
exigent and first phase of the Work (as defined below) to be performed in Category 1 and
Category 2 services is $... and $..., respectively. The Parties anticipate total funding for the
Work during the Term of this Agreement will increase from these initial funds as additional
EWP funds become available, Contributing Parties join in this Agreement, and specific
project work orders are developed.
5. APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS AND DUTIES.
5.1. Project Cost Allocation.
1. Project costs will be allocated as follows for individual projects the Parties
agree to pursue under this Agreement:
Page 5 of 16
• EWP funds will be used first to the maximum extent possible towards
project costs, including submittal of reimbursement applications against
the initial NRCS award amounts described in Paragraph 4;
• Any remaining costs will be allocated among the Managing Entities that
would benefit directly and indirectly from the project, according to criteria
mutually agreed to by the participating parties at the time of project
commencement (“Benefit Cost Allocation Methodology”).
2. For projects Greeley agrees to pursue directly with Contributing Parties who
are also water service users, project costs will be allocated based on the
participating parties’ respective average annual percent municipal diversions
from the Cache La Poudre river for the years 2015 to 2019 (“Water User Cost
Allocation Methodology”).
5.2. Category 1 Project Management.
1. Greeley may advertise and request bid proposals ("Proposal") for post-fire
aerial mulching services and other post-fire mitigation services for Category
1 Work, and Greeley and Fort Collins will select a general contractor based on
the criteria set forth in the Proposal.
2. Upon selection of a general contractor to perform the designated Category 1
Work, Greeley shall execute a contract with the selected general contractor
("Cat 1 Contract") and will be identified as the owner therein for such projects,
which may include work designed by or with a shared benefit for Fort Collins
and/or Larimer County.
3. As specified in the terms of the Cat 1 Contract, the selected general contractor
will first invoice Greeley directly, up to and not to exceed any amount to which
Greeley has agreed pursuant to an executed NRCS notice of award, for
the designated Category 1 Work. After receiving EWP reimbursements,
Greeley will divide non-reimbursable Category 1 Work project costs among
the project partners, including Fort Collins and benefited Contributing Parties,
pursuant to either the Benefit or Water User Cost Allocation Methodology as
appropriate.
5.3. Category 2 Project Management.
1. Larimer County may advertise and request bid proposals ("Proposal") for post-
fire aerial mulching services and other post-fire mitigation services for
Category 2 Work and will select a general contractor based on the criteria set
forth in the Proposal.
2. Upon the selection of a general contractor to perform the designated Category
2 Work, Larimer County shall execute a contract with the selected general
contractor ("Cat 2 Contract") and will be identified as owner therein
Page 6 of 16
for such projects, which may include work designed by or with a shared benefit
for county partners.
6. PROJECTS. The projects (“Work”) performed under this Agreement and subject to the
EWP fund reimbursement conditions shall fall within the objectives outlined in the scope of
services and contract between the local government entity and NRCS, as described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated by this reference. Reimbursement obligations for such Work
shall be subject to cost distributions and conditions set forth in the respective funding contract.
Any (additional) Work requested by a Party that NRCS may subsequently approve for
reimbursement with EWP funds will be set forth in an amendment to Exhibit A.
7. PROJECT PLANNING.
7.1. Decision Making. In making decisions on which projects fall under Category 1 or
Category 2 to pursue and the allocation of project costs, the Parties shall operate by
consensus. To this end, the Parties shall make a good faith effort to reach consensus,
propose alternative solutions, and otherwise work to resolve any issues that prevent
consensus. Any decisions involving the use of a particular Parties’ lands or structures may
only be made with the consent of that Party in its sole discretion.
7.2. Project Identification and Prioritization. The Parties will identify potential
projects on which to use the EWP funds. The Parties’ identification of potential projects
and the order in which they are taken on and completed will be guided by the following
considerations:
• The need and expected benefit of the project;
• The entities that would benefit directly and indirectly from the project;
• The cost of the project, including whether EWP funds can be applied towards the
project’s costs;
• Accessibility of the project location; and
• Administrative, legal, and/or regulatory steps associated with the project, including
receiving approval for the project to be eligible for funds, such as necessary
permits; and
7.3. Project Selection. For projects the Parties agree to pursue under this Agreement,
Greeley and Larimer County will provide a written summary, including: a description of
the project work; a timeline; and the project cost allocation (“Project Summary”), which
may be initially prepared by a third-party contractor. A scope of work provided by the
contractor hired to undertake such project may be used as the Project Summary, if it
contains the information described in this paragraph.
• Category 1 Projects: Greeley will circulate a draft Project Summary to the
Contributing Parties for review and comment. Greeley and the Contributing Parties
must mutually approve the Project Summary in writing prior to project
commencement. After the Project Summary is approved, Work may commence,
and as projects under this Agreement are completed, Greeley will invoice the
Contributing Parties for project costs not reimbursed by EWP funds, according to
Page 7 of 16
the Project Summary. Greeley will prepare an annual work summary for projects
completed under this Agreement and submit the summary to the Parties by […].
The annual summary will exclude any projects that Greeley or Larimer County take
on independently or without involvement of other Parties.
• Category 2 Projects: Larimer County will circulate a draft Project Summary to
the Contributing Parties for review and comment. Larimer County and the
Contributing Parties must mutually approve the Project Summary in writing prior
to project commencement. After the Project Summary is approved, Work may
commence, and as projects under this Agreement are completed, Larimer County
will invoice the Contributing Parties for project costs not reimbursed by EWP
funds, according to the Project Summary. Larimer County will prepare an annual
work summary for projects completed under this Agreement and submit the
summary to the Parties by […]. The annual summary will exclude any projects that
Greeley or Larimer County take on independently or without involvement of other
Parties.
8. CPRW PROJECT MANAGEMENT.
8.1. Engagement. Greeley and Fort Collins will secure project management (PM) services
through the Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (“CPRW”) to coordinate post-fire
project implementation and ensure the Work is completed. For at least 2 years under the
Term of this Agreement, Greeley and Fort Collins will maintain and oversee CPRW’s
delivery of PM services through resources employed directly by CPRW. The initial focus
of the PM service will be EWP fund Category 1 projects, with accommodation for other
priorities identified in this Agreement as resources and funding conditions may permit.
8.2. The terms of CPRW’s engagement will be documented in a separate agreement, to which
Fort Collins will be a third party and agrees to reimburse Greeley for a portion of the PM
costs not recovered through EWP funds.
9. OTHER FIRE-RELATED EFFORTS. Nothing in this Agreement shall impact the
ability of any Party to perform other activities to address and mitigate damages from the Fire in
the Poudre River and CBT Project watersheds, including efforts with affiliated local agencies
affected by the Fire that may seek to coordinate with Work performed under this Agreement, e.g.,
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas.
10. FISCAL CONTINGENCY. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to
the contrary, the obligations of the governmental Parties in fiscal years after the fiscal year of this
Agreement shall be subject to appropriation of funds sufficient and intended therefor, with each
governmental Party having the sole discretion to determine whether the subject funds are sufficient
and intended for use under this Agreement, and the failure of any governmental Party to
appropriate such funds shall be grounds for the Party to withdraw from this Agreement with written
notice pursuant to Paragraph 12.
Page 8 of 16
11. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement is entered into among the
Parties for the purposes set forth herein. It is the intent of the Parties that they are the only
beneficiaries of this Agreement and the Parties are only benefitted to the extent provided under the
express terms and conditions of this Agreement.
12. NOTICES. All notices or other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and
shall be deemed given when personally delivered, or after the lapse of five business days following
mailing by certified mail-return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To Fort Collins: City Manager
City Hall West
300 LaPorte Avenue; P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
With copy to: Fort Collins City Attorney
300 LaPorte Avenue; P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
epotyondy@fcgov.com
and: Fort Collins Utilities
Attn: Water Resources Manager
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
ddustin@fcgov.com
To Greeley: Greeley Water and Sewer Department
Attn: Director of Water and Sewer
1001 11th Avenue, Second Floor
Greeley, Colorado 80631
sean.chambers@greeleygov.com;
jennifer.petrzelka@greeleygov.com
With a copy to: Greeley City Attorney’s Office
Attn: Environmental and Water Resources
1100 10th Street, Suite 401
Greeley, Colorado 80631
daniel.biwer@greeleygov.com
To Larimer County: County Manager
200 W. Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
With copy to: Office of Emergency Management
Attn: Director OEM
200 W. Oak Street
Page 9 of 16
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
13. NO WAIVER OF IMMUNITY. NO WAIVER OF IMMUNITY. Nothing herein shall
constitute a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or
other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”), C.R.S. §24-10-101, et
seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., as applicable, as now or
hereafter amended nor shall any portion of this Agreement be deemed to have created a duty of
care which did not previously exist with respect to any person not a party to this Agreement.
Liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising from the negligence of the Parties,
its departments, institutions, agencies, boards, officials, and employees is controlled and limited
by the provisions of the CGIA or the FTCA as applicable, as now or hereafter amended.
14. MUTUAL RELEASE AND INSURANCE-GENERAL. The Parties shall take all
necessary precautions in performing the work hereunder to prevent injury to persons and property
and, to the extent permitted by law, hereby release and agree to hold harmless each Managing
Entity, its employees and agents, against any and all claims, damages, liability and court awards
including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related costs, incurred as a result of any act or
omission of a Party, or its employees, agents, or assignees pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
If a Party is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act,
CRS §24-10-101, et seq., as amended (the “CGIA”), such Party shall maintain at all times during
the term of this Agreement such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as is
necessary to meet its liabilities under the CGIA, and shall show proof of such insurance satisfactory
to other Parties, if requested. Each Party shall also require any subcontractor that is a public entity,
to include the insurance requirements necessary to meet such subcontractor’s liabilities under the
CGIA. The provisions hereof shall not be construed or interpreted as a Party's waiver, express or
implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions, of the CGIA or
the Federal Tort Claims Act as applicable, as now or hereafter amended.
15. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Colorado, except for conflicts of laws provisions. The forum for any
dispute regarding this Agreement shall be in the Weld County District Court, State of Colorado.
16. CONSTRUCTION. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning as
it was prepared by the Parties. Headings in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only
and shall in no way define, limit, or prescribe the scope or intent of any provision of this
Agreement.
17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties
regarding the matters addressed herein. This Agreement binds and benefits the Parties and their
respective successors. Covenants or representations not contained in this Agreement regarding the
matters addressed herein shall not bind the Parties.
18. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments or modifications to this Agreement must be in writing
and executed by all parties to be valid and binding.
Page 10 of 16
19. REPRESENTATIONS. Each Party represents to the other Parties that it has the power
and authority to enter into this Agreement and the individuals signing below on behalf of that Party
have the authority to execute this Agreement on its behalf and legally bind that Party.
20. ASSIGNMENT. No Party may assign any rights or delegate any duties under this
Agreement without the written consent of all other Parties.
21. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement shall be found illegal, invalid,
unenforceable, or impossible to perform by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]
Page 11 of 16
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a Colorado municipal corporation
By: __________________________________ Date:
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk’s Office
Printed Name: ___________________
Title: __________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Printed Name: ___________________
Assistant City Attorney
Page 12 of 16
CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO, a home rule municipal corporation
By: __________________________________ Date:
Roy Otto, City Manager
AS TO LEGAL FORM:
By: ________________________________________
City Attorney
AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
By: ________________________________________
Director of Finance
Page 13 of 16
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, a county subdivision of the State of Colorado
By: __________________________________ Date:
Chairman of Board of County Commissioner
AS TO LEGAL FORM:
By: ________________________________________
County Attorney
AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
By: ________________________________________
Director of Finance
Exhibit A
Scope of Coordinated Services
[describe core services to be delivered by Greeley and subject to reimbursement by Fort Collins,
including reference to project-specific work orders/requests and “Contributing Party” specific
projects …] Greeley intends to use EWP funds are for the implementation of recovery measures,
which left undone, pose a threat to life and or property. These recovery projects include erosion
and sedimentation prevention, debris removal, and structure protection from the threat of future
flooding due to the Cameron Peak Fire.
Project Types:
I. Direct Remediation
a. Category 1 services.
[…]
Mulching of hillslopes
Hillslope stabilizations such as waddles, tree welling, etc.
Sedimentation basins
b. Category 2 services.
[…]
Repair or upgrades to culverts, bridges, and roads
Debris removal
Flooding prevention structures
II. Project Management
[…]
Greeley and Fort Collins will jointly select and coordinate through Greeley a third-
party project manager (“PM Work”) to oversee organization of Projects under this
Agreement and related work, including Category 2 services for which Larimer
County may request of the other Managing Entities. The Managing Entities will
equitably apportion the cost of PM Work, based on the respective benefits realized by
the Parties, to be paid from individual resources without seeking NRCS
reimbursement.
Exhibit B
Participating Parties
The following local governmental entities are the principal parties to this Agreement, “Managing
Entities”:
- CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO a home-rule municipality (“Fort Collins”) with
principal offices at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
- CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO, a home-rule municipality (“Greeley”) with principal
offices of its Water and Sewer Department at 1001 11th Avenue, Second Floor, Greeley,
Colorado 80631
- LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, a county subdivision of the State of Colorado
(“Larimer County”) with principal offices at […], Fort Collins, Colorado […]
The following entities are Contributing Parties to this Agreement, whose obligations and
contributions to the Work described in this Agreement may be different than those of the Managing
Entities, as set forth in addenda to this Exhibit B:
- ____________________________________________, with principal offices at […]
(Organization Name)
- ____________________________________________, with principal offices at […]
(Organization Name)
(Form of Addendum to Add a Party)
CONTRIBUTING PARTY ADDENDUM TO
AGREEMENT REGARDING REHABILITATION WORK
FOR THE CAMERON PEAK FIRE
This Addendum, dated ____________________, 2020, is entered into by and between
the Parties to the Agreement Regarding Rehabilitation Work for the Cameron Peak Fire
(“Agreement”) and , a (“New
Party”).
1. The New Party has reviewed the Agreement as desires to become a “Contributing Party”
thereto. The Parties to the Agreement agree to permit the New Party to become a Contributing
Party to the Agreement for purposes of the following □ Category 1; □ Category 2 services:
[…]
2. The New/Contributing Party represents to the other Parties that it has the power and
authority to enter into this Agreement and the individuals signing below on behalf of the
New/Contributing Party have the authority to execute this Agreement on its behalf and legally
bind the New/Contributing Party.
3. For purposes of Paragraph 11 of the Agreement, the contact information of the
New/Contributing Party is:
To :
, a
By: __________________________________ Date:
[Insert signature pages of other Parties]
DATE:
STAFF:
October 13, 2020
Mark Kempton, Water Production Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Cameron Peak Fire: Water and Air Quality Impacts.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to inform Council of the status of the Cameron Peak Fire, the Fire’s potential effects on
the City’s drinking water supply, air quality impacts, planned watershed restoration activities, and future land
restoration and water treatment funding needs.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. A 2% water rate increase is planned for 2022. Anticipating watershed restoration costs related to the
Cameron Peak Fire, what feedback does Council have regarding moving the water rate increase up a year
earlier to 2021?
2. The City of Greeley has volunteered to be the Project Sponsor for the Federal Emergency Watershed
Program (EWP) which entails 100% up-front costs and a 25% cost match after reimbursement. What direction
does Council have regarding the City partnering with Greeley and sharing the 25% cost match?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Cameron Peak Fire (CPF) ignited on August 13th, 2020 in the Arapaho and Roosevelt Nation al Forests near
Cameron Pass and Chambers Lake. The CPF is currently 125,000 acres with 22% containment at the time of this
report (9/30/2020). As this fire and other regional fires continue to burn, the smoke has impacted local air quality.
At this time, there are no known impacts to water supply infrastructure owned by the City of Fort Collins.
The fire is burning primarily in the Cache la Poudre River watershed which provides approximately 50% of the
annual drinking water supply for the City of Fort Co llins. Similar to the High Park Fire (HPF) in 2012, the
aftereffects of the fire will likely affect the quality of the City’s raw water supply for some years to come. The
aftereffects of widespread forest fires typically include increased and more frequent rain and snowmelt runoff,
increased ash and sediment in the river, increased likelihood of mud flows, and an overall degradation of water
quality, particularly after thunderstorms.
In 2012, the City’s water supply experienced several of the effects of th e High Park Fire causing the Water
Treatment Facility to go off the Poudre River for over 100 consecutive days and relying on 100% Horsetooth
Reservoir water. We are fortunate that we have two independent water supplies. This is a result of excellent
planning and foresight by previous Councils and staff.
As the full impacts of the fire become more apparent, it is likely that the Poudre River will start to experience
impaired water quality, particularly during Spring snowmelt and Summer thunderstorms in th e watershed. During
these impaired water quality runoff events, the City’s Water Treatment Facility is able to continue to treat water. In
cases where the water becomes too impaired to treat, staff can implement several options to prevent impaired
water entering the City’s drinking water supply. These include Poudre River monitoring & shutting off the Poudre
intake during rain storms, switch to 100% Horsetooth water (City has adequate water supplies in HT), utilize both
sedimentation basins (Pleasant Valley Pipeline basin was constructed after High Park Fire), increase chemical
ATTACHMENT 3
October 13, 2020 Page 2
treatment processes, increased communication with customers, while maintaining all drinking water quality
standards.
While the Cameron Peak Fire (125,000 acres) has exceeded the acre age of the High Park Fire (87,000 acres),
the water quality effects of both fires will likely be similar. The High Park Fire area produced several high turbidity,
ash, and sediment laden river flows in 2012 and in 2013. However, the 2013 Flood had an advan tage in that it
washed most of the sediment and ash out of the river system, resulting in improved water quality runoff from the
HPF burned areas. It is unlikely that the CPF burned area will experience a flood of that magnitude again soon, so
the effects of the CPF will probably be felt for a much longer time than those of the HPF.
Staff has implemented several enhanced and new water quality monitoring measures to address impacts of the
fire on water supplies. Two early warning water quality alert station s have been installed on the Poudre River
upstream of the Water Treatment Facility’s Poudre River Intake. These systems provide treatment operators
advance notice of when to temporarily bypass impacted river water. In addition, existing long -term monitoring
programs have been adapted to capture impacts of the fire and storm sampling will assist in tracking watershed
recovery and answering key questions about treating fire-impacted water.
POST-FIRE WATERSHED RECOVERY
The City plans to engage in post-fire recovery activities that focus primarily on protections for water supplies in the
Poudre River Watershed including supply reservoirs and the Poudre River itself. Although treatment plans have
not yet been developed, the type of work will likely focus on em ergency hillslope stabilization (e.g. aerial mulching
and seeding), sediment catchment basins around reservoirs, and stream channel stabilization where persistent
erosion occurs. All work associated with repairing damage to private assets like homes, build ings, roads, and
other structures is being managed by Larimer County.
For the Cameron Peak Fire, three general pathways exist for implementing the full scope of post -fire treatments
and are detailed in the table below. The City is most likely to engage a nd assist in funding work through the
Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program and through supplemental treatments through the Local
Recovery Group.
Program Name Scope of Work Responsible Party Timeframe
Burned Area
Emergency Response
(BAER)
Summarize impacts
within burn area;
identify USFS values at
risk; implements post-
fire treatments on US
Forest Service (USFS)
Lands.
US Forest Service
As soon as possible
following fire
containment.
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
(NRCS) – Emergency
Watershed Protection
(EWP) Grant Program
Identifies affected
values on private and
State Lands;
recommends
emergency hillslope
stabilization measures.
EWP Sponsor (City of
Greeley) implements
treatments.
NRCS & EWP
Sponsor; Cities of Fort
Collins and Greeley,
and other potential
partners to cost-share
the 25% match
requirements for all
treatments.
Potential near-term
actions to protect water
supply reservoirs (Nov).
Majority of hillslope
treatments will occur
late Spring 2021,
following snowmelt.
Local Recovery Group -
Supplemental
Treatments (beyond
BAER & EWP)
Address restoration
needs not met by EWP
or BAER by directing
additional funding to
targeted projects.
Local Recovery Group
members: work led by
Coalition for the Poudre
River Watershed, along
with local agencies,
water providers,
businesses and non-
profits.
Mid- to long-term; 2021
and beyond.
October 13, 2020 Page 3
The Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) on behalf of the Local Recovery Group is curren tly
coordinating post-fire debris flow modeling to identify priority areas for treatments. This shared approach to
priority setting will assist in coordinated application of treatments and will help to leverage financial contribution of
all involved parties. Modeling work will be performed by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute at Colorado
State University.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Many uncertainties remain related to the extent and timing of the start of post -fire recovery work. The
uncertainties include the fact that the fire continues to actively burn making the full extent of damage unknown,
the ultimate number of cost-sharing partners, and that discussions with USFS and NRCS are ongoing about the
possible eligible uses for EWP funds. The current estimate for the City’s cost-share is between $1.0- $4.3 million
dollars. In cooperation with members of the Local Recovery Group, City staff are currently drafting contracts and
Intergovernmental Agreements that could support the City’s engagement in post-fire recovery activities.
It is anticipated that there will be some costs associated with this fire that will be the obligation of the Water
Enterprise Fund. The table below summarizes the 10-year rate and debt issuance forecast that was presented to
the Council Finance Committee in January 2020. It reflects the anticipated capital investment needs and ongoing
operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses associated with the water utility for the next decade without the fire.
Additional capital investments and O&M expenses resulting from the fire will require either realizing additional
revenues through a rate increase, drawing down reserves ahead of the next debt issuance or delaying other
capital investments.
If the proposed 2.0% rate increase for 2022 were to be implemented in 2021 this would increase revenues in
2021 by roughly $600,000. This will be discussed further with the Council Finance Committee on October 19th .
HORSETOOTH OUTLET PROJECT AND WATER RESTRICTIONS
Water restrictions began on October 1st, per the City Managers Declaration and Order of Water Restrictions for
Fort Collins Utilities.
Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) has been coordinating with the other water providers, who are also impacted by the
Horsetooth Outlet Project (HOP), potential impacts from the Cameron Peak Fire, and severe drought. As of
September 30, East Larimer County and West Fort Collins Water District have instated similar outdoor water
restrictions. North Weld County Water District will be proposing water r estrictions to their Board in October and
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District’s Board has decided to take a voluntary approach and is asking customers to
stop uses, similar to the other districts’ water restrictions.
Utilities staff have been focused on preparing for Oct. 1 by conducting the following efforts and will continue
throughout the declared water restrictions:
• Communicating with diverse and numerous engagement and outreach efforts, including but not limited to, a
press release, print, web, and radio advertisements, numerous presentations to various community groups,
direct mailing postcards to all Utilities customers, bill inserts July through November and customer
notifications via email.
• Reviewing 88 raw water registration and exception permits for new lawn installations and active/athletic
playing fields to-date.
• Responding to 333 emails and voice mails regarding HOP and water restrictions since July 2020.
October 13, 2020 Page 4
• Developing a HOP water demands tracker that will be updated Monday, Wednesday, and Friday each week
and available to the public at fcgov.com/HOP to monitor progress towards the goal of 15 million gallons per
day (capacity of the backup pump system).
• Working closely with coordinating City Departments, such as Code Compliance and Environmental Services;
and others.
• Assisting impacted City Departments, such as Parks, Streets, Connexion and others, with permits, raw water
registration and other water restriction guidance.
More information regarding HOP and water restrictions can be found here: fcgov.com/HOP and fcgov.com/water-
restrictions. Customer and community inquires can be directed to HOP@fcgov.com and 970-416-8040.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint Presentation (PPTX)
&DPHURQ3HDN)LUH HIIHFWVRQDLUDQGZDWHUTXDOLW\0DUN.HPSWRQ-LOO2URSH]D/DQFH6PLWK&DVVLH$UFKXOHWD
3UHVHQWHUV0DUN.HPSWRQ,QWHULP8WLOLWLHV'HSXW\'LUHFWRU± :DWHU5HVRXUFHV 7UHDWPHQW-LOO2URSH]D'LUHFWRU6FLHQFHV/DQFH6PLWK'LUHFWRU8WLOLWLHV)LQDQFH&DVVLH$UFKXOHWD 0DQDJHU(QYLURQPHQWDO6XVWDLQDELOLW\$YDLODEOHIRU4XHVWLRQV0DWW=RFFDOL 6HQLRU0DQDJHU6FLHQFHV*UHWFKHQ6WDQIRUG,QWHULP'HSXW\'LUHFWRU&XVWRPHU&RQQHFWLRQV$OLFH&RQRYLW]:DWHU&RQVHUYDWLRQ$QDO\VW0DULHO0LOOHU ,QWHULP:DWHU&RQVHUYDWLRQ0DQDJHU-LP%\UQH±'LUHFWRU(PHUJHQF\3UHSDUHGQHVVDQG6HFXULW\&DPHURQ3HDN)LUH,&67HDP
3UHVHQWDWLRQ2XWOLQH &DPHURQ3HDN)LUHRYHUYLHZ :DWHUTXDOLW\LPSDFWVDQG+LJK3DUN)LUHFRPSDULVRQ 86)RUHVW6HUYLFHSURFHVVZDWHUVKHGUHVWRUDWLRQSDUWQHULQJDQGSURMHFWHGFRVWV )LQDQFLDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQV $LU4XDOLW\8SGDWH 4XHVWLRQVIRU&RXQFLO
4XHVWLRQVIRU&RXQFLO $ ZDWHUUDWHLQFUHDVHLVSODQQHGIRU$QWLFLSDWLQJZDWHUVKHGUHVWRUDWLRQFRVWVUHODWHGWRWKH&DPHURQ3HDN)LUHZKDWIHHGEDFNGRHV&LW\&RXQFLOKDYHUHJDUGLQJPRYLQJWKHZDWHUUDWHLQFUHDVHXSD\HDUHDUOLHU WR" 7KH&LW\RI*UHHOH\KDVYROXQWHHUHGWREHWKH3URMHFW6SRQVRUIRUWKH)HGHUDO(PHUJHQF\:DWHUVKHG3URJUDPZKLFKHQWDLOVXSIURQWFRVWVDQGDFRVWPDWFKDIWHUUHLPEXUVHPHQW:KDWGLUHFWLRQGRHV&RXQFLOKDYHUHJDUGLQJWKH&LW\SDUWQHULQJZLWK*UHHOH\DQGVKDULQJWKHFRVWPDWFK"
3KRWR&UHGLW 0LFKDHO0HQHIHH&1+3
:DWHU7UHDWPHQW5HVSRQVH ,QFUHDVH3RXGUH5LYHUPRQLWRULQJ VKXWRIILQWDNHGXULQJUDLQVWRUPV 6ZLWFKWR+RUVHWRRWKZDWHU 8WLOL]HERWKVHGLPHQWDWLRQEDVLQV ,QFUHDVHFKHPLFDOWUHDWPHQWSURFHVVHV $OXPDQG&DUERQ ,QFUHDVHFRPPXQLFDWLRQZLWKFXVWRPHUV 0DLQWDLQ$//GULQNLQJZDWHUTXDOLW\VWDQGDUGV
:LOGILUH,PSDFWV
0RQLWRULQJ:DWHU4XDOLW\,PSDFWV 5HDOWLPHPHDVXUHPHQWVIRUWUHDWPHQWRSHUDWLRQV (DUO\:DUQLQJ:DWHU4XDOLW\$OHUW6\VWHP &ROODERUDWLYHORQJWHUPPRQLWRULQJSURJUDP 3RVWILUHUHFRYHU\PRQLWRULQJ :DWHUWUHDWPHQWVWXGLHV :DWHU4XDOLW\6RQGHXVHGIRUFRQWLQXRXVULYHUPRQLWRULQJ6DPSOHVIURPVHGLPHQWOHDFKLQJVWXG\GXULQJ+LJK3DUN)LUH:DWHU4XDOLW\0RQLWRULQJ,QVWUXPHQWVDWWKH3RXGUH5LYHU,QWDNH)DFLOLW\(DUO\:DUQLQJ$OHUW6WDWLRQRQWKH3RXGUH5LYHU
3RVVLEOH5HFRYHU\3DWKZD\V3RVW)LUH5HFRYHU\86)RUHVW6HUYLFH 86)6 %XUQHG$UHD(PHUJHQF\5HVSRQVH %$(5 5HSRUW86)6%$(5WUHDWPHQWV ORQJWHUPUHFRYHU\SODQ1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH 15&6 (PHUJHQF\:DWHUVKHG3URWHFWLRQ (:3 3URJUDP/RFDO5HFRYHU\*URXS &RDOLWLRQIRUWKH3RXGUH5LYHU:DWHUVKHG )HGHUDOODQGV3ULYDWH VWDWHODQGVZOLPLWHGRSSRUWXQLWLHVRQ86)6ODQG
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH 15&6 LPPHGLDWHSRVWILUHWKUHDWVWROLIHDQGSURSHUW\RQSULYDWHDQG6WDWHODQGV (:3)LQDQFLDO6SRQVRU± FRQWUDFWVGLUHFWO\ZLWK15&6IRUILQDQFLDODVVLVWDQFH PDWFKUHTXLUHPHQWUHLPEXUVHPHQWIURP15&6DIWHUZRUNLVFRPSOHWH(PHUJHQF\:DWHUVKHG3URWHFWLRQ (:3
6HFXUHVIXQGLQJIRUDGGLWLRQDOSRVWILUHUHVWRUDWLRQQHHGV &RRUGLQDWHVZLWK(:3DQG%$(5WUHDWPHQWVWRPD[LPL]HLPSDFW /HGE\&RDOLWLRQIRU3RXGUH5LYHU:DWHUVKHG &35: ,QFOXGHVQRQSURILWJURXSVORFDODJHQFLHVDQGZDWHUSURYLGHUV/RFDO5HFRYHU\*URXS
(VWLPDWHG7LPHOLQH5HFRYHU\SODQQLQJEHJLQV86)6WUHDWPHQWVFRPSOHWHG(PHUJHQF\SURWHFWLRQV(:3DVVHVVPHQWV,PSOHPHQWDWLRQRIZDWHUVKHGWUHDWPHQWV%$(5UHSRUWFRPSOHWH3ULRULWL]HWUHDWPHQWV(:36SRQVRUUHTXHVW6QRZFRYHU3ODQQLQJ FRQWUDFWLQJ(:3FRQWUDFWFRPSOHWLRQ)XWXUHUHVWRUDWLRQSODQQLQJ86)6WUPSOHWHG,PSOHPH5HFRYHU6HSWHPEHU1RYHPEHU6XPPHU)DOO'HFHPEHU 6SULQJ2FWREHU
(VWLPDWHG&RVWRI3RVW)LUH5HFRYHU\(VWLPDWHGFRVWVKDUHIRU&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV
0 0(VWLPDWH,QFOXGHV ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQRI(:3 PLQLPDO HQKDQFHGVFRSH DQGVXSSOHPHQWDO86)6ZDWHUVKHGWUHDWPHQWV 3URMHFWPDQDJHPHQWVXSSRUW \HDUV 3RVWILUHWUHDWPHQWVWXGLHV 2WKHUWHFKQLFDODVVLVWDQFH GHEULVIORZPRGHOLQJ
/DUJHXQFHUWDLQW\LQFRVWGXHWRXQNQRZQVFRSHRIIHGHUDO(:3SURJUDP
:DWHU)XQG)LQDQFLDO&RQVLGHUDWLRQV
$ UDWHLQFUHDVHLVH[SHFWHGWRLQFUHDVHRSHUDWLQJUHYHQXHV.DQQXDOO\ 5DWH,QFUHDVH 'HEW,VVXDQFH 0 0 0RIFDSLWDOZRUNLVH[SHFWHGWREHQHHGHGEHWZHHQDQGLQDGGLWLRQWRWKHFXUUHQWFDSLWDODSSURSULDWLRQVΨϬ͘ϬΨϱ͘ϬΨϭϬ͘ϬΨϭϱ͘ϬΨϮϬ͘ϬΨϮϱ͘ϬΨϯϬ͘ϬΨϯϱ͘ϬΨϰϬ͘ϬϮϬϭϭ ϮϬϭϮ ϮϬϭϯ ϮϬϭϰ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϭϵΨŵŝůůŝŽŶƐϱϬϮͲ tĂƚĞƌ&ƵŶĚǀĂŝůĂďůĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞƐ
$LU4XDOLW\8SGDWH6HSWHPEHU12$$*2(66DWHOOLWH,PDJH
5HJLRQDO$LU4XDOLW\,QGH[ $4, *RRG0RGHUDWH8QKHDOWK\IRU6HQVLWLYH*URXSV8QKHDOWK\9HU\8QKHDOWK\$48SGDWH1&KH\HQQH)RUW&ROOLQV'HQYHU0XOOHQ)LUH :< &DPHURQ3HDN)LUH &2 (3$)LUHDQG6PRNH0DS KWWSV ILUHDLUQRZJRY
/RQJV3HDN0LOHV³$´0LOHV/RFDO$48SGDWH/RQJV3HDN0LOHV³$´0LOHVSP JP )LQH3DUWLFXODWH0DWWHU 30 &RQFHQWUDWLRQ'DWHDQG7LPH5HDOWLPH$4GDWDDQGYLVLELOLW\LPDJHV IFJRYFRP$4GDWD
)RUW&ROOLQV8WLOLWLHV'DLO\:DWHU'HPDQG&855(17'(0$1'+,6725,&$/'(0$1' 7+$1.<28'DLO\ZDWHUGHPDQGKDVUHGXFHGVLJQLILFDQWO\EXWZHVWLOOQHHG\RXUKHOS6WRSRXWGRRUZDWHUXVHWRKHOSXVVWD\EHORZWKHZDWHUGHPDQGQHHGHGGXULQJ+23 0*' *2$/
4XHVWLRQVIRU&RXQFLO $ ZDWHUUDWHLQFUHDVHLVSODQQHGIRU$QWLFLSDWLQJZDWHUVKHGUHVWRUDWLRQFRVWVUHODWHGWRWKH&DPHURQ3HDN)LUHZKDWIHHGEDFNGRHV&LW\&RXQFLOKDYHUHJDUGLQJPRYLQJWKHZDWHUUDWHLQFUHDVHXSD\HDUHDUOLHU WR" 7KH&LW\RI*UHHOH\KDVYROXQWHHUHGWREHWKH3URMHFW6SRQVRUIRUWKH)HGHUDO(PHUJHQF\:DWHUVKHG3URJUDPZKLFKHQWDLOVXSIURQWFRVWVDQGDFRVWPDWFKDIWHUUHLPEXUVHPHQW:KDWGLUHFWLRQGRHV&RXQFLOKDYHUHJDUGLQJWKH&LW\SDUWQHULQJZLWK*UHHOH\DQGVKDULQJWKHFRVWPDWFK"
&RPPXQLFDWLRQVDQG2XWUHDFK,QWHUQDO ,&6WHDPSDUWLFLSDQW 8WLOLW\ZLGH:HGQHVGD\HPDLO &LW\LQWUDQHWSDJH &ROODERUDWLRQZLWKH[SHUWVRQPHGLDUHTXHVWV &ROODERUDWLRQZLWK6XVWDLQDELOLW\¶VDLUTXDOLW\WHDP &ROODERUDWLRQZLWK&3,2([WHUQDO 3XEOLF,QIRUPDWLRQ2IILFHUFROODERUDWLRQZLWKIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGFLW\RUJDQL]DWLRQV 8WLOLW\ZHEVLWHIFJRYFRPXWLOLWLHVZLOGILUHV &XVWRPHUDFFRXQWQRWLILFDWLRQVDQGZDWHUTXDOLW\UHSRUWVFRPPXQLFDWHG 0HGLDUHTXHVWV± SULQWRQDLUDQGILOP 6RFLDOPHGLDLQFOXGLQJ)DFHERRNOLYHHYHQWV
0D[LPL]HZDWHUDYDLODEOHGXULQJ+23%HSUHSDUHGIRUFKDQJLQJFRQGLWLRQV:HQHHG\RXUKHOS &LW\DQGFRPPXQLW\ZRUNLQJWRJHWKHUWRUHGXFHULVN+231HHG 5HGXFHWUHDWHGZDWHUGHPDQGWRW\SLFDOZLQWHU LQGRRU OHYHOVWKLV2FWREHU
:DWHU5HVWULFWLRQV127$//2:('2&7a129 /DZQZDWHULQJ UHVLGHQWLDODQGLQDFWLYHDUHDVRISDUNVILHOGV 9HKLFOHZDVKLQJDWKRPH 3UHVVXUHSRZHUZDVKLQJKDUGVXUIDFHV$//2:(' 'ULSDQGKDQGZDWHULQJWUHHVSODQWVIRRGSURGXFWLRQ $FWLYHDWKOHWLFILHOGVQHZVRGVHHG SHUPLW 5DZZDWHU UHJLVWUDWLRQ ,QGRRUXVH)XOOOLVWRIZDWHUUHVWULFWLRQVDWfcgov.com/water-restrictions
/RRNLQJIRUZDUG 6WUHQJWKHQ+RUVHWRRWKLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQRZEHIRUHDQWLFLSDWHGILUHUHODWHGUXQRIIHYHQWVLQVSULQJDQGDIWHULPSDFW3RXGUH5LYHU 5HOLDQFHRQ3RXGUH5LYHUDQGUHOLDEOHEDFNXSSXPSV\VWHP/LPLWHGFDSDFLW\EDVHGRQZLQWHU LQGRRU XVH &DPHURQ3HDN)LUHLPSDFWVWR3RXGUH5LYHULQFUHDVHOLNHOLKRRGRIEDFNXSSXPSGHSHQGHQFH 2QJRLQJKRWDQGGU\FRQGLWLRQV GULYLQJKLJKGHPDQG5HVWULFWLRQV$GGUHVV&KDQJLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
:LOGILUH&RPSDULVRQ DFUHV aSULYDWHODQGa IHGHUDOODQG %HJDQ$XJXVW /RQJWHUPZDWHUVKHGUHVWRUDWLRQLVDNH\UHTXLUHPHQW DFUHV aSULYDWHODQGaIHGHUDOODQG %HJDQ-XQH KRPHVORVW DFUHVWUHDWHGZLWKPXOFK GD\VRII3RXGUH5LYHU +RUVHWRRWKZDWHU IORRGZDVKHGDVKDQGVHGLPHQWIURPULYHU&DPHURQ3HDN)LUH +LJK3DUN:LOGILUH
DRAFT MINUTES WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
February 18, 2021, 5:30-7:30 p.m.
online via Zoom
0 2 /1 8 /20 2 1 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
5:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
• Board Members Present: Kent Bruxvoort (Chairperson), Greg Steed (Vice
Chairperson), Michael C. Brown, Jr., Cibi Vishnu Chinnasamy, Tyler Eldridge, Paul
Herman, Randy Kenyon, Phyllis Ortman, John Primsky, Jason Tarry
• Staff Members Present: Theresa Connor, Matt Fater, Katherine Martinez, John Song,
Meagan Smith, Donnie Dustin, Jill Oropeza, Tim McCollough, Ryan Mounce, Mariel
Miller, Liesel Hans, Matt Zoccali, Randy Kenyon
• Members of the Public: Rob Graves, Rich S.
3. AGENDA REVIEW
None
4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
None
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Bruxvoort asked for comments on the January minutes.
Board Member Brown moved to approve the January 21, 2021 minutes with minor
revisions noted.
Board Member Herman seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 9-0, with one abstention by Board Member
Chinnasamy due to his absence at the January meeting.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Staff Reports
(Attachments available upon request)
i. Preliminary 2020 Year-End Financial Report
(meeting packet only; no presentation) No discussion
ii. Water Resources Monthly Report
(meeting packet only; no presentation) No discussion
ATTACHMENT 4
DRAFT MINUTES WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
0 2 /1 8 /202 1 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 2
iii. Memo: Water Shortage Evaluation and Response Planning Efforts to
Date (meeting packet only; no presentation) No discussion
iv. Halligan Water Supply Project Year-in-Review Update
(meeting packet only; no presentation; staff available for questions)
No discussion. Special Projects Manager Eileen Dornfest commented that
the project progressed well in 2020, has not been affected by the pandemic,
and the design process is going well. She pointed out that the schedule has
been updated to reflect uncertainty in the permitting tasks, and the schedule
is now presented as a range of timeframes.
b. Regular Items
(Attachments available upon request)
i. Raw Water Rental Rates and Delivery Charges
Water Resources Engineer II Meagan Smith provided a summary of the raw
water rental program, proposed formula for calculating rental rates and
delivery charges, and proposed rates. This agenda item is scheduled for first
reading on the consent agenda for the March 2 City Council meeting. This
item shifted from an annual review with Water Board and Council approval to
an every-three-years review starting in 2018.
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics
including feedback from raw water customers on the proposal; curiosity about
the biggest customer (staff is restricted from sharing customers’ identities and
will consult City Attorney’s Office on confidentiality requirement); question on
average amount of raw water rented (20,000 acre-feet) and average amount
of raw water that is treated (25,000 af); lower rental sales expected this year
due to wildfire.
Board Member Brown moved to that Water Board recommend City
Council adopt the proposed formulas for calculating rental rates and delivery
charges for Fort Collins Utilities raw water supplies, as well as the proposed
rental rate and delivery charge for fully consumable water for 2021 through
March 2024.
Board Member Ortman seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
DRAFT MINUTES WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
0 2 /1 8 /202 1 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 3
ii. Watershed Fire Recovery Intergovernmental Agreement
and Appropriation
Water Quality Services Manager Jill Oropeza provided a summary of the
Cameron Peak Fire post-fire watershed recovery activities, including a brief
review of a draft intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the City of Greeley
and Larimer County that outlines cost-sharing agreements as well as the
structure of an appropriation to secure funds for watershed recovery projects
and water treatment operations. City Council will consider this agenda item
on March 16.
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics
including Horsetooth Outlet Project surplus (returns to general fund);
reserves funding; efficiencies; amount of appropriation request; wildfire
areas; mulching; recovery timeline.
Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board recommends City
Council approve of the City of Fort Collins entering into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for cost-sharing of post-wildfire
watershed recovery work.
Board Member Eldridge seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0.
Board Member Tarry moved that the Water Board recommends City
Council approve an appropriation in the amount of $5 million, which will be
used on watershed restoration treatments and operations costs associated
with treating fire-impacted water supplies in 2021.
Board Member Ortman seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
iii. 2021 Utilities Locating Supplemental Resources
Utilities Deputy Director - Light & Power Tim McCollough provided a
summary of the appropriation request. The current demands on the
department exceed the available resources, in part due to Fort Collins
Connexion construction. Excavators and engineering firms are starting to see
delays in the department’s ability to provide timely locates in the Fort Collins
jurisdiction. Staff recommends bringing forward in March an off-cycle
appropriation to City Council of $500,000 funded from reserves to address
resource limitations in the Utility Locates division.
DRAFT MINUTES WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
0 2 /1 8 /202 1 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 4
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics
including funding sources and equitable allocation; Utilities service area and
city limits (service area goes beyond city limits into Growth Management
Area); 2018 locating law and subsequent increased engineering locate
requests; the buildout and undergrounding of a new utility, Fort Collins
Connexion, over three years compared to half the city’s Light & Power
undergrounding over 25 years starting in the 1980s; actual number of locate
requests was close to expected but length and effort required for each was
greater than expected.
Board Member Herman moved that the Water Board recommends City
Council support the off-cycle locates appropriation as proposed by staff.
Board Member Chinnasamy seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
iv. Recommendation to City Council Regarding an Amendment to the
Metro District Evaluation Process
City Planner Ryan Mounce summarized the recommendation. On June 16,
City Council approved a six-month moratorium on new metro district
applications and directed staff to develop possible changes to the Metro
District policy that addresses issues raised by Council and citizens, and that
fulfill established City goals. Staff proposes a performance points system,
including a menu of options, with respect to housing attainability, energy and
water efficiency and neighborhood livability attributes for each residential
Metro District. The proposed system is intended to provide metrics that
further define “extraordinary public benefits” as found in the current policy. Of
particular interest is the Water Board’s perspective on the water conservation
components described within the evaluation system.
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on and inquired about various related topics
including whether metro districts are created on the backs of developers
(metro districts have the ability to issue debt to pay for infrastructure; future
property owners pay); whether voters have a say on metro district formation
and tax liability (2018 Council decision based on extraordinary community
benefits); fire suppression systems; placing an additional burden on top of
cost effective homes with these requirements seems counterintuitive; some
of these topics have come up in focus group discussions; the issue is more
complex than the metrics indicate, and seem to have conflicting objectives,
i.e. ratchet up cost to implement the tool to create more affordable housing.
DRAFT MINUTES WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
0 2 /1 8 /202 1 – DRAFT MINUTES Page 5
Chairperson Bruxvoort moved that the Water Board recommend City
Council amend the Metro District policy and adopt the water conservation
metrics as described in the proposed Residential Metro Districts Evaluation
system.
Vice Chairperson Steed seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
7. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
None
8. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Draft Memo to Council: Reimagine Boards and Commissions Project
Board members discussed the draft memo, which details their opinions on the
project and recommendations to Council regarding the proposed changes,
namely the number of Water Board members. They agreed unanimously via
straw poll to minor revisions and to send the memo to Council.
9. ADJOURNMENT
7:51 p.m.
These minutes will be approved by Chairperson Kent Bruxvoort and the Water Board
on March 18, 2021.
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2021
9:30 am - noon
Zoom Meeting
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ken Summers, Ross Cunniff, Emily Gorgol
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Kelly DiMartino, Teresa Roche, Kyle Stannert, Travis Storin,
Carrie Daggett, John Duval, Tyler Marr, Ken Mannon, Honore Depew, Chris
Martinez, Lawrence Pollack, Claire Turney, Cody Forst, Noelle Currell, Brad
Buckman, Dean Klingner, Kyle Lambrecht, Dan Woodward, Caleb Feaver, Matt
Parker, Rich Anderson, Jackie Thiel, Beth Rosen, Victoria Shaw, Molly Saylor,
Lucinda Smith, Caroline Mitchell, Brad Buckman, Adam Molzer, Dave Lenz, Jo
Cech, Zack Mozer, Jim McDonald, Jaime Jones, Theresa Connor, Mark Kempton,
Lance Smith, David Clabaugh, Liesel Hans, Jill Oropeza, Matt Zoccali, Blaine
Dunn, Jordan Granath, Renee Callas, Matt Parker, Carolyn Koontz
Others: Joe Rowan, Gavin Kaszynski
____________________________________________________________________________________
Meeting called to order at 9:30 am
Mayor Troxell; I would like to note for the record that I have conferred with the City Manager and the City
Attorney and have determined that the Committee should conduct this meeting remotely because meeting in
person would not be prudent for some or all persons due to a current public health agency recommendation.
Approval of Minutes from the January 25, 2021 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ross Cunniff moved for
approval of the minutes as presented. Ken Summers seconded the motion. Minutes were approved unanimously
via roll call by Ken Summers, Ross Cunniff and Mayor Troxell.
A. CAMERON PEAK FIRE APPROPRIATION
Jill Oropeza, Director of Water Quality Services
Matt Zoccali, Senior Manager of Environmental Regulatory Affairs
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Post Cameron Peak Fire Watershed Recovery
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss the need to appropriate funds for the unanticipated needs of watershed
restoration treatments and operational costs associated with treating fire-impacted water supplies with the
ATTACHMENT 5
2
Council Finance Committee. The risks to the Poudre watershed from the Cameron Peak Fire are significant and
require mitigation to ensure the adequacy of the City’s water supply. In October 2020, Fort Collins City Council
approved a 2 percent water rate increase one year earlier than previously planned, which provides
approximately $600,000 specifically intended to address post fire needs. In addition, the Horsetooth Outlet
Project was completed under budget leaving $1,800,000 in unused funds. Operating revenues in the Water
Fund exceeded the projected 2020 revenues by over $2.6M. In total, there are approximately $5,000,000 of
Water funds that could potentially be used toward fire recovery needs. Staff proposes that this requested
appropriation for 2021 be funded with these identified resources. Use of these funds would not require an
additional rate increases at this time, nor would it impact the current timeline or funding for planned capital
investments. It is anticipated, however, that additional appropriations and/ or rate increases may be needed in
future years.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council Finance Committee support bringing forth an appropriation ordinance for $5.0M to
support the mitigation efforts necessary to ensure effective treatment of water from the Poudre River after
the Cameron Peak Fire?
2. Does the Council Finance Committee support entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer
County and the City of Greeley to collaborate on post-wildfire watershed recovery work?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The unprecedented summer and fall wildfire season of 2020 resulted in nearly 400,000 acres of burned
landscape in critical watersheds that source water supplies to communities in Larimer and Weld counties,
including municipalities like Fort Collins and Greeley. These communities receive water supplies from the Cache
La Poudre River, Colorado-Big Thompson (CB-T) system and associated high mountain reservoirs, which were
impacted by the Cameron Peak and East Troublesome wildfires. Northern Water is managing the response and
recovery to the East Troublesome Fire. The work proposed herein pertains specifically to impacts from the
Cameron Peak Fire. The after-effects of widespread forest fires typically include more frequent and flash
flooding following rain and snowmelt runoff events, leading to increased ash and sediment in the river,
increased likelihood of debris flows, and an overall degradation of water quality, particularly after
thunderstorms. The water quality impacts of post-fire debris and sediment flows following rain events are often
sudden and severe and can render the Poudre River water supply temporarily untreatable. In these cases, as
happened frequently following the High Park Fire of 2012, the ability to rely on Horsetooth Reservoir water is
critical for the continuity of water treatment operations. Real-time water quality sensors on the Poudre River
ensure that changes in water quality are detected early enough to allow operations to effectively bypass the
river water until conditions improve. The primary purpose of post-fire treatments like the application of mulch
or other groundcover, is to decrease erosion and hold the soil in place, thereby giving the chance for vegetation
to reestablish and minimizing the downstream impacts to property, infrastructure, water quality and aquatic
life. In cases where stabilization is not feasible or ineffective, downstream treatments like wattles or sediment
catchment basins are designed to spread out, capture or relocate sediment and debris, keeping it off roadways
and away from homes and water supply infrastructure, and out of the main river channel.
A group of regional stakeholders, referred to as Water Providers, worked with a consultant (JW Associates) to
develop an initial watershed assessment of post-fire conditions to identify priority areas for mitigation
treatments (Attachment C). This assessment incorporated various public data sets including slope, soil burn
severity, debris flow probabilities, and hillslope sediment delivery estimates. Other factors considered included
the location of key water supplies, land ownership and management designations (e.g. Federal Wilderness
Areas). This approach has initially identified approximately 10,000-18,000 acres of moderate to severely burned
3
areas meet criteria suitable for treatments, at an estimated cost of $19 - $38 million dollars, depending on the
type and extent of treatments.
Many uncertainties remain around the extent and timing of the start of post-fire recovery work including the
ultimate number of cost-sharing partners, the amount of available State grant funds, the outcome of efforts
with Federal and State delegates to appropriate additional funding assistance, and the possible eligibility of use
of said funds on USFS lands, including in federally designated Wilderness Areas. Fort Collins staff are engaged in
funding discussions with various State and Federal agencies as well as Congressional representatives and State
leaders to convey the need for additional funding resources for fire recovery. Ultimately, the availability of
additional State and Federal assistance funds could significantly increase in the extent of treatments and in turn,
would greatly assist in minimizing post-fire impacts to water supplies. However, the timing on any of these
decisions is unknown and the urgency of the work requires moving forward with currently available resources.
This appropriation request for $5.0M from Available Reserves consists of the following anticipated work:
• Proposed Post-Fire Emergency Watershed Treatments & Associated Costs ($4,000,000)
o Aerial Wood Mulching of highest priority areas = $1,000 - $3,000 / acre Addresses 2,500 - 7,500
acres out of the 10,000 acres identified as highest priority
o Wattles, stream grade control, sediment catchments = $265,000
o Project Management Support = $35,000
• Unanticipated Water Treatment O&M and associated plant capital cost estimates ($1,000,000)
o Poudre Intake sediment removal = $500,000
o Additional water treatment chemicals = $300,000
o Solids handling/drying temporary improvements = $50,000
o Water treatment and watershed studies/monitoring = $50,000
o Joe Wright Reservoir Mitigation = $50,000
o Potential water restrictions outreach and staffing = $50,000
Intergovernmental Agreement
The City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley and Larimer County propose to enter into an IGA regarding cost-sharing
and reimbursements for post-fire treatments approved under the federal Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) assistance program. This IGA will be presented with the
appropriation ordinance on March 16th for First Reading.
The purpose of the NRCS EWP Program is to fund emergency hillslope stabilization measures on private and
State lands, designed for the protection of life and property, including community water supplies. Larimer
County and City of Greeley were approved as fiscal sponsors for this program and as such, are contracted with
the NRCS for the use of and reimbursement of recovery expenses up to 80% for construction and 100% for
technical assistance. The 20% cost share for construction projects (treatments) will be shared between
participants of this agreement. Under the City of Greeley’s sponsor agreement, they will be responsible for
addressing necessary watershed and water supply protection treatments and Larimer County will address
private resident needs and critical road, bridge, and other infrastructure outside of the public right of way. The
City of Fort Collins does not anticipate cost-sharing for projects under the County’s scope of EWP work, except
for where a particular project provides mutual benefit for water supplies as well as private property
infrastructure.
4
DISCUSSION / NEXT STEPS:
Ken Summers; Can we cover most of this with the sources you identified?
What does the reserve status of the utility fund look like?
Lance Smith: $75M in cash in reserves - $35M of which is available and unappropriated at this point.
Ken Summers: thank you – encouraging – I want to commend staff for their efforts.
Darin Atteberry; $1.8M surplus with HOP (Horsetooth Outlet Project) What was the total project budget? Was
the savings recognized by us exclusively or by all partners?
Mark Kempton; The total budget was $3.3M with 40-60% city cost share - the savings was realized by all – the
project happened a lot quicker than anticipated - we have invoiced the partners for their percentage - the $1.8M
is city money and not partner money.
Emily Gorgol; how will Council be updated on the Information and any changing costs?
Jill Oropeza; we have our initial timeline - start developing the treatment plan for 2021 and start
implementation in May and by mid-late summer we should be starting to understand how our watershed is
responding and our ability to utilize certain funding sources – we are hoping to come back and provide an
update in a few months as we move forward with the implementation plan – in the fall we will do a second
round of assessment to capture what we have learned over the summer and identify needs for the coming year
and additional needs are necessary at that time Give Council a quarterly update –
Darin to Jill; ACTION ITEM – It would be great to provide a quick one-page quarterly update to Council through
the summer Q3. It would be helpful if we anticipate any additional expenditures and make sure that I get that
information to share with the Finance Committee and with Council.
Ross Cunniff; do we have a sense of when we will get an estimate of the magnitude of the Troublesome Fire?
Jill Oropeza; we are working closely with Northern and they are leading similar work in parallel on the Big
Thompson system - they have just completed their post fire assessment and they are also facing a similar
situation with funding sources – we are starting to work together on bringing additional funds for that
We have also talked about an initial monitoring plan – partnering the CBT system and Horsetooth – we have
looked into utilizing a model to simulate some potential impacts, but we do not know the feasibility or how
helpful that will be. We have started some initial conversations on how we will respond. From a funding
standpoint we do not have enough information yet on where some of the work will actually happen or the
downstream water quality impacts will be – conversations will continue to evolve – we do not currently have a
lot of information on what is needed from a restoration standpoint.
Ross Cunniff; Do we have confidence that Horsetooth water quality will be sufficient to be a backup in the event
of Poudre sendimentation events?
Jill Oropeza; they are doing a lot of work to ensure the east slope reservoirs are as full as possible - that we
would not see those impacts for some time – perhaps some of that material might have an opportunity to settle
out – anytime you have sediment and ash there will be some water quality issues - reduce amount of sediment
5
that gets transferred over – fairly consistent – a lot of monitoring in place throughout the system if that were to
change
Ross Cunniff; hoping this does not happen but if both of our water supplies are compromised – are we starting
to think about what our response would be / options / communications, etc.?
Jill Oropeza; we are starting those conversations – mitigate impacts through the water treatment process –
Mark Kempton; We anticipate Poudre impact, but we are looking for Horsetooth being our high quality
We do anticipate the Poudre River cleaning up – we could switch sources reliably – we are doing a lot of
planning around outreach messaging on odor, taste if we get to that stage
Ross Cunniff; urgency of remediation on the Poudre in place as soon as we can. I am in support of moving this
forward – other question regarding possibility of moving the 2% rate increase up to 2021 to give us more
reserves – what the tradeoffs are -
Lance Smith; no specific projects – long term financial plan was assuming operating revenues were going to
come in at budget - we have been able to complete the Horsetooth Outlet Project under budget, so we do not
anticipate that this is going to impact in the near term any capital work we had planned otherwise – that is
approximately $600K
Ross Cunniff; I would support that, and I absolutely support being a partner with Greeley and potentially others
and sharing costs based on our perspective impacts. I do not see a downside to being a partner in this space –
We will be talking with Northern. Looking across utility boundaries for this kind of mitigation effort makes a lot
of sense.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council Finance Committee support bringing forth an appropriation ordinance for $5.0M to
support the mitigation efforts necessary to ensure effective treatment of water from the Poudre River after
the Cameron Peak Fire?
2. Does the Council Finance Committee support entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer
County and the City of Greeley to collaborate on post-wildfire watershed recovery work?
RESULT:
Committee supports both bringing forth an appropriation ordinance for $5.0M to support the mitigation
efforts necessary to ensure effective treatment of water from the Poudre River after the Cameron Peak Fire
and entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and the City of Greeley to
collaborate on post-wildfire watershed recovery work
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 046, 2021
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR
RESERVES, AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF EXISTING APPROPRIATIONS
FOR POST-FIRE WATERSHED RESTORATION TREATMENTS AND OPERATIONAL
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TREATING FIRE-IMPACTED WATER SUPPLIES
WHEREAS, during the 2020 wildfire season, nearly 400,000 acres of landscape burned in
critical watersheds through which the Cache La Poudre River, the Colorado-Big Thompson (CB-
T) system, and associated high mountain reservoirs supply water to Northern Colorado
communities, including Fort Collins, Greeley, and Larimer County; and
WHEREAS, following forest fires like the 2020 Cameron Peak and East Troublesome
wildfires, flash flooding is more frequent, leading to increased ash deposits and sedimentation in
rivers, debris flows, and overall degradation of water quality, requiring municipal water systems
operators incur significant additional water treatment expenses for remediation measures; and
WHEREAS, City Utilities staff has estimated $1,000,000 in unanticipated operating and
capital costs for the City’s Water Treatment Facility to address the impacts of the 2020 wildfires,
which total is anticipated to be adjusted as the impacts of the Cameron Peak and East Troublesome
fires on the City’s water quality and water supply are revealed, priority work is identified, and
projects are scheduled; and
WHEREAS, after the 2020 wildfire season, regional stakeholders, including Fort Collins
and Greeley, prepared an initial watershed assessment of post-fire conditions to identify priority
areas for regional post-fire treatments and to explore options to reduce impacts on individual
municipal water systems; and
WHEREAS, this effort identified 18,000 acres of moderate to severely burned areas
suitable for treatments (e.g., aerial wood shred mulching, straw erosion wattles, sediment
catchment basins, and stream grade control structures), at an estimated cost of $19 - $38 million;
and
WHEREAS, based on the watershed assessment, Greeley and Larimer County engaged the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and entered into agreements for federal financial
assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) assistance program; and
WHEREAS, an intergovernmental agreement negotiated by Fort Collins Utility staff,
Greeley, and Larimer County to establish a cost-sharing arrangement to complete the post-fire
treatments approved under the EWP assistance program (“Post-Fire Watershed Restoration IGA”),
for adoption with second reading of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Utility staff has estimated, prior to EWP program reimbursements and
including anticipated local match requirements, the City’s share of proposed post-fire watershed
treatments and associated costs will be approximately $4,000,000, including $3.7 million to
address up to 7,500 high priority acres through aerial wood mulching; $265,000 for wattles, stream
-2-
grade control, and sediment catchments; and $35,000 for project management support; and
WHEREAS, Utilities staff has identified approximately $600,000 in unencumbered
revenues in the Water Fund, based on water rates City Council approved under Ordinance No.
140, 2020 (November, 17, 2020), along with $1,800,000 in unused funds in the Horsetooth Outlet
Project, and operating revenues in the Water Fund that exceeded the projected 2020 budget, which
sums are available to fund initial post-fire watershed restoration treatments and Water Utility
wildfire-related operational costs; and.
WHEREAS, Utilities staff accordingly has recommended Council approve supplemental
appropriation of $1,000,000 for unanticipated operating and capital costs at the City’s Water
Treatment Facility attributable to 2020 wildfires, and $4,000,000 for post-fire emergency
watershed treatments and costs under the pending Post-Fire Watershed Restoration IGA; and
WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Fort Collins and benefits Water Utility rate payers by proactively addressing impacts of recent
wildfires on City water utility treatment facilities and operations, and leveraging regional and
federal financial and in-kind resources to protect essential water basins and water quality, thereby
curbing utility operating costs that may otherwise require sooner water service rate increases; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon
recommendation of the City Manager, to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any
time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in
combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter further permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation from anticipated
revenues described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously
unappropriated from the Water Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Water
Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund
during any fiscal year, including amounts otherwise payable to the General Fund for payments in
lieu of taxes and franchise (PILOT); and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation from prior year
reserves described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously
unappropriated from the Water Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Water
Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund
during any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council, upon
recommendation by the City Manager, to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and
unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another
-3-
fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended
remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists;
or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds
the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the transfer of $1,800,000 from the
Horsetooth Outlet capital project to the Watershed Recovery project and determined that the
proposed transfer is from a capital project account in which the amount appropriated exceeds the
amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from anticipated revenues
in the Water Fund the sum of FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS
($564,000) for post-fire watershed restoration treatments and operational costs associated with
treating fire-impacted water supplies.
Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from anticipated revenues
in the Water Fund the sum of THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($36,000) for payment in
lieu of taxes and franchise (PILOT) to the City’s General Fund to be used for post-fire watershed
restoration treatments and operational costs associated with treating fire-impacted water supplies.
Section 4. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves
in the Water Fund the sum of TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($2,636,000) for post-fire watershed restoration treatments and operational costs
associated with treating fire-impacted water supplies.
Section 5. That the unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount of ONE
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,800,000) is hereby authorized for
transfer from the Horsetooth Outlet capital project account to the Watershed Recovery project and
appropriated therein.
-4-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
March, A.D. 2021, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of April, A.D. 2021.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of April, A.D. 2021.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk