Upper Poudre Watershed Resilience Plan Final

Milton Seaman Reservoir

Resilient Pine Cones

Upper Cache La Poudre River January 2017

Prepared for Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed Prepared by JW Associates Inc.

Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table of Contents

1. Summary ...... S-1

2. Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Why Resilience is Important ...... 1

1.2 Watershed Resilience ...... 1

1.3 Geographic Scope of the Plan ...... 3

1.4 Stakeholder Process ...... 5

1.5 Values for Analysis ...... 6

1.5.1 Value A Resilient Upland Habitats ...... 6

1.5.2 Value B - Resilient River Corridor ...... 7

1.5.3 Value C - Reliable Water Supply ...... 7

2. Resilient Conditions ...... 9

2.1 The Impact of Climate Change and Future Conditions ...... 9

2.2 Resilient Conditions for Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat ...... 9

2.2.1 Forest Life Zones ...... 9

2.2.2 Vegetation Types of the Upper Poudre Watershed ...... 10

2.2.3 Forest Vegetation Type Resiliency Descriptions ...... 11

2.3 Resilient Conditions for Value B - Resilient River Corridor ...... 15

2.3.1 Stream Channel Equilibrium ...... 16

2.3.2 Sediment Transport and Deposition ...... 16

2.3.3 Floodplain and Riparian Function ...... 17

2.3.4 Aquatic Habitat ...... 18

2.3.5 Roads ...... 19

2.4 Resilient Conditions for Value C - Reliable Water Supply ...... 19

2.4.1 Land Use History and Affect on the Watershed ...... 20

3. Resiliency Analysis ...... 23

3.1 Ranking/Categorization Approach ...... 23

3.2 Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat ...... 23

page i Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

3.2.1 Factor 1 - Canopy Closure ...... 24

3.2.2 Factor 2 - Comparison of Forest Types to Resilient Conditions ...... 28

3.2.3 Factor 3 - Wildfire Hazard ...... 30

3.2.4 Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat Composite Ranking ...... 33

3.3 Value B - Resilient River Corridor ...... 34

3.3.1 Factor 1 - Roads ...... 35

3.3.2 Factor 2 - Debris Flow Hazard ...... 38

3.3.3 Factor 3 - Soil Erodibility/Granitic Parent Material Hazard ...... 39

3.3.4 Factor 4 - Sediment Transport ...... 43

3.3.5 Value B - Resilient River Corridor Composite Ranking ...... 48

3.4 Value C - Reliable Water Supply ...... 49

3.4.1 Factor 1 - Land Use Impacts on Water Quality ...... 50

3.4.2 Factor 2 - Existing Water Quality Impairment ...... 51

3.4.3 Factor 3 - Source Supply Areas ...... 52

3.4.4 Factor 4 - Sediment Deposition ...... 54

3.4.5 Value C - Reliable Water Supply Composite Ranking ...... 56

3.5 Overall Watershed Priority Analysis ...... 57

4. Priority Watershed Targets and Treatments ...... 59

4.1 Priority Watershed Target Areas ...... 59

4.2 Actions to Increase Watershed Resilience ...... 59

4.2.1 Forest/Vegetation Management ...... 60

4.2.2 Managing Wildland Fire ...... 62

4.2.3 Road Management ...... 62

4.3.4 Riparian and Floodplain Restoration ...... 63

4.3 Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area ...... 63

4.3.1 Summary of Conditions in the Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area ...... 63

4.3.2 Targeted Actions in the Horsetooth Reservoir Watershed Target Area ...... 65

4.4 Lone Pine Creek Target Area ...... 67

4.4.1 Summary of Conditions in the Lone Pine Creek Target Area ...... 67

4.4.2 Targeted Actions in the Lone Pine Creek Target Area ...... 68

4.5 Lower Poudre - Hill Gulch Target Area ...... 70

page ii Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

4.5.1 Summary of Conditions in the Lower Poudre - Hill Gulch Target Area ...... 70

4.5.2 Targeted Actions in the Lower Poudre - Hill Gulch Target Area ...... 72

4.6 Meadow Creek Target Area ...... 73

4.6.1 Summary of Conditions in the Meadow Creek Target Area ...... 73

4.6.2 Targeted Actions in the Meadow Creek Target Area ...... 75

4.7 Pennock Creek Target Area ...... 77

4.7.1 Summary of Conditions in the Pennock Creek Target Area ...... 77

4.7.2 Targeted Actions in the Pennock Creek Target Area ...... 78

4.8 Upper Poudre - Black Hollow Target Area ...... 80

4.8.1 Summary of Conditions in the Upper Poudre - Black Hollow Target Area ...... 80

4.8.2 Targeted Actions in the Upper Poudre - Black Hollow Target Area ...... 81

5. Monitoring Approach ...... 86

5.1 Address Data Gaps ...... 86

5.1.1 Riparian and Floodplain Condition and Function ...... 86

5.1.2 Livestock Grazing Locations and Conditions ...... 87

5.2 Confirm Watershed Conditions ...... 87

5.2.1 Forest Types and Density ...... 87

5.2.2 Roads ...... 88

5.2.3 Sediment Transport and Delivery ...... 88

5.3 Watershed Conditions and Trends ...... 88

6. Implementation Schedule ...... 90

7. References ...... 92

Appendices A - Upper Poudre Watershed 6th and 7th Level Watersheds

B - Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat Watershed Analysis Results

C - Value B - Resilient River Corridor Watershed Analysis Results

D - Value C - Reliable Water Supply Watershed Analysis Results

E - Overall Priority Watershed Analysis Results

F - Riparian and Floodplain Monitoring Protocol

G - Roads Monitoring Field Sheets

page iii Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

List of Tables

Table 1.1 6th Level Watersheds in Upper Poudre Watershed ...... 4

Table 1.2 Key Stakeholders Involved in the Planning Process ...... 5

Table 2.1 Forest Life Zones in the Upper Poudre Watershed ...... 10

Table 2.2 Reservoirs within Upper Cache la Poudre River Basin ...... 20

Table 3.1 Moderate and High Burn Severity Watersheds in the Hewlett Gulch Fire 24 ......

Table 3.2 Moderate and High Burn Severity Watersheds in the High Park Fire ...... 25

Table 3.3 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Canopy Closure 27 ......

Table 3.4 Resilient Canopy Closure for each Montane Forest Type 28 ......

Table 3.5 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Comparison to Resilient Conditions ...... 30

Table 3.6 Fire Suppression Implications of Flame Length 31 ......

Table 3.7 Rate of Spread Based on Flame Length 32 ......

Table 3.8 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Composite Wildfire Hazard 33 ......

Table 3.9 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat 34 ......

Table 3.10 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Road Density 35 ......

Table 3.11 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Roads Close to Streams 36 ......

Table 3.12 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Road/Stream Crossings 37 ......

Table 3.13 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Composite Roads 37 ......

Table 3.14 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Debris Flow Hazard 38 ......

Table 3.15 NRCS Criteria for Determining Potential Soil Erodibility 39 ......

Table 3.16 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Potential Soil Erodibility ...... 40

Table 3.17 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Granitic Parent Material ...... 41

Table 3.18 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Soil Erodibility/Granitic Material Composite 43 ......

Table 3.19 Summary of Rosgen Criteria for Broad-Level Characterization 45 ......

Table 3.20 Relationship Between Sediment Transport Characteristics and Rosgen Channel Type 47 ......

Table 3.21 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Sediment Transport 48 ......

Table 3.22 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Value B Composite 49 ......

Table 3.23 Highest Ranking Watershed for Land Use Hazard ...... 51

Table 3.24 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Water Quality Impairment 52 ......

page iv Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

List of Tables (continued)

Table 3.25 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Source Supply Hazard 53 ......

Table 3.26 Stream Junction Sediment Transport Tagging Guidelines 55 ......

Table 3.27 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Sediment Deposition Hazard 56 ......

Table 3.28 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Value C - Reliable Water Supply Composite 57 ......

Table 3.29 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Overall Watershed Priority ...... 58

Table 4.1. Priority Watershed Target Areas in the Upper Poudre Watershed ...... 59

Table 4.2. Horsetooth Reservoir Small Watershed Component Ranking ...... 65

Table 4.3. Horsetooth Reservoir Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds ...... 66

Table 4.4. Lone Pine Creek Small Watershed Component Ranking ...... 68

Table 4.5. Lone Pine Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds ...... 69

Table 4.6. Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Small Watershed Component Ranking ...... 71

Table 4.7. Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds ...... 73

Table 4.8. Meadow Creek Small Watershed Component Ranking ...... 75

Table 4.9. Meadow Creek Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds ...... 76

Table 4.10. Pennock Creek Small Watershed Component Ranking ...... 78

Table 4.11. Pennock Creek Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds ...... 79

Table 4.12. Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Small Watershed Component Ranking ...... 82

Table 4.13. Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds ...... 83

Table 6.1. Implementation Priority for Watershed Target Areas ...... 91

List of Figures

Figure 4.1. Horsetooth Reservoir Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions ...... 64

Figure 4.2. Lone Pine Creek Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions ...... 67

Figure 4.3. Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions ...... 70

Figure 4.4. Meadow Creek Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions ...... 74

Figure 4.5. Pennock Creek Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions ...... 77

Figure 4.6. Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions ...... 80

page v Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

List of Maps

Map 1.1 Upper Poudre Watershed Project Area 6th and 7th Level Watersheds

Map 2.1 Forest Life Zones in the Upper Poudre Watershed (based on Kaufmann et al. 2006)

Map 2.2 Vegetation Types in the Upper Poudre Watershed

Map 3.1 Upper Poudre Watershed Forest Canopy Closure

Map 3.2 Upper Poudre Watershed Canopy Closure Ranking

Map 3.3 Upper Poudre Watershed Non-Resilient Forest Conditions

Map 3.4 Upper Poudre Watershed Non-Resilient Forest Conditions Ranking

Map 3.5 Upper Poudre Watershed CO-WRAP Flame Length Results

Map 3.6 Upper Poudre Watershed CO-WRAP Fire Intensity Results

Map 3.7 Upper Poudre Watershed CO-WRAP Fire Type Extreme Results

Map 3.8 Upper Poudre Watershed Composite Wildfire Hazard Ranking

Map 3.9 Upper Poudre Watershed Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat Composite Ranking

Map 3.10 Upper Poudre Watershed Composite Roads Ranking

Map 3.11 Upper Poudre Watershed Debris Flow Hazard Ranking

Map 3.12 Upper Poudre Watershed Potential Soil Erodibility

Map 3.13 Upper Poudre Watershed Granitic Geology

Map 3.14 Upper Poudre Watershed Soil Erodibility/Granitic Material Composite Ranking

Map 3.15 Upper Poudre Watershed Sediment Transport Stream Classification

Map 3.16 Upper Poudre Watershed Sediment Transport Ranking

Map 3.17 Upper Poudre Watershed Value B - Resilient River Corridor Composite Ranking

Map 3.18 Upper Poudre Watershed Land Use Hazard Ranking

Map 3.19 Upper Poudre Watershed Existing Water Quality Impairment Ranking

Map 3.20 Upper Poudre Watershed Zones of Concern Ranking

Map 3.21 Upper Poudre Watershed Sediment Deposition Junctions

Map 3.22 Upper Poudre Watershed Sediment Deposition Ranking

Map 3.23 Upper Poudre Watershed Value C - Reliable Water Supply Composite Ranking

Map 3.24 Upper Poudre Watershed Overall Priority Ranking

Map 4.1 Upper Poudre Watershed Target Areas

Map 4.2 Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area Ownership

page vi Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

List of Maps (continued)

Map 4.3 Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area Vegetation Types

Map 4.4 Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area Watershed Priority Ranking

Map 4.5 Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area Target Forest Areas

Map 4.6 Lone Pine Creek Target Area Ownership

Map 4.7 Lone Pine Creek Target Area Special Areas

Map 4.8 Lone Pine Creek Target Area Vegetation Types

Map 4.9 Lone Pine Creek Target Area Watershed Priority Ranking

Map 4.10 Lone Pine Creek Target Area Target Forest Areas

Map 4.11 Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area Ownership

Map 4.12 Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area Special Areas

Map 4.13 Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area Vegetation Types

Map 4.14 Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area Watershed Priority Ranking

Map 4.15 Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area Target Forest Areas

Map 4.16 Meadow Creek Target Area Ownership

Map 4.17 Meadow Creek Target Area Vegetation Types

Map 4.18 Meadow Creek Target Area Watershed Priority Ranking

Map 4.19 Meadow Creek Target Area Target Forest Areas

Map 4.20 Pennock Creek Target Area Ownership

Map 4.21 Pennock Creek Target Area Special Areas

Map 4.22 Pennock Creek Target Area Vegetation Types

Map 4.23 Pennock Creek Target Area Watershed Priority Ranking

Map 4.24 Pennock Creek Target Area Target Forest Areas

Map 4.25 Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area Ownership

Map 4.26 Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area Special Areas

Map 4.27 Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area Vegetation Types

Map 4.28 Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area Watershed Priority Ranking

Map 4.29 Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area Target Forest Areas

page vii Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Upper Poudre Watershed Resilience Plan - Summary

The purpose of the Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan is to analyze conditions in the Upper Poudre Watershed with the intent of improving long-term watershed resilience. The analysis is used to identify target areas and determine priorities and actions within those areas that would increase watershed resilience. Resilience is the central concept because of the diversity of ecosystem services and supplies that the Upper Poudre Watershed provides to our communities, and the long-term need to maintain or improve these services, even under fluctuating environmental conditions. Some of these important ecosystem services and supplies include; clean water, mitigation of natural hazards such as floods, wood products, recreation, cultural heritage, aesthetics, and the recycling of carbon dioxide into oxygen. Local communities depend on our forests to provide relatively stable outputs, despite natural disturbances that could affect the quantity and quality of these ecosystem services and supplies.

Watershed Resilience

Watersheds have higher integrity or resiliency when they have conditions that allow them to experience disturbances and recover relatively quickly. Resilient watersheds have the following characteristics:

✦ Forests that are diverse in terms of both forest types and density ✦ Areas of high wildfire hazard that are relatively small and separated from other watersheds that have high wildfire hazard ✦ Intact, functional riparian areas that can respond quickly after disturbances ✦ Riparian vegetation composed of native vegetation ✦ Floodplains are connected to streams that flood during larger runoff events ✦ Upland areas have appropriate ground cover, comprised of mostly native vegetation, that can recover quickly following disturbances ✦ Roads that have minimal impacts on watershed functions ✦ Where development occurs in watersheds, it has minimal impacts on watershed functions The Upper Poudre Resiliency Plan is focused on watersheds that have some forest component and are located in the foothills and higher elevations (Map 1) within the Cache La Poudre Watershed. There are 37 6th Level watersheds within the Upper Poudre Watershed that cover 688,678 acres. The 6th Level watersheds were further divided into 7th Level watersheds, which are the units for this analysis. There are 317 7th Level watersheds in the Upper Poudre Watershed.

page S-1 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final , N A C n o R t , g N o n i

l , l p e o S W t P s s N i

, w s O

, A ) s n F i g l

l , n o C

e S o t y r e K G o k

F c S u g B n U

o , H O e ( t

h r C t o a o p B o s a n t t i L e h E y n s t g h o r i i h y o e G r e t n

n C H H i u a ,

i . v u o C l

o r l l p e o v s w m r B t r O E o e e e m

l l , i s s C e o I v r

r n e o T C o P o

s m

R r r E a t e H M e v n i M L s

e , U n m

a l e S l r I p i c a r G H n

- J h i e

i e e c , r l r k h w p r t s u d a

o a P E

G u d L

e , r m n o r d y u a P e e

o t , P v n s r I r

u , o t S e

m k u a a e k o r b a i D c T r w n t a m h a n s i o o n M T c d

, r p e O a

, m r M L t o N e L

e r e r n e t e t D v w

a S s k , o H

n a e E n d e d e e l a R r p G a e E C K O

H , M s

r © g , N e i n i , g r d g i G s a E I S i

e E , d i k

r T : e a n I P s s

s y e a e t c s m s B r E w p o u o n a e d o a i a k d e S G M e n I M e n l i e l k r e r o e P e d r

n h C o e r c e

s o h e o E

r t e G C k d a k n n e C e a e c l R F L o G o L n n e P e d l i k w c l y a d l I r w B e - o l p e l r p o d c U i H t u s u o R P k i n i k i n i K r s e t c h n g i e e p S H s e l i M 6 1 y e v e 2 d 1 n e l G s t e y 8 t g i r r a d o l O i u T

r o G d P

e e t d h t a e t s s r s h r e e e s e r h h d t 4 w w e g g a o i i t o o a W L L M H H d W

l n l 2 e a r g e v e L O 0 Map 1. Upper Poudre Watershed Overall Priority Watersheds and Target Areas

page S-2 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Stakeholder Process

The Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan was developed through a stakeholder review and revision process. The Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) led the stakeholder process, which started before the technical analysis of the plan began. The Stakeholder Group includes a number of key agencies, groups, citizens and other organizations (Table 1) that directed the formation of the plan and reviewed progress during approximately 14 meetings over the last three years.

Table 1. Key Stakeholders Involved in the Planning Process City of Fort Collins Colorado State Forest Service USFS/Rocky Mountain Research Station City of Greeley Wildland Restoration Volunteers The Nature Conservancy Trout Unlimited Larimer County Natural Resources Conservation Service Northern Water Colorado Conservation Exchange Private citizens US Forest Service Colorado State University Other private and non-profit organizations

Watershed Values for Analysis

Three watershed values that functionally describe the resilient conditions and were compared to the conditions in the watershed to evaluate where hazardous conditions could develop. These values and the factors used in the analysis include:

Value A - Resilient Upland Habitats Factor 1 - Canopy Closure Factor 2 - Comparison of Vegetation Types to Resilient Conditions Factor 3 - Wildfire Hazard

Value B - Resilient River Corridor

Factor 1 – Roads Factor 2 – Debris Flow Hazard Factor 3 – Soil Erodibility/Granitic Parent Material Hazard Factor 4 – Sediment Transport

Value C - Reliable Water Supply Factor 1 - Land Use Impacts on Water Quality Factor 2 - Existing Water Quality Impairment Factor 3 - Source Water Supply Areas Factor 4 – Sediment Deposition

page S-3 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Watershed Prioritization

A watershed assessment analysis was completed that prioritized the 7th Level watersheds for the factors within each value. It combined the factors to complete an assessment and prioritization for each value and a composite assessment using all three values created a final priority ranking.

Target Areas and Actions to Increase Watershed Resilience

Six priority watershed target areas were identified and actions identified for each of the areas (Table 2). Actions will focus on increasing watershed resilience. Potential actions are briefly described below.

Table 2. Priority Watershed Target Areas and Non-resilient Forest Types1 Total area Ponderosa Mixed Lodgepole Spruce Non-resilient Watershed Target Area (acres) pine conifer Aspen pine fir forest (acres)

Horsetooth Reservoir 10,992 2,683 744 381 0 0 3,808

Pennock Creek 24,737 280 1,610 196 2,753 285 5,123

Upper Poudre - Black Hollow 47,331 5,097 8,712 790 2,996 511 18,106 - Sevenmile

Lower Poudre - Hill Gulch 23,770 4,361 1,149 133 4 3 5,651

Lone Pine Creek 29,549 3,689 5,264 680 1,116 94 10,845

Meadow Creek 29,887 6,497 3,217 356 0 2 10,073

Totals 166,266 22,607 20,696 2,537 6,870 896 53,605

Forest/Vegetation Management Reducing forest density (canopy cover) and increasing forest type and canopy cover diversity would be the primary goals of forest treatments. Disconnecting dense forest areas from adjacent dense forest or watersheds would be a goal for forested areas that would not be able to be treated directly. In areas of high wildfire hazard, the reduction of the extent of high wildfire severity is the goal for minimizing adverse hydrologic responses following intense wildfires. A number of forest treatments would be considered including; standard silvicultural prescriptions, as well as, prescribed fire and creation of fuel breaks. Forest management actions would be primarily directed at areas of identified non-resilient forest (Table 1). Managing Wildland Fire In many high hazard watersheds, active forest management is not possible due to logistical or administrative inaccessibility. In these areas, as well as areas that are accessible, wildland fire can be a good tool that can create more resilient forest and watersheds. In order to manage wildland fire for watershed protection benefits, the Upper Poudre Watershed stakeholders would need to work with federal and state agencies to plan for managing wildland fires in specific locations as a management tool that would allow wildfire to reduce

1 Non-resilient forest types in the above table are outside of wilderness and upper tier roadless areas

page S-4 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final wildland fuels under defined circumstances. The conditions would be monitored frequently to ensure that the fire stays within that management prescription or suppression efforts would be required.

Road Management Roads can be a major source of sediment delivery to streams. Flooding and increased peak flows following wildfires have lead to erosion and sometimes catastrophic failure of roads next to streams. Many road/stream crossings can become overwhelmed during floods and post wildfire rainfall/runoff events due to the high volumes of streamflow and debris. These road/stream crossings can fail and become debris flows in worst-case scenarios.

Actions to identify and manage roads in high hazard watersheds can reduce the hazards presented by poorly located or designed roads. Actions are dependent on the problem that specific roads present in those watersheds, but could involve; improved drainage, better road surfacing, relocation or decommissioning of problem roads, and replacing undersized culverts that would improve both ditch drainage and road/stream crossings. Riparian and Floodplain Restoration Restoration of riparian and floodplain areas can increase the function of these critical areas and thereby increase watershed resilience. Riparian and floodplain restoration projects could include;

✦ Removal of non-native vegetation and planting and/or seeding of native vegetation

✦ Remove encroaching conifers and re-establish hardwoods (i.e. willows and aspen)

✦ Reshape, protect, and vegetate eroding stream banks

✦ Create connections to side channels and floodplain areas

✦ Reshape stream channels to more natural form and function

Monitoring

The Upper Poudre Watershed Resilience Plan has identified priorities to improve watershed resiliency at the 7th Level watershed including target areas and specific actions. As the project moves forward, several tasks will be completed in conjunction or prior to designing treatment: identified data gaps in the resilience plan analysis need to be filled; conditions in targeted watersheds need to be confirmed; a long-term plan to evaluate watershed trends needs to be put in place. In order to meet these short and long-term goals, a monitoring plan has been developed which includes the following three components:

✦ Gather data to fill in gaps in the resilience analysis in the plan ✦ Confirm or refine conditions in targeted watersheds ✦ Assess watershed conditions and trends over time

page S-5 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

1. Introduction The purpose of this document is to analyze conditions in the Upper Poudre Watershed with the intent of improving long-term watershed resilience. The analysis is used to identify target areas and determine priorities and actions with those areas that would increase watershed resilience. 1.1. Why Resilience is Important

Resilience has been defined in terms of natural systems by Holling (1973) as -

The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks

The State of Colorado defines community resilience as –

The ability of communities to rebound, positively adapt to, or thrive amidst changing conditions or challenges – including disasters and climate change – and maintain quality of life, healthy growth, durable systems, and conservation of resources for present and future generations. Resilience is being adopted as an important concept because of the diversity of ecosystem services and supplies that our forests provide to our communities and long-term need to maintain or improve these services, even under fluctuating environmental conditions. Some of these important ecosystem services and supplies include; clean water, mitigation of natural hazards such as floods, wood products, recreation, cultural heritage, aesthetics, and the recycling of carbon dioxide into oxygen. Local communities depend on our forests to provide relatively stable outputs, despite natural disturbances that could affect the quantity and quality of these ecosystem services and supplies. 1.2. Watershed Resilience

Watersheds have higher integrity or resiliency when they have conditions that allow them to experience disturbances and recover relatively quickly. Resilient watersheds have the following characteristics:

1. Forests that are diverse in terms of both forest types and density.

Forests in Colorado are disturbance dependent and the variation of forest vegetation, age and density can greatly affect the intensity and scope of a disturbance that moves through a given area. Forested watersheds that have low vegetative diversity are susceptible to insect or disease epidemics that target specific forest types. Vegetative diversity works as a buffer by insulating some of the targeted trees and also by maintaining forested conditions when only a limited number of the existing trees are affected by the particular insect or disease. Density, even if the vegetation is diverse, increases susceptibility to watershed-scale disturbances. Dense forests are usually less vigorous because the trees are competing for limited resources, which makes them more susceptible to insects and diseases. If the forest is overly

page 1 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

dense and also has low diversity, an insect or disease outbreak can quickly become an epidemic, potentially causing large-scale mortality. This has been observed with extensive mountain pine beetle epidemics throughout the west, including Colorado. Dense forests are also more prone to burning hot during wildfires as it is easier for the fire to move through the tree crowns, rapidly consuming large amounts of vegetation. As compared to more uniformly dense forested watersheds, forests that have open areas, either of lower forest density or meadows, experience lower intensity and mixed burn severity during wildfires. Additionally, overly dense forests also often have limited ground cover when they become overly dense, and therefore have long recovery times for protective ground cover following wildfire or insect mortality. This can hamper recovery and increase the risk of post-disturbance erosion.

2. Areas of high wildfire hazard that are relatively small and separated from other watersheds that have high wildfire hazard.

Many watersheds in the Upper Poudre Watershed have areas of naturally dense forest and an associated high wildfire hazard. Attempting to manage these forest types as open forest can be difficult because their natural state is to become more dense. However, if these dense areas are isolated from other dense areas, both within the watershed and compared to adjacent watersheds, disturbances that impact them will be isolated to those areas and not propagated to other dense areas, reducing the extent of the disturbance.

3. Intact, functional riparian areas that can respond quickly after disturbances.

Riparian areas are critical in the Upper Poudre Watershed. They provide unique habitats for both plants and animals. Riparian areas filter sediment from uplands, reduce peak flows by increasing channel roughness, provide shade to reduce water temperatures, and provide organic matter to aquatic ecosystems. Riparian areas that are composed of trees and shrubs that quickly resprout (i.e. aspen, willow, etc.) after disturbances, such as wildfire and floods, can reduce impacts from disturbances and aid recovery.

4. Riparian vegetation composed of native vegetation

Riparian areas that are dominated by non-native species, such as tamarisk or cheat grass, respond differently to disturbances than native vegetation. Many non-native species respond quickly to disturbances, potentially crowding out native species that recover more slowly. Riparian areas that have even limited populations of non-native species generally face expansion of those populations following disturbances. Over the long-term, invasion of non-native species is damaging to the proper functioning of the riparian area which depends on native species for creating appropriate pathways for habitats, nutrient cycling and structure.

5. Floodplains are connected to streams that flood during larger runoff events.

Streams can become disconnected from their floodplains due to channelization, road construction, or flooding impacts. Floodplains have important functions during peak flow events because they divert some of the flow onto the floodplain where the water slows down and drops sediment. Those overbank flows create high quality riparian habitat by providing water, soil and nutrients for plant growth. When floodplains are disconnected from streams, peak flows are higher and sediments are transported and

page 2 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

deposited further downstream. Increased sediment transport downstream can impact water quality and results in export of soil and nutrients from the watershed, and riparian areas do not receive the sediment inputs needed to maintain a healthy riparian ecosystem.

6. Upland areas have appropriate ground cover, comprised of mostly native vegetation, that can recover quickly following disturbances.

Uplands may have minimal ground cover for various reasons including dense forest cover, or land use impacts from developments or grazing. Some forest types have reduced ground cover because the dense trees are using all the nutrients and water available at the site. Lodgepole pine, mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forest types can become sufficiently dense to have minimal ground cover. In areas with minimal ground cover, recovery following disturbances is slower. This not only increases the potential for erosion and soil loss but also gives non-native species a competitive advantage as these species tend to react more quickly than native species to disturbances.

7. Roads that have minimal impacts on watershed functions.

Roads create impervious ground and require drainage systems to control runoff. Roads can increase runoff, peak flows and sediment yields to streams. Adequately designed drainage systems can minimize these impacts. Roads on the granitic derived soils in many places in the Upper Poudre Watershed have proven to be especially susceptible to increased runoff and sediment yields. There are many roads that are located in riparian areas or floodplains adjacent to streams. Roads next to streams have a higher potential for impacting streams because they reduce the size of riparian areas and floodplains, and the proximity increases the risk of sediments impacting the stream. Road/stream crossings can also be undersized, which is of particular concern following disturbances. Post-wildfire runoff usually carries high debris loads and has higher peak flows which can overwhelm an otherwise functional culvert. Recent flooding in the Upper Poudre Watershed and the Big Thompson Watershed just to the south, has demonstrated the downstream impacts of culverts and the associated road fill failing, which have resulted in large debris flows.

8. Where development occurs in watersheds, it has minimal impacts on watershed functions.

Developments create concentrated areas of impervious ground that increases runoff and peak flows. Runoff from developed areas often contains pollutants; such as sediment, oil, nutrients, etc. Developments create higher road density which increases runoff, peak flows and sediment yields. In rural areas, developments may create a high density of septic systems which can impact water quality if they are close to streams.

1.3. Geographic Scope of the Plan

The project area for the Upper Poudre Resiliency Plan is focused on watersheds that have some forest component and are located in the foothills and higher elevations (Map 1.1) within the Upper Poudre Watershed. The Upper Poudre Watershed is part of the fourth-level (8-digit) Cache la Poudre Watershed (HUC 10190007) which drains into the South Platte River. There are 37 6th Level watersheds (12-digit) within the Upper Poudre Watershed that cover 688,678 acres (Table 1.1).

page 3 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 1.1. 6th Level Watersheds in Upper Poudre Watershed Hydrologic Unit Code Watershed Area 6th Level Watershed (HUC) (acres) Beaver Creek 101900070101 14,136 Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre River 101900070102 11,094 Pennock Creek 101900070103 11,068 Little Beaver Creek 101900070104 11,562 Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River 101900070105 18,640 Hague Creek 101900070201 8,685 Headwaters Cache La Poudre River 101900070202 12,709 La Poudre Pass Creek 101900070203 14,106 Joe Wright Creek 101900070204 24,469 Willow Creek-Cache La Poudre River 101900070205 21,896 Sheep Creek 101900070206 13,966 Roaring Creek 101900070207 9,939 Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River 101900070208 37,739 Bennet Creek 101900070209 9,210 Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River 101900070210 18,640 Elkhorn Creek 101900070301 22,259 Youngs Gulch 101900070302 9,823 Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River 101900070303 14,920 Gordon Creek 101900070304 13,908 Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River 101900070305 11,161 North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek 101900070401 29,787 Sheep Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre Creek 101900070402 35,587 North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Bull Creek 101900070403 34,295 Trail Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre River 101900070404 23,034 Lower Dale Creek 101900070502 21,891 Fish Creek-Dale Creek 101900070503 23,098 Deadman Creek 101900070504 14,665 South Fork Lone Pine Creek 101900070601 16,306 North Fork Lone Pine Creek 101900070602 25,269 Lone Pine Creek 101900070603 14,153 Halligan Reservoir 101900070701 15,127 Rabbit Creek 101900070702 28,861 Stonewall Creek 101900070703 20,546 Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache La Poudre River 101900070704 30,516 Owl Creek 101900070801 11,263 Horsetooth Reservoir 101900070802 10,992 City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River 101900070805 23,356 688,678

page 4 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

The 6th Level watersheds were further divided into 7th Level (14-digit) watersheds, which are the units for this analysis. There are 317 7th Level watersheds in the Upper Poudre Watershed. The small-scale 7th Level watersheds were used in this analysis because identifying specific projects that could potentially increase watershed resilience is more appropriate at the smaller scale. Completing the watershed resilience analysis at the 7th Level watershed scale makes the analysis more valuable for the next step of identifying projects to address the specific reasons that the identified watersheds were ranked as less resilient. The Upper Poudre Watershed and its 6th Level and 7th Level watersheds are shown on Map 1.1. The 6th Level watersheds are listed in Table 1.1 and the 7th Level watersheds are listed in Appendix A.

1.4. Stakeholder Process

The Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan was developed through a stakeholder review and revision process. The Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed (CPRW) led the stakeholder process, which started before the technical analysis of the plan began. The Stakeholder Group includes a number of key agencies, groups, citizens and other organizations (Table 1.2). The Stakeholder Group directed the formation of the plan and reviewed progress during approximately 14 meetings over the last three years.

Table 1.2. Key Stakeholders Involved in the Planning Process Key Stakeholders City of Fort Collins City of Greeley Trout Unlimited Northern Water US Forest Service Colorado State Forest Service Wildland Restoration Volunteers Larimer County Colorado Conservation Exchange Colorado State University USFS/Rocky Mountain Research Station The Nature Conservancy Natural Resources Conservation Service Private citizens Other private and non-profit organizations

page 5 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

The review and direction process also included a Science and Monitoring Committee, which met to review and provide direction on key scientific issues related to the plan. The Science and Monitoring Committee has met more than six times over the last two years. During the detailed analysis phase of the plan, the CPRW Stakeholder Group and Science and Monitoring Committee meetings were focused on reviewing the detailed analysis results and providing technical review and direction for revisions, or recommending additional analyses.

The values for analysis and the components (factors) that are presented below are the result of the stakeholder review and revision process.

1.5. Values for Analysis

The Stakeholder Group for the Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan determined three watershed values that would functionally describe the resilient condition and which could be compared to the conditions in the existing watershed to evaluate where hazardous conditions could develop. These values include: Value A - Resilient Upland Habitats Value B - Resilient River Corridor Value C - Reliable Water Supply

For each of these values, the CPRW Stakeholder Group developed an associated goal for moving towards a resilient condition as well as factors for analysis that will be used to measure progress towards the goal.

1.5.1. Value A - Resilient Upland Habitats Upland habitats maintain key ecological characteristics that, when healthy and functioning properly, increase the likelihood that the watershed can withstand and recover from natural disturbances. Some of these characteristics include historical disturbance regimes, appropriate forest canopy cover and age structure, native vegetation, and healthy and diverse soils to support native vegetation and maximize infiltration and reduce runoff volume. Healthy upland habitats provide numerous ecosystem benefits and services. They support biodiversity, carbon sequestration, protection against invasive species, and limited sediment delivery to receiving streams. They also provide services for human use including natural resource extraction (such as timber), recreation, and lands for agriculture and grazing.

Upland habitats are at risk from both natural and human caused disturbances including wildfire, drought, insect and disease outbreaks, floods, development in the Wildland Urban Interface, and land use. If their key ecological characteristics are compromised, the overall resiliency of the watershed could be reduced, particularly in those watersheds that are already showing signs of stress.

The Stakeholder Group defined a project goal for Value A - Healthy Upland Habitats:

Identify which watersheds have the greatest need for restoration based upon selected evaluation indicators of resilient upland habitats.

page 6 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

In order to analytically determine specific watersheds with upland habitats in need of restoration, the Stakeholder Group chose three factors that are to be used to evaluate upland habitat health. For each factor an evaluation process was determined to describe both resilient and existing conditions and to rank watersheds as compared to resilient conditions. The evaluation process is discussed in Chapter 3. The factors used to evaluate the resilient condition for the Upland Habitats include:

Factor 1 - Canopy Closure

Factor 2 - Comparison of Vegetation Types to Resilient Conditions

Factor 3 - Wildfire Hazard

1.5.2. Value B - Resilient River Corridor The Cache la Poudre River and its aquatic ecosystems maintain key ecological/hydrological features and characteristics that, when together are functioning properly, protect downstream habitats and human uses. Some of these include the connection between uplands, the river and the floodplain, diverse aquatic habitats, appropriate water quality conditions (physical, chemical and biological) and riparian areas.

A resilient river corridor provides numerous ecosystem benefits and services including biodiversity, downstream flood and erosion protection, habitat for native fish, reduced sediment delivery to downstream habitats and resources, and recreation.

The Stakeholder Group defined a project goal for Value B - Resilient River Corridor:

Determine which watersheds have the greatest need for restoration and/or protection based upon selected evaluation indicators of a resilient river corridor.

In order to analytically accomplish this goal, the Stakeholder Group chose four factors to evaluate the river corridors in the Upper Poudre Watershed. For each factor, an evaluation process was determined to both describe resilient and existing conditions and to rank watersheds as compared to resilient conditions. The evaluation process is discussed in Chapter 3. The factors used to evaluate the resilient condition for the River Corridor include: Factor 1 – Roads Factor 2 – Debris Flow Hazard Factor 3 – Soil Erodibility/Granitic Parent Material Hazard Factor 4 – Sediment Transport

1.5.3. Value C - Reliable Water Supply The Cache la Poudre River and its tributaries provide critical water supplies to Front Range and local residents. Reliably maintaining this water supply depends on clean water that is free of excess sediment or other pollutants. A clean and reliable water supply provides a predictable source of drinking and irrigation water.

The water supply is at risk from both natural and human caused disturbances including wildfire, drought, insect and disease outbreaks, floods, and pollution.

page 7 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

The Stakeholder Group defined a project goal for Value C - Reliable Water Supply:

Determine which watersheds have the greatest need for restoration based upon the indicators of a reliable and predictable water supply.

In order to analytically determine specific watersheds that provide water supplies and that are in need of restoration, the Stakeholder group chose four factors to be used to evaluate the rivers in the Upper Poudre Watershed. For each factor an evaluation process was determined to both describe resilient and existing conditions and to rank watersheds as compared to resilient conditions. The evaluation process is discussed in Chapter 3. The factors used to evaluate the resilient condition for the Reliable Water Supply include:

Factor 1 - Land Use Impacts on Water Quality

Factor 2 - Existing Water Quality Impairment

Factor 3 - Source Supply Areas

Factor 4 – Sediment Deposition

page 8 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

2.Resilient Conditions The Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan uses the concept of “resilient condition” as a comparison to the existing watershed conditions to identify areas within the watershed that could develop hazardous conditions following disturbances, threatening downstream uses and watershed function, and to develop potential improvement projects to protect these areas. The purpose of this chapter is to define what resilient conditions look like for the Upper Poudre Watershed. The analysis examines resiliency for each of the three values discussed in Chapter 1: resilient upland habitats, resilient river corridors and reliable water supplies. 2.1 The Impact of Climate Change and Future Conditions

Climate change has likely had impacts on the Upper Poudre Watershed in the recent past and will continue to influence the magnitude of disturbances and baseline environment affecting the watershed in the future. In Colorado, statewide annual average temperatures have increased by 2 degrees (F) over the past 30 years (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2014). Further increases in temperature are predicted (Walsh et al. 2014). Although there is not a consensus on changes in precipitation (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2014), changes in climate are expected to lead to increases in the frequency of droughts, insect epidemics, and large wildfires in Colorado (Funk and Saunders 2014). Large forest fires have increased in size, frequency and duration in the western United States (Westerling et al. 2006 and Jolly et al. 2015).

The changes to the forests of the Upper Poudre Watershed from climate change are difficult to predict, but it appears that scientists are expecting more drought, earlier and warmer springs, more wildfires and more large- scale insect outbreaks. Natural disturbances are expected to become more significant to the forests of this watershed. 2.2 Resilient Conditions for Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat

2.2.1 Forest Life Zones Forests within in a common life zone are likely to have similar biotic communities that vary with increases in altitude and increases in latitude. Different approaches to categorizing these zones have been used including focusing on the predominant vegetation of an area. In the Rocky Mountain region, elevation is often a major factor in determining the types of vegetation that occupy a given site in a particular Life Zone, with the vegetation types changing dramatically with altitude. In the Upper Poudre Watershed, Forest Life Zones are useful in providing a general description of the forests in the watershed as well as a base understanding of what kind of vegetation is likely to be found across the landscape. Studying these life or vegetation zones, along with variations in soils, aspect, local weather patterns, and disturbance history, gives insight into the types of vegetation that would be expected to be found in a resilient upland habitat.

page 9 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Kaufmann et al. (2006) identified five major Life Zones, in the Colorado Front Range that are approximately determined by elevation, ranging from the low elevation Plains/Grassland up to the high elevation Alpine. In the Upper Poudre Watershed, an analysis shows that most of the watershed is evenly divided between the Lower Montane, Upper Montane and Subalpine/Alpine Life Zones, each occupying close to one-third of the watershed (Map 2.1 and Table 2.1). The remaining 5 percent of the watershed is a part of the Lower Ecotone Life Zone, most of which is within the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins.

The dominant tree species varies as elevation increases from the Lower Montane up to the Subalpine/Alpine zones. In the Lower Montane, ponderosa pine is a dominant tree species, although Douglas-fir is also present in many locations. The Upper Montane Zone is a transition from the Montane to the Subalpine zone and vegetation patterns are more complex. Although ponderosa pine is still a substantial component of the landscape, other tree species are also common including Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, limber pine, aspen and spruce. Topographic position, aspect and soils also influence the mix of vegetation creating a more complex vegetation mosaic. In the highest elevations of the watershed, in the Subalpine/Alpine Zone, lodgepole pine, aspen, spruce and true firs are the most common trees.

Table 2.1. Forest Life Zones in the Upper Poudre Watershed

Area Percentage Forest Life Zones (acres) (%)

Lower Ecotone 39,134 5%

Lower Montane 231,211 32%

Upper Montane 227,495 32%

Subalpine/Alpine 218,568 31%

The patterns of vegetation across the landscape were shaped not only by Life Zones but also by disturbances that maintained the landscape in a condition that was not static but which could withstand events such as fire and insects and disease. Historic fire regimes of the area (Kaufmann et al. 2006) indicate that at any given elevation, xeric (dry) sites were more likely to support low density stands and low severity fires than were mesic (moist) sites. Because of this variability, rather than a uniform historical landscape structure or fire behavior pattern across any specific vegetation zone, there was a mix of fire regimes and vegetative structure within each zone. However, across all vegetation zones, the proportion of the landscape that supported low density stands and low severity fires most likely decreased with increases in elevation, as the proportion of more mesic conditions increased. The more mesic conditions in the Upper Montane would have been characterized by a mixed severity fire regime, which would have created a heterogeneous vegetation structure.

2.2.2 Vegetation Types of the Upper Poudre Watershed Defining resilient upland conditions requires specific classifications that link knowledge of vegetation to types of disturbance and expected historical landscape structure. Therefore, in order to further evaluate a resilient condition, more specific classifications are needed. The Landfire vegetation data (USGS LANDFIRE, US 120evt)

page 10 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final contains 94 different vegetation classifications. By grouping these vegetation types into broader classifications, it becomes possible to view and understand patterns on the landscape. Specific classifications can then be completed that are also linked to historical landscape structure, disturbance patterns, and wildfire behavior.

The vegetation types that compose the Forest Life Zones of the Upper Poudre Watershed can be studied in conjunction with the expected disturbance regimes to analyze what vegetation patterns within each zone produced resilient conditions. This analysis gives insight into the range of conditions that would be considered resilient within the current and future contexts.

2.2.3 Forest Vegetation Type Resiliency Descriptions The following paragraphs describe the forest vegetation types of the Upper Poudre Watershed and the expected disturbance regimes within each type. Ponderosa Pine

The historical montane forest was likely quite open with fewer trees, greater age diversity between stands, and larger openings than the area displays today. Openings are defined as areas capable of producing forest, but that have no trees, or only a very small number of trees per acre arranged as individuals or small groups. Studies have indicated that, historically, fire typically served to maintain open mature stands, as well as to maintain some areas as openings. Brown et al. (1999) and Kaufmann et al. (2000) provide evidence that frequent, mixed-severity fires were most common in ponderosa pine stands from 1000 to 1870 AD. The area of severe fires were relatively small in extent, but they were critical in creating openings of 20 to 40 acres that were maintained by the dry site conditions until regeneration occurred. The open forest was protected from extensive fires because of the distance between tree crowns and the openings.

Smaller surface fires that did not move into the crowns would have encouraged the maintenance of ponderosa pine on these sites and limited the spread of Douglas-fir, which does not tolerate fire well, to sites where fires were infrequent, particularly wetter, north-facing slopes. The smaller fires would also have kept the forest more open by limiting the growth of understory trees.

Variation in frequency and severity of fires created a varied vegetative pattern across the landscape. This mosaic pattern would have been maintained, as the patch-like variations of age classes, densities, and openings, caused fires to skip around rather than kill the majority of trees over large areas in a single fire event. Some stands would have had many age classes from seedlings to trees more than 400 years old. There were probably few snags (standing dead trees) and cavities in live trees. A few stands would have been nearly even- aged due to stand-replacing fires followed by even-aged regeneration.

One key to the sustainability of the historical forest was the open condition, which played a role in preventing the development of large crown fires. Compared to current conditions, the historical forest conditions would have had larger distances between tree crowns combined with larger openings, reducing the likelihood of large crown fires. Openings may have covered 20 to 25 percent of the area, and some of these openings may have persisted for decades due to climatic and seed source limitations. Regeneration would have begun immediately on other burned sites. Therefore, post-fire patterns of regrowth would have had variations both in space and time, contributing to the complexity of the landscape.

page 11 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Ponderosa pine in the watershed can be divided into two classifications; xeric and mesic (Kaufmann et al. 2006). Each of these classifications had their own forest structure and species distribution that contributed to resilient conditions. Xeric Ponderosa Pine

Xeric ponderosa pine sites consist of mostly ponderosa pine as the dominant vegetation, with smaller areas having no dominant tree type but having Gambel oak/mountain mahogany. These systems had a history of frequent, low intensity fires, which created more open forested conditions.

Xeric ponderosa pine is classified as:

1. Ponderosa pine stands below an elevation of 6,500 feet, 2. Ponderosa and Douglas-fir stands between 6,500 and 7,500 feet in elevation except on north slopes, 3. Ponderosa and Douglas-fir stands between 7,500 and 8,500 feet in elevation on south and west aspects, and exposed ridges. Based upon the documented historic conditions and expected future conditions considering climate change, resilient xeric ponderosa pine areas would have the following characteristics:

• A more open forested condition than the mesic ponderosa areas, • Some clumps of dense trees, • Openings where at most individual trees are present, ranging in size from 1 to 40 acres, and covering 25 percent of the xeric ponderosa pine area, • An average canopy cover between 15 to 25 percent, • Connections to other xeric ponderosa pine areas or other areas of dense forest that are minimized by lower density ridge lines, openings or other natural features. Mesic Ponderosa Pine

Mesic ponderosa pine likely developed under a mixed severity fire regime (Crane 1982 and Kaufmann et al. 2006), which created a greater variety of stand structures and ages than would have developed on the drier (more xeric) ponderosa pine sites.

Mesic ponderosa pine is classified as:

1. Ponderosa pine stands between 6,500 and 7,500 feet in elevation on north aspects, 2. Ponderosa pine stands between 7,500 and 8,500 feet in elevation on north and east aspects, 3. Ponderosa pine stands between 8,500 and 9,500 feet in elevation on all aspects. Based upon the documented historic conditions and expected future conditions considering climate change, resilient mesic ponderosa pine areas would have the following characteristics:

• Relatively open forested conditions, • Larger clumps (both in overall size and number of trees present per clump) compared to the xeric systems, • Stand densities between 40 to 120 basal area (square feet per acre),

page 12 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

• Openings ranging in size between 1 to 20 acres and covering 20 percent of the mesic ponderosa pine area, • An average canopy cover between 20 to 35 percent, • Connections to other mesic ponderosa pine areas or other areas of dense forest that are minimized by lower density ridge lines, openings or other natural features. Mixed Conifer

Mixed conifer areas are generally composed of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, aspen, ponderosa pine and some true firs. Mixed conifer areas vary substantially with aspect: cool–moist (mesic) types are found on north-facing aspects while the warm–dry (xeric) types are found on south-facing aspects (Romme et al. 2009). The historical disturbance regime was mixed-severity fires with a fire recurrence interval of 30-100 years (Crane 1982). In the Front Range, mixed conifer has a mean fire return interval between 17-22 years (Veblen et al. 2000) but with a range of 1-125 years.

The mixed severity fire regime in mixed conifer created a mosaic of forest conditions. Higher elevation mixed conifer forests experienced lower fire frequency with patches of stand-replacing fire, in addition to some areas of low severity surface fires (Veblen et al. 2000, Kaufmann et al. 2007). The mosaic conditions included even- aged stands created by stand-replacing fires, uneven-aged stands created and maintained by low severity fire, and some openings due to episodic tree regeneration (Schoennagel et al. 2004). Fire-created openings have been documented to persist for as long as 148 years (Kaufmann et al. 2000). In the Upper Poudre Watershed, climate is the main driver of fire in mixed conifer forests. Years that experience warm and dry spring and summer periods are strongly associated with widespread fire (Bessie and Johnson 1995, Veblen et al. 2000).

Because xeric mixed conifer areas are generally adjacent to upper montane ponderosa pine, they experience similar fire frequency and therefore exhibit similar forest structure influenced by mixed severity fire regime (Reynolds et al. 2013). Xeric mixed conifer areas, however, do have more species diversity than ponderosa pine forests. Mesic mixed conifer also experience mixed severity fire regimes but with a lower frequency due to wetter conditions (Reynolds et al. 2013). Xeric mixed conifer is classified as:

1. All mixed conifer cover types on south and west aspects. Mesic mixed conifer is classified as:

1. All mixed conifer cover types on north and east aspects, 2. Douglas-fir cover types between 7,500 and 9,000 feet in elevation on north and east aspects. Based upon the documented historic conditions and expected future conditions considering climate change, resilient mixed conifer areas would have the following characteristics:

• An average canopy cover between 20 to 35 percent, • Openings ranging in size between between 1 to 20 acres and covering 20 percent of the mixed conifer area, • In mesic mixed conifer, a canopy cover of 35-50 percent with an average of 60 percent, • Openings in mesic mixed conifer across 10 percent of the area,

page 13 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

• A mix of ages of seedlings, saplings, and mature trees, with less than 1/3 of the watershed in any one class, • Connections to other mixed conifer areas or other areas of dense forest that are minimized by lower density ridge lines, openings or other natural features. Lodgepole Pine

Lodgepole pine grows on a wide range of sites, typically between 7,500 and 10,000 feet and can occur in pure or mixed stands (Shepperd and Alexander 1983). Lodgepole pine is a mostly shade intolerant species that can exist as a climax species in some stands but is often a seral species that is eventually replaced by spruce and fir. Stand-replacing fires are natural in lodgepole pine and, because the majority of the cone production from the lodgepole species is serotinous (cones being covered in sap), the cones generally open up after a fire, creating even-aged seedlings soon after a fire. The frequency of natural fires in Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine stands ranges from a few years to 200 or more years (Davis et al. 1980). Low to moderate severity surface fires are likely to have a return interval on the order of a few decades, while stand-replacing fires are generally less frequent (Crane 1982). Lodgepole pine is susceptible to bark beetles, mistletoe, blowdown and fire (Lotan 1964).

Based upon the documented historic conditions and expected future conditions considering climate change, resilient lodgepole pine areas would have the following characteristics:

1. Canopy cover ranging from 50-90 percent with an average of 75 percent, 2. A mix of ages of seedlings, saplings, and mature trees, with less than 1/3 of the watershed in any one class, 3. Connections to other lodgepole pine areas or other areas of dense forest that are minimized by lower density ridge lines, openings or other natural features. Spruce-fir

Spruce-fir stands are typically composed of the slow-growing Engelmann spruce, in association with the smaller, narrow-crowned subalpine fir. The spruce-fir combination often reaches a climax-type forest at high elevations, despite the existence of many uneven-aged stands. This is because both species are shade tolerant and tend to quickly repopulate shaded gaps in the forest.

The return interval for naturally occurring fires within the spruce-fir forest may be 300 years or longer. Unlike many other Colorado forest types, spruce-fir forests are not adapted to fire. Thin bark and the persistence of dead lower limbs increases the spruce’s susceptibility to fire as well as the likelihood of intense crown fires and tree mortality. In the case of a stand-replacing fire, it may take as long as 300-400 years for a spruce-fir forest to regenerate. Based upon the documented historic conditions and expected future conditions considering climate change, resilient spruce-fir areas would have the following characteristics:

1. A mix of ages of seedlings, saplings, and mature, with less than 1/2 of the watershed in any one class, 2. Connections to other spruce-fir stands or other areas of dense forest that are minimized by lower density ridge lines, openings or other natural features.

page 14 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Aspen

Aspen usually occur as closed canopy stands. They are generally found between 5,000 to 10,000 feet in elevation. Because they require adequate moisture, they are usually found on north aspects or sites that are mesic. However, at higher elevations they are found on southern aspects because the northern aspects are too cold. Fire has been important in maintaining the vigor and extent of aspen by suckering from long-lived clones that prosper following fire. Aspen provides many benefits to the landscape, including natural fire breaks, species diversity and important wildlife habitat. Bartos (2000) argues that aspen has declined by 49 percent in Colorado due to encroachment by conifers. However, other researchers (Kulakowski and Veblen, 2006) do not agree that the magnitude of aspen reduction has been as great as that suggested by Bartos. In general, the occurrence of large and severe fires would increase the extent of aspen and the lack of fires would allow the successional replacement of aspen by conifers (Veblen and Donnegan 2005).

Disturbance regimes in aspen are generally similar to adjacent conifer stands (Veblen and Donnegan, 2005). In the watershed, aspen occur adjacent to ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and mixed conifer forests that have mixed severity fire regimes with fire return intervals of between 30 and 100 years.

Aspen areas are defined as:

1. Aspen cover type, 2. Lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer cover types that are adjacent to aspen stands. Based upon the documented historic conditions and expected future conditions considering climate change, resilient aspen areas would have the following characteristics:

• A mix of ages of sapling and mature trees, so that the mature class does not comprise more than 1/2 of the watershed, • Conifer encroachment that is limited to older aspen stands. 2.3 Resilient Conditions for Value B - Resilient River Corridor

The Cache la Poudre River and its aquatic ecosystems should maintain key ecological/hydrological functions including; connection to the floodplain, diverse aquatic habitats, appropriate water quality conditions (physical, chemical, biological), and functional riparian areas.

A resiliently functioning river corridor provides at a minimum the following ecosystem benefits and services:

• Structural characteristics that attenuate floodwaters, • Healthy and diverse aquatic habitat, • Water quality that supports diverse aquatic life and riparian habitats, • Levels of bank erosion and sediment delivery that support aquatic and riparian habitats, • Natural landscape aesthetics, • Recreational values. A resiliently functioning river corridor is at risk from natural and anthropogenic disturbances, particularly those that are out of the expected range of historical norms. These disturbances include:

• Large, catastrophic wildfire,

page 15 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

• Prolonged drought, • Epidemic insect and disease outbreaks, • Large catastrophic floods, • Pollution, • Anthropogenic disturbances in the floodplain (i.e., fill, bank hardening, vegetation loss due to development), • Upstream water diversions, • Land use changes that alter runoff patterns, reduce vegetation cover, increase the intensity and/or frequency of wildfire, or that have other broad scale watershed impacts.

2.3.1 Stream Channel Equilibrium The condition of a stream in terms of its channel integrity can be described by observing the reaction of the channel to changes in flow or sediment. Peak flows are the primary channel forming device and are often responsible for changes in stream structure. If peak flows and sediment increases exceed certain sustainable levels, the stream may react to these changes in a way that reduces its physical integrity. Each stream channel has its own “equilibrium” level and knowing this metric can provide some predictive criteria for how a given stream channel might respond to increased peak flows and increased sediment yield.

A channel that is in dynamic equilibrium responds to changes in stream flow or inputs of sediment, but does not lose physical integrity. Equilibrium does not imply a static condition in the stream channel; a stream in equilibrium will exhibit physical changes. However, the basic structure (pool frequency, pool depth, and pool:riffle ratio) will remain basically the same over time, even given average storm events and naturally fluctuating flow conditions.

Disequilibrium is a state in which the bed armoring has been destroyed by a high flow event and bedload movement is significant enough to alter channel structure (pools, riffles, etc.). As compared to a stream in equilibrium, a stream out of equilibrium will often have fewer pools, longer riffles and the pools will often be filled with migrating sediments. A large percentage of what normally forms the stream bed would be loose and frequently transported and eventually deposited downstream.

2.3.2 Sediment Transport and Deposition The movement of sediment in a stream system is controlled by channel morphology (channel shape, size, and slope) along with stream sinuosity. When sediment is introduced into the stream system it is moved (transported) as long as the sediment transport capacity of the stream exceeds the supply of sediment. Streams are classified by certain characteristics (morphology) that define their sediment transport capacity in general terms. There are three main types of reaches that are defined by their ability to move sediments; source, transport and response reaches.

Source reaches are generally located in steeper areas where there is a supply of sediment available for movement downstream (sediment source areas). Although these reaches are high gradient and fast moving, the amount of sediment available for transport usually exceeds the ability of the stream to move the sediments. These reaches are generally smaller tributaries or headwater areas where the streamflow is lower.

page 16 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Sediments are moved intermittently from the source reaches during peak flow or a disturbance event. Because of the high gradient and high velocities in these streams, peak flow events can move large amounts of sediment.

Stream reaches may have a greater capacity to transport sediments than the surrounding watershed and upper reaches supply. These reaches are considered “supply limited” and are higher streamflow than source reaches and higher velocity than response reaches. Most sediment that is delivered to the reach is transported downstream. These stream reaches are called transport reaches, a reflection of their ability to move sediment downstream.

Lower gradient stream reaches are generally not able to transport all the sediment that is delivered to them from upper stream reaches, tributaries or the surrounding watershed. These reaches are “transport limited” because their ability to transport sediment is exceeded by the amount of sediment supplied to them. Increased sediment delivery to these reaches is deposited in the reach rather than transported further downstream. Therefore, these stream reaches are called response reaches. Response reaches are typically pool-riffles or braided channels and, although they tend to have the highest streamflow in the system, are the slowest moving. Transport of sediments deposited in response reaches usually occurs during peak flows events (snowmelt runoff or summer rainstorms).

The relationship between different reaches determines where in the watershed there could be potential problems with sediment transport and deposition. The most sensitive stream segments are response reaches that have transport reaches entering them. These reaches have the highest potential for sediment deposition because the sediment transport capacity (in comparison to supply) of the upper reach is so much greater than the ability of the response reach to move the sediments.

Sediment deposition in response reaches is a natural process. The sediment will form bars or be stored in banks, etc. and the reach will retain its function. However, when sediment yield is increased beyond a level that formed its existing equilibrium state, or a catastrophic event occurs higher in the watershed, the amount of sediment delivered by a transport reach can overwhelm the response reach with sediment deposition. The reach may move outside of dynamic equilibrium and not function properly until peak flow events possibly restore the channel to a functioning condition (dynamic equilibrium) by transporting the excess sediment downstream.

2.3.3 Floodplain and Riparian Function Riparian areas include the vegetation communities that are influenced by the geomorphic and hydrologic processes of the river. They occur in bank zones, overbank zones, and floodplain-upland transition zones of a floodplain. Riparian zones are among the most biologically diverse and ecologically important zones throughout the semi-arid west. They include important migratory routes between mountain and plain habitats, and provide support to migratory birds en route to winter and summer residences as far apart as Alaska and Argentina. Riparian areas also create cover for resident wildlife, and serve as the foundation for an entire food web of adjacent aquatic and upland systems. Throughout Colorado, the upper canopies of cottonwoods, aspen, blue spruce, and other mature trees commonly found in riparian areas provide important nesting habitat for bald eagles and other raptors. They also provide rookery habitat for great blue herons, and nesting habitats for owls and a variety of cavity nesting birds. Additionally, rare species such as the Preble’s

page 17 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final meadow jumping mouse, Colorado butterfly plant, and Ute ladies’-tresses orchid rely upon healthy riparian habitats for survival.

Healthy riparian areas reduce sedimentation of waterways by providing a filtration system from adjacent upland areas thereby reducing the rate of soil loss from banks and upland areas. Riparian areas also provide valuable benefits to streams such as shading, which reduces in-stream temperatures, and delivery of organic matter such as leaves and large woody debris, which serve as a food source for many aquatic macroinvertebrates. Healthy riparian areas enhance nutrient cycling, maintain higher base flows, dissipate flood energy, and provide significant aesthetic value to residents and tourists who experience thousands of miles of riverine systems while driving transportation corridors throughout Colorado. Due to the contribution of riparian corridors to the conservation and management of freshwater fish (Pusey & Arthington 2003) and big game, and given the millions of dollars of revenue generated by hunting and fishing in Colorado annually, the restoration and protection of riparian systems produces economic benefits for the State.

Riparian areas are commonly flooded and as long as that flooding is within the range of conditions that formed a stable system, the floodwaters function to maintain a healthy mosaic of plant community types that provide a great variety of resiliency benefits. Healthy riparian areas improve and maintain resiliency in the following ways, including:

• Roughness that reduces the rate of bank erosion, • An ability to rebound quickly after most disturbances and under the majority of flood discharge frequencies, rebuilding its resilient functions, • Floodplain roughness that helps reduce the risk of avulsions and floodplain scour during high magnitude events, • Infiltration and/or water residence times in the floodplain that function to reduce the "flashiness" of a stream, thereby reducing downstream flooding.

Human uses and disturbances in watersheds often result in impacts common to riparian areas in the Upper Poudre Watershed including:

• Habitat destruction and/or alteration caused by road construction and maintenance activities,

• Grazing by domestic (horses, sheep, cattle), and in some instances native, animals that can dramatically alter the vegetation community,

• Conversion to agriculture,

• Damage due to human use through a variety of recreation impacts (boating, fishing, hiking),

• Changes in flood frequency, duration, and flow rates (both peak and low flow) due to upstream water use or structures, altering scour, water availability, and other geomorphic and hydrologic patterns necessary to maintain a healthy mosaic of riparian areas.

2.3.4 Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat is that which supports a variety of vertebrates (i.e., fish, reptiles, and amphibians) and invertebrates (i.e., insects) whose reproductive cycles cannot be completed without water. Of all living things in a stream, insects are often reported as being a barometer for stream and watershed health. Similar to other

page 18 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final biotic communities, stream insect communities increase in diversity with increases in physical and environmental diversity within their potential habitat. In Colorado streams, this diversity is provided by a variety of geomorphic features, such as overhanging banks, pools, riffles, glides, and steps. Within a reach, physical and environmental diversity is provided by in-stream structures such as large boulders and woody debris, and organic inputs such as leaves, pine needles, and small woody debris. These structures influence temperatures and other water quality parameters. Healthy streams provide resilient conditions for aquatic invertebrates, allowing them to rebound quickly following natural disturbances. Healthy aquatic insect communities in turn have cascading positive impacts for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Due to the profound impacts of riparian vegetation on stream health, including organic matter inputs and stream shading, there is an intimate relationship between riparian area health and the health of aquatic animals. The resilient condition of aquatic habitat is a condition that contains the structural diversity, water chemistry and biological diversity to maintain the expected aquatic life and to rebound back to that condition when affected by normal disturbances.

2.3.5 Roads Roads can convert subsurface runoff to surface runoff and then route the surface runoff to stream channels in ditches, which can increase peak flows (Megan and Kidd 1972, Ice 1985, and Swanson et al. 1987). Therefore, watersheds with higher road densities have a higher sensitivity to increases in peak flows especially following disturbances such as wildfires.

Roads and railroads reduce the width of a riparian corridor by occupying part of the valley bottom. Greater access to the river can also cause increased disturbance of the stream bed and the banks by people and vehicles. Destruction of riparian vegetation and compaction of streambanks reduces infiltration, increases runoff and sediment input to the stream channel, and alters the shape and stability of the channel (Wohl 2005). 2.4 Resilient Conditions for Value C - Reliable Water Supply

A reliable and predictable water supply depends on clean water that is free of excess sediment or other pollutants. The Upper Poudre Watershed supplies hundreds of thousands of people with drinking water each year in the cities of Fort Collins and Greeley, as well as other smaller communities, and provides irrigation for thousands of acres of agricultural lands. It is critical that the water supply be relatively consistent and reliable, which depends on the overall health of the watershed. It must also be resilient and able to withstand disturbances in the watershed without putting the water supply at risk.

There are 13 reservoirs in the Upper Poudre Watershed (Table 2.2) and 14 diversions in the main stem of the Cache la Poudre River. The water supply is at risk from large-scale disturbances such as; wildfires, flooding, drought, and insect and disease epidemics. In addition to large-scale disturbances, the water supply is at risk from land uses that impact water quality including development, grazing, and other land uses.

page 19 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 2.2. Reservoirs within Upper Cache la Poudre River Basin1

7th Level Watershed Approximate Reservoir Name Name Stream Storage (acre-ft) Owner/Operator

Panhandle Reservoir Lower Panhandle Lower Panhandle Crystal Lakes Water & (Crystal Lake) Creek Creek Sewer Association

Halligan Reservoir Halligan Reservoir North Fork Poudre 6,400 (proposed NPIC and City of Fort expansion up to Collins 19,500)

Eaton Reservoir Eaton Reservoir Sheep Creek 3,880 Larimer and Weld

Miton Seaman Miton Seaman North Fork 5,000 (proposed City of Greeley Reservoir Reservoir expansion up to 53,000)

Horsetooth Reservoir Horsetooth Reservoir Spring Creek 156,735 Northern Water

Comanche Reservoir Comanche Reservoir Beaver Creek 2,600 City of Greeley

Long Draw Reservoir Long Draw Reservoir Grand River Ditch & 10,520 Water Supply and La Poudre Pass Creek Storage Company

Joe Wright Reservoir Upper Joe Wright Joe Wright Creek 7,200 City of Fort Collins Creek

Chambers Lake Middle Joe Wright Joe Wright Creek 8,820 Water Supply and Creek Storage Company

Barnes Meadow Barnes Meadow UT to Joe Wright 2,350 City of Greeley Reservoir Reservoir Creek

Peterson Lake Peterson Lake UT to main stem 1, 250 City of Greeley Poudre

Hourglass Reservoir Hourglass Reservoir Beaver Creek 1,700 City of Greeley

Twin Lake Twin Lake Reservoir UT to South Fork 300 City of Greeley

The high mountain reservoirs are operated by the City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley, North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC), and Water Supply and Storage Company. On the North Fork, Halligan and Seaman Reservoirs are owned by the City of Fort Collins and the City of Greeley, respectively, and are both under consideration for possible expansion. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has proposed a new off-channel reservoir, Glade Reservoir, which will take water from the CLP downstream of the North Fork confluence and will be filled during wet years. The City of Fort Collins, the Tri-Districts, and the City of Greeley all have senior water rights which secure water availability for municipal use.

2.4.1 Land Use History and Affect on the Watershed Beaver Trapping

Beaver dams create longitudinal steps along river channels. Water is ponded upstream from the dam, slowing the passage of flood waves, storing sediment and nutrients, and creating germination sites for aquatic and riparian vegetation. Beaver dams increase the habitat diversity and stability of streams and valley bottoms

1 Billica et al. 2008

page 20 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

(Naiman et al. 1986). During the early 19th century beavers were trapped along all the rivers of the Front Range (Wohl 2001). There is no documentation of the effects of early 19th century beaver removal in these rivers but it is reasonable to assume that flood peaks became at least slightly shorter in duration, groundwater recharge was reduced, bed and bank erosion and sediment mobility increased, and stability and diversity of rivers decreased (Naiman et al. 1986; Wohl 2005). Contemporary studies of modern analogs indicate that flow downstream from beaver ponds contain 50-70 percent fewer suspended solids than that of equivalent stream reaches without these ponds (Wohl 2005). Timber Harvest and Railroad Tie Drives

The construction of railroads from the 1860s to the 1890s placed a heavy demand on timber resources, mostly from the mountains and rivers. The Cache la Poudre River provided a convenient transportation route to collection points such as Fort Collins or Greeley. More than 200,000 railroad ties floated down the Cache la Poudre River annually between 1868-1870. The mountain channels were altered to facilitate conveyance of logs, naturally occurring wood and large boulders were removed, overbank areas and marshes were separated from the main channel by dikes, and meanders were artificially straightened with cutoffs (Wohl 2005). Today, the affected rivers have less diverse and less mature riparian vegetation, as well as wider, shallower channels with less pool volume and less naturally occurring wood (Wohl 2005). Grazing

Historically, livestock grazing has damaged streams and riparian ecosystems in arid regions of the western United States (US Department of the Interior 1994). Within the Upper Poudre Watershed, there are an estimated 85,000 acres of land is in need of restoration to provide adequate recovery opportunity between grazing events and proper stocking of animals (USDA NRCS Rapid Watershed Assessment).

Livestock grazing can alter forest dynamics by (1) reducing the biomass and density of understory grasses and sedges, which otherwise outcompete conifer seedlings and prevent dense tree recruitment, and (2) reducing the abundance of fine fuels, which formerly carried low-intensity fires through forests. In addition, exclosure studies have shown that livestock can alter ecosystem processes by reducing the cover of herbaceous plants and litter, disturbing and compacting soils, reducing water infiltration rates, and increasing soil erosion (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997).

Grazing has a magnified effect on riparian areas because livestock tend to avoid hot, dry environments and congregate in wet areas for water and forage. They are also attracted to the shade and lower temperatures near streams. Cattle spend 5-30 times as much time in cool, productive zones than would be predicted from surface area alone (Belsky et al. 1999; Roath and Kreuger 1982). However, appropriate livestock grazing techniques, including access and timing of grazing in riparian areas, can substantially reduce the impacts of livestock grazing on streams, riparian areas and uplands.

The North Fork of the CLP has a significantly greater percentage of rangeland and grassland than the main stem, while the main stem has a greater percentage of forested land and natural landscape. This difference contributes to differences in water quality between the two 5th level watersheds. The North Fork is 52.3% agricultural use and grassland but is 44.1% forest, while the Main Stem is only 18.3% agricultural use and grassland but is 71.5% forest (Billica et al. 2008). The North Fork monitoring sites generally have higher nutrient concentrations and conductance and consistently higher TOC concentrations than do main stem sites.

page 21 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Development and Population Increase

The City of Fort Collins has a population of 156,480 residents, which grew by 8.6 percent from April 2010 to July 2014, outpacing both the state and Larimer County’s growth rates. At the last census in 2014, the city of Greeley had a population of 98,596 with an increase of 6.2 percent from April 2010 to July 2014 (U.S. Census Bureau).

The Cache la Poudre Canyon, upstream of the confluence of the North Fork with the main stem Cache la Poudre River, is sparsely populated compared to the municipal and agricultural demand downstream. However, as population increases in the larger communities downstream, people are expanding into the upper elevations of the watershed as well. The river is also becoming more and more popular for recreation activities such as whitewater rafting, camping, canoeing, hiking, and fishing.

Potential sources of contamination (PSOCs) within the Upper Poudre Watershed include active and abandoned mines, animal grazing and other agricultural activities, automobile accidents along the river, underground and above ground fuel storage tanks, residential areas, road deicing chemicals, erosion, recreational users, gas stations, and leaky septic tanks or improperly functioning leach fields from the various communities throughout the watershed. The larger communities within the watershed include the Colorado State University’s Colorado Mountain Campus, Bellvue, Poudre Park, Glacier View, Rustic, Livermore, and Red Feather Lakes (Billica et al. 2008). There are noticeable increases in E. Coli and total coliforms as one moves downstream, associated with greater development and human impact in the lower part of the canyon (Billica et al. 2008). Sediment Deposition and Water Supply Diversions

The movement of sediment in a stream system is controlled by channel morphology. When sediment is introduced into the stream system it is moved (transported) as long as the sediment transport capacity of the stream exceeds the supply of sediment. Sediment deposition occurs when the transport capacity upstream exceeds that of a downstream reach. Sediment deposition in response reaches is a natural process. The sediment will form bars or be stored in banks, etc. and the reach will retain its function. However, when sediment yield is increased or a catastrophic event occurs higher in the watershed, the amount of sediment delivered by a transport reach can overwhelm the response reach with sediment deposition. The reach may move outside of dynamic equilibrium and not function properly until peak flow events possibly restore the channel to a functioning condition (dynamic equilibrium) by transporting the excess sediment downstream. For more information on sediment transport and deposition, see Section 2.3.2.

The high elevation reservoirs in the Upper Poudre Watershed store water at high elevations to be released when the demand is high, causing changes to peak flows in the watershed. When there are increased sediment and debris flows due to natural disturbance, such as wildfire, this sediment is transported directly to the main stem of the Cache la Poudre River, a response reach. The excess debris flows then get transported directly to the important water supply diversions located on the main stem of the Cache la Poudre River.

page 22 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

3. Resiliency Analysis The Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan considers three values that are used in evaluating resilient watershed conditions: Resilient Upland Habitat, Resilient River Corridor, and Reliable Water Supply, as determined by the CPRW Stakeholder group (see Section 1.4 Stakeholder Process). This section of the plan presents the watershed assessment analysis that prioritizes the 7th Level watersheds by five hazard categories, for the factors within each value. It presents the technical approach for each component and the process used to assemble the watershed ranking. 3.1. Ranking/Categorization Approach

The analysis results for each component are ranked using five categories that are used throughout the analysis (assessment categorization scheme), including combining the components into each composite value ranking and the final prioritization rank. The categorization procedure is prescribed by the Front Range Watershed Protection Data Refinement Work Group (2009). The categories are used in this analysis for comparing watersheds to each other within the Upper Poudre Watershed. Comparisons with other watershed assessments are not valid because this approach prioritizes watersheds by comparing them to the other 7th Level watersheds within this watershed assessment area.

The calculation of ranking for each 7th Level watershed is completed as follows:

1. The analysis/hazard parameter expressed as a percentage of each 7th Level watershed (or other metrics). 2. Scale the results so that they fall within five equal categories. 3. Round the scaled result to the nearest whole number (retain the number for Composite Rankings). 4. Create a map of the results using the following scheme: Category 1 – Lowest Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 – Highest

3.2. Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat

Resilient upland habitats maintain key ecological characteristics such as historical disturbance regimes, appropriate forest canopy/age structure, wildlife habitat, soil health, native vegetation; and healthy & diverse soil characteristics to maximize precipitation infiltration and moderate runoff. These habitats provide the following ecosystem benefits and services: biodiversity, carbon sequestration, natural resource extraction

page 23 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

(timber), recreation, healthy soils, wildlife habitat & migration corridors, agriculture/grazing, protection against invasive species, and reduced sediment delivery to receiving waters. Resilient upland habitats are at risk from the following; wildfire, drought, insect/disease, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), floods, and land use.

The analysis of Value A: Resilient Upland Habitat is based upon the following three factors that are described below;

✦ Factor 1 - Canopy Closure

✦ Factor 2 - Comparison of Forest Types to Resilient Conditions

✦ Factor 3 - Wildfire Hazard

3.2.1. Factor 1 - Canopy Closure Canopy closure data from Landfire (http://www.landfire.gov updated through 2010) was used for this analysis. The USDA Forest Service Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) data was used to adjust for both the High Park and Hewlett Gulch Fires. The high and moderate burn severity areas were adjusted to 0 percent canopy closure. The 7th Level watersheds that were adjusted based on the Hewlett Gulch Fire are shown in Table 3.1 and the 7th Level watersheds that were adjusted based on the High Park Fire are shown in Table 3.2. The canopy closure for the Upper Poudre Watershed is shown on Map 3.1.

Table 3.1 Moderate and High Burn Severity Watersheds in the Hewlett Gulch Fire Moderate & High Percentage of Burn Severity Watershed Watershed 6th Level Watershed Name 7th Level Watershed Name (acres) Area Burned UT1 to Gordon Creek 72 1,442 5.0% Gordon Creek Lower Gordon Creek 9 3,174 0.3%

UT to Poudre River 31 829 3.8% Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Lower Lower CLP River 266 1,971 13.5%

Long Draw 526 2,133 24.6%

Milton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache Greyrock Mountain Creek 980 2,235 43.9% La Poudre River UT1 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir 1 641 0.1%

Milton Seaman Reservoir 11 1,634 0.6% Totals 1,897 14,060 13.5%

page 24 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.2 Moderate and High Burn Severity Watersheds in the High Park Fire

Moderate & High Watershed Percentage of 6th Level Watershed Name 7th Level Watershed Name Burn Severity (acres) Area Watershed Burned Little Beaver Creek Lower Little Beaver Creek 4 2,637 0.1% Ratville 176 2,612 6.8% White Rock Creek 626 839 74.6% Middle South Fork CLP River 929 2,694 34.5% Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La UT to South Fork CLP River 644 820 78.6% Poudre River Upper Pendergrass Creek 1,079 1,343 80.3% UT to Pendergrass Creek 784 845 92.8% Lower Pendergrass Creek 719 1,040 69.1% Lower South Fork CLP River 826 1,998 41.3% Kyle Gulch 38 753 5.0% Bennet Creek Lower Bennett Creek 922 1,956 47.1% Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River Lower Upper CLP River 398 2,696 14.8% Elkhorn Creek Lower Elkhorn Creek 8 3,848 0.2% Harlan Gulch 769 1,409 54.6% UT to Stove Prairie Gulch 874 1,915 45.7% Upper Stove Prairie Gulch 439 1,309 33.5% Youngs Gulch Lower Stove Prairie Gulch 1,048 1,659 63.1% Upper Youngs Gulch 989 1,703 58.1% Lower Youngs Gulch 1,142 1,828 62.5% Upper Middle CLP River 389 2,108 18.5% Upper Poverty Gulch 735 1,138 64.6% Lower Poverty Gulch 1,077 1,621 66.4% Buck Gulch 302 495 61.0% Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Stevens Gulch 507 1,126 45.0% Upper Skin Gulch 1,600 2,232 71.7% Lower Skin Gulch 805 1,616 49.8% Cedar Gulch 926 1,288 71.9% Lower Middle CLP River 1,031 2,636 39.1% UT3 to Gordon Creek 275 941 29.2% Upper Gordon Creek 28 1,463 1.9% Gordon Creek UT2 to Gordon Creek 478 706 67.8% Middle Gordon Creek 313 2,342 13.4% Lower Gordon Creek 1,658 3,174 52.2% Unnamed 9 943 1,114 84.6% Upper Lower CLP River 612 1,908 32.1% Falls Gulch 772 849 90.9% Hill Gulch 1,068 1,924 55.5% UT to Hill Gulch 609 893 68.2% Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Watha Gulch 708 717 98.8% UT to Poudre River 3 829 0.3% Boyd Gulch 565 777 72.8% Unnamed 3 151 180 84.0% Lower Lower CLP River 102 1,971 5.2%

page 25 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Moderate & High Watershed Percentage of 6th Level Watershed Name 7th Level Watershed Name Burn Severity (acres) Area Watershed Burned Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Milton Seaman Reservoir 23 1,634 1.4% Cache La Poudre River Santanka Gulch 13 376 3.5% Soldier Canyon 104 564 18.5% Horsetooth Reservoir Well Gulch 1 287 0.4% Horsetooth Reservoir 15 4,509 0.3% Unnamed 2 536 748 71.6% Unnamed 1 199 420 47.3% Outlet Poudre River 710 1,670 42.5% Upper Lewstone 735 2,155 34.1% UT to Lewstone 1,041 1,157 89.9% Lower Lewstone 472 1,003 47.0% Tunnel 258 1,577 16.4% City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Log Canyon 755 1,133 66.7% Upper Rist 1,157 1,912 60.5% Lower Rist 900 1,667 54.0% Labeau Gulch 454 1,176 38.6% Devil Gulch 357 939 38.0% Long Brown Gulch 874 1,565 55.8% Empire Gulch 124 528 23.5% Upper Poudre Resilience WatershedCity of Fort Collins-CLP Plan 481 5,704 8.4% Totals 37,282 98,678 Canopy closure data from Landfire was used for this analysis. The USDA Forest Service Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) data was used to adjust for both the High Park and Hewlett Gulch Fires. To do this, the high th The results for canopy closure were categorized by 7and moderate burn severity areas were adjusted to 0% canopy Level watershed into five categories using the closure. This affects which watersheds? assessment categorization scheme, described above, with the metric formula below. The categories rank from 1 (lowest canopy closure) to 5 (highest canopy closure). Map 3.2 shows Canopy Closure Ranking and the The results for average canopy closure were categorized by seventh-level watershed into five categories using tabular results for canopy closure are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B. The watersheds with the highest the assessment categorization scheme, described above, with the following metric formula. The categories rank ranking for canopy closure are presented in Table 3.3.from 1 (lowest canopy closure) to 5 (highest canopy closure). Figure 4.1 shows the results of this analysis and the tabular results for Canopy Closure are presented in Table X in Appendix X.

Canopy Closure Metric =

(0.15 × 15% CC area + 0.25 × 25% CC area + 0.35 × 35% CC area + 0.45 × 45% CC area + 0.55 × 55% CC area + 0.65 × 65% CC area + 0.75 × 75% CC area + 0.85 × 85% CC area)

Watershed Area

The watersheds with the highest ranking for Canopy Closure are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Canopy Closure

Wildfire Hazard 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Rank Rounded Pennock Creek UT4 to Pennock Creek 5 UT2 to Pennock Creek 5 UT1 to Pennock Creek 5 Lower Pennock Creek 5 Little Beaver Creek UT to Little Beaver Creek 5 Middle Little Beaver Creek 5 Jacks Gulch 5 Lower Little Beaver Creek 5 Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Fish Creekpage 26 5 Headwaters Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP 5 Joe Wright Creek Lower Joe Wright Creek 5 Willow Creek-Cache La Poudre River Upper Willow Creek CLP 5 Grass Lake Creek 5 Lower Willow Creek CLP 5 Sheep Creek UT2 to Sheep Creek 5 UT1 to Sheep Creek 5 Sheep Creek 5 Roaring Creek UT to Roaring River 5 Lower Roaring River 5 Tunnel Creek 5 UT4 to Headwaters CLP 5 UT3 to Headwaters CLP 5 Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Peterson Creek 5 UT1 to Headwaters CLP 5 Crown Point Gulch 5 Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River Upper Sevenmile Creek 5 Sheep Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre Creek Middle Sheep Creek-North Fork 5 Beaver Creek 5 Acme Creek 5 UT2 to Sheep Creek-North Fork 5

page 2 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.3 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Canopy Closure1 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed UT4 to Pennock Creek UT2 to Pennock Creek Pennock Creek UT1 to Pennock Creek Lower Pennock Creek UT to Little Beaver Creek Middle Little Beaver Creek Little Beaver Creek Jacks Gulch Lower Little Beaver Creek Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Fish Creek Headwaters Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP Joe Wright Creek Lower Joe Wright Creek Upper Willow Creek CLP Willow Creek-Cache La Poudre River Grass Lake Creek Lower Willow Creek CLP UT2 to Sheep Creek Sheep Creek UT1 to Sheep Creek Sheep Creek UT to Roaring River Roaring Creek Lower Roaring River Tunnel Creek UT4 to Headwaters CLP UT3 to Headwaters CLP Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Peterson Creek UT1 to Headwaters CLP Crown Point Gulch Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River Upper Sevenmile Creek Middle Sheep Creek-North Fork Beaver Creek Sheep Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre Creek Acme Creek UT2 to Sheep Creek-North Fork George Creek Upper Trail Creek Trail Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre River UT5 to Trail Creek UT2 to Trail Creek

1 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 27 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan

George Creek 5 Trail Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper Trail Creek 5 UT5 to Trail Creek 5 UT2 to Trail Creek 5

Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final Figure 4.1 Upper Poudre Watershed Canopy Closure Ranking 3.2.2. Factor 2 - Comparison of Forest Types to Resilient Conditions 4.1.2 Factor 2 - Comparison of Vegetation Types to Resilient Conditions Forested watersheds that are resilient would have a diverse forest canopy and age structure. Forest types can be classified into groups that can be assigned disturbance regimes and therefore, ranges of conditions that Watershed resilience relies on a diverse forest canopy and age structure. We can classify vegetation types into would be resilient within the current and future conditions. The forest types used in this analysis are: Xeric groups that can be assigned disturbance regimes and therefore, ranges of conditions that would be resilient Ponderosa Pine, Mesic Ponderosa Pine, Xeric Mixed Conifer, Mesic Mixed Conifer, Lodgepole Pine, and Spruce-within the current and future contexts. The vegetation types in our analysis are: Xeric Ponderosa Pine, Mesic Fir. For a detailed description of the forest types in the Upper Poudre Watershed and a definition of resilient Ponderosa Pine, Xeric Mixed Conifer, Mesic Mixed Conifer, Lodgepole Pine, and Spruce-Fir. For a detailed conditions, see description of eachSection 2.2 Resilient Conditions for Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat vegetation type in the Upper Poudre Watershed and its resilient. condition, see Section 3. Resilient Definition. The Landfire (http://www.landfire.gov) vegetation types and canopy closure data was used for this analysis and adjusted for the High Park and Hewlett Gulch fires, see The Landfire canopy closure data was used for this analysisSection 3.2.1 and adjusted for description. for the High Park and Hewlett Gulch fires, see Section 4.1.1 for description. Montane Forest Ranking

The following forest types are part of the Montane Forest analysis: Xeric Ponderosa Pine, Mesic Ponderosa Montane Forest Ranking Pine, Xeric Mixed Conifer, and Mesic Mixed Conifer. Determination of resilient and non-resilient areas used the resilient definitions presented in The following vegetation types areSection 2.2.3 Forest Vegetation Type Resiliency Descriptions, part of the Montane Forest analysis: Xeric Ponderosa Pine, compared to the Mesic Ponderosa existing canopy closure. Table 3.4 shows the resilient canopy closure for each vegetation type, based upon the Pine, Xeric Mixed Conifer, Mesic Mixed Conifer. For these vegetation types, it is possible to predict resiliency documented historic conditions and expected changes due to climate change (See based on the percent of canopy closure. Table 4.2 shows the resilient canopy closureSection 2.2.3 Forest for each vegetation type, Vegetation Type Resiliency Descriptionsbased upon the documented historic ). In this analysis, the area with a canopy closure value above the average conditions and expected changes due to climate change (See Section 3). of the resilient canopy closure for that forest type was considered non-resilient forested area. Map 3.3 displays In this analysis, the area with a canopy closure value above the average of the resilient canopy closure for that th the non-resilient montane forest types. The non-resilient area within each 7 Level watershed was then divided th Forest Type was summed as non-resilient forested area. The non-resilient area within each 7 level watershed by the total area of the watershed to determine the Montane Rank Metric, using the following formula: was then divided by the total area of the watershed to determine the Montane Rank Metric, using the following formula:

(Area Xeric PP > 20% CC + Area Mesic PP > 30% CC + Area Xeric MC > 30% CC + Area Mesic MC > 40% CC) Montane Forest Rank Metric = Watershed Area Table 4.2: Resilient Canopy Closure for each Montane Forest Type Table 3.4 Resilient Canopy Closure for each Montane Forest Type Resilient Canopy Resilient Canopy Forest Type ClosureForest Type (%) Closure (%) Xeric Ponderosa Pine Xeric Ponderosa Pine15-25 15-25 Mesic Ponderosa Pine Mesic Ponderosa Pine20-35 20-35 Xeric Mixed Conifer Xeric Mixed Conifer20-35 20-35 Mesic Mixed Conifer Mesic Mixed Conifer35-50 35-50

Subalpine/Alpine (Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine) Forest Ranking Subalpine/Alpine (Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine) Forest Ranking Spruce, True Firs and Lodgepole Pine are the dominant tree species in the Subalpine/Alpine Zone, with aspen stands on mostly northern aspects and more mesic sites. The canopy cover for the Subalpine/Alpine forest type is generally much higher than the montane forest, with an average of 75 percent (page 3 Section 2.2.3 Forest Vegetation Type Resiliency Descriptions). Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine are both shade tolerant and therefore populate much denser stands than are common in the montane forest type. Therefore, it is not reasonable to predict resiliency based on canopy closure alone. Because the canopy closure is typically high in these high

page 28 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan

Spruce, True Firs and Lodgepole Pine are the dominant tree types in the Subalpine/Alpine Zone, with aspen stands on mostly northern aspects and more mesic sites. The canopy cover for the Subalpine/Alpine forest type is generally much higher than a montane forest, with an average of 75% (Section 3. Resilient Condition). Spruce- Fir and Lodgepole Pine are both shade tolerant and therefore populate much denser stands than are common in the montane forest type. It is not possible to predict resiliency based on canopy closure alone. Because the Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final canopy closure is typically high, landscape-level diversity is important to maintaining a resilient condition in this forestelevation forest types, landscape-level diversity is important to maintaining a more type. resilient condition in this forest type. For this analysis, the resiliency in subalpine/alpine forests is predicted with a canopy closure diversity index. For theFor this analysis, the resiliency in subalpine/alpine forests is predicted using a canopy closure diversity index. Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine vegetation types, Simpson’s diversity index was calculated for the canopy closure,For the Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine forest types, Simpson’s Diversity Index (Simpson 1949) was calculated providing the density diversity for each watershed. for canopy closure, providing the density diversity for forest type in each watershed. Simpson’s Diversity Index is a measure that characterizes species diversity in a community. Here it is used to Simpson’s Diversity Index is a measure that characterizes species diversity in a community. Here it is used to characterize density diversity within a type of vegetation. The two main factors taken into account to measure characterize density diversity within forest types. The two main factors taken into account to measure diversity diversity are richness (the number of different canopy cover values present in a particular area, here a 7th level are richness (the number of different canopy cover values present in a particular area, here a 7th level watershed) and evenness (the similarity of the areas of each of the canopy cover values present). watershed) and evenness (the similarity of the areas of each of the canopy cover values present).

TheThe equation used for the diversity index is the following: equation used for the diversity index is the following:

! !"# D = ; n = total area within one canopy closure value and N = total area within all canopy closure values $ $"#

UsingUsing this index, a this index, a D of 0 represents infinite diversity and 1 represents no diversity. A of 0 represents infinite diversity and 1 represents no diversity. A D D value was calculated for value was calculated for th eacheach 7 7th Level watershed. The total non-resilient area for each Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine was found by level watershed. The total non-resilient area for both Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine was found by multiplyingmultiplying D x the total acres of that vegetation type in the watershed. x the total acres of that vegetation type in the watershed.

Composite Resilience Ranking Composite Resilience Ranking In order to give equal weight to the montane forested areas and the subalpine/alpine forested areas, a single In order to give equal weight to the montane forested areas and the subalpine/alpine forested areas, a single resilient ranking was calculated for both Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine combined, the Lodgepole & Spruce-Fir resilient ranking was calculated for both Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine combined. In order to do this, the total Rank Metric. In order to do this, the total area of non-resilient forest, including both Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole area of non-resilient forest, including both Spruce-Fir and Lodgepole Pine, was summed and divided by the Pine, was summed and divided by the total watershed area to give the metric for categorization. Using this total watershed area to give the metric for categorization. Using this metric, each 7th level watershed was metric, each 7th Level watershed was ranked using the assessment categorization scheme. ranked using the assessment categorization scheme. The composite ranking was calculated by adding the Montane Ranking to the Lodgepole & Spruce-Fir Ranking Thefor a new Composite Metric, which was then re-categorized using the assessment categorization scheme(see composite ranking was calculated by adding the Montane Ranking to the Lodgepole & Spruce-Fir Ranking for3.1 Ranking/Categorization Approach a new Composite Metric, which was). The final resilient rankings are categorized from 1 (high resilience) to 5 then re-categorized using the assessment categorization scheme. The final(low resilience). Table 3.5 presents the highest ranking watersheds (lowest resilience) for this analysis. Resilient Rankings are categorized from 1 (high resilience/low hazard) to 5 (low resilience/high hazard). Table 4.3 presents the highest ranking watersheds (highest hazard) for this analysis. Map 3.4 shows the results for the composite comparison of vegetation types to resilient conditions , the Non- TableResilient Forest Conditions Ranking and tabular data is presented in Table B-2 of Appendix B 4.3 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Comparison to Resilient Condition .

Wildfire Hazard Rank 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Rounded Pennock Creek UT4 to Pennock Creek 5 UT2 to Pennock Creek 5 UT1 to Pennock Creek 5

page 4

page 29 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.5 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Comparison to Resilient Conditions2 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Pennock Creek UT4 to Pennock Creek UT2 to Pennock Creek UT1 to Pennock Creek Lower Pennock Creek Little Beaver Creek UT to Little Beaver Creek Middle Little Beaver Creek Sheep Creek Sheep Creek

Roaring Creek UT to Roaring River

UT3 to Headwaters CLP

Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Peterson Creek Sheep Creek-Black Hollow

Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Upper CLP River Trail Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Trail Creek Well Gulch Arthurs Rock Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Mill Creek Spring Canyon

3.2.3. Factor 3 - Wildfire Hazard Forest conditions that have high wildfire hazards present a threat to watershed resilience. The Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Report (CO-WRAP) system was used to generate a number of wildfire hazard and risk analyses for the Upper Poudre Watershed (Colorado State Forest Service 2016). The CO-WRAP results were based upon LANDFIRE 2010 data. The various elements of the CO-WRAP analysis were evaluated for appropriateness to this project. That evaluation and review by the CPRW Stakeholder group and the CPRW Science and Monitoring Committee determined that Flame Length, Fire Intensity, and Fire Type Extreme were the three elements that would be used in this analysis. The wildfire risk elements in CO-WRAP were determined to not accurately represent the relative risks in the watershed and therefore, the CO-WRAP elements that were risk-based were not used in this assessment. The Flame Length analysis is similar to the Wildfire Hazard Analysis that has been used in the previous Wildfire/Watershed Assessments in Colorado.

2 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 30 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Flame Length

Map 3.5 shows the CO-WRAP Flame Length results in six categories ranging from lowest (Category 0) to highest (Category 5). The flame length categories are;

Flame Length Category 0 - Very Low (0-1 feet) Flame Length Category 1 - Low (1-4 feet) Flame Length Category 2 - Moderate (4-8 feet) Flame Length Category 3 - High (8-12 feet) Flame Length Category 4 - Very High (12-25 feet) Flame Length Category 5 - Extreme (25+ feet)

The High Park and Hewlett Gulch Fires burned within the Upper Poudre Watershed in 2012 and effectively reduced wildfire hazard in areas that burned at various intensities. The areas that burned at moderate and high burn severity were adjusted to low Flame Length, Fire Intensity, and Fire Type Extreme categories for this assessment (see details of adjustments in Section 3.2.1).

Tables 3.6 and 3.7 are provided as tools for interpreting the implications of the flame length analysis. Ground crews with simple hand tools are not effective against fires with flame lengths over three to four feet. Spotting beyond the immediate vicinity of the fire causes safety concerns and can also result in several, if not numerous, independent fires downwind from the original blaze. Multiple spot fires can compromise firefighter and resident safety by cutting off escape routes to safety zones.

Table 3.6. Fire Suppression Implications of Flame Length Flame Length (feet) Interpretation

Persons using hand tools can generally attack fires at the head or the flanks. 0-4 Handlines should hold the fire.

Fires are too intense at the head for direct attack by persons using hand tools. Handlines can’t be relied upon to hold the fire. Equipment such as dozers, 4-8 engines and retardant aircraft can often be effective on fires with these flame lengths.

Fires with these flame lengths may present serious control problems such as torching, crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the head of the fire using 8-11 dozers and engines will probably be ineffective. Attack using retardant aircraft may still be effective.

Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are common. Control efforts at the head 11+ of the fire, even with retardant aircraft, are usually ineffective.

page 31 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.7. Rate of Spread Based on Flame Length3 Upper Poudre Resilience WatershedFlame Length Plan Rate of Spread Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan(feet) (Chains/Hour) 12 – 25 0 – 1 0 – 250 – 150 12 – 25 50 – 150 1 – 4 2 – 5 > 25 > 150 > 25 4 – 8 5 – 20 > 150

8 – 11 20 – 50

12 – 25 50 – 150 Fire Intensity Fire Intensity > 25 > 150 Figure 4.4 shows the CO-WRAP Fire Intensity results. The Fire Intensity results were provided in five categories Figure 4.4 shows the CO-WRAP Fire Intensity results. The Fire Intensity results were provided in five categories ranging from lowest (Category 1) to highest (Category 5). ranging from lowest (Category 1) to highest (CategoryFire Intensity 5). Map 3.6 Fire Typeshows the CO-WRAP Fire Intensity results. The Fire Intensity results were provided in five categories Extreme Fire Type Extreme ranging from lowest (Category 1) to highest (Category 5). Figure 4.5 shows the CO-WRAP Fire Type Extreme results. The Fire Type Extreme results were provided in three Figure 4.5 shows the CO-WRAP Fire Type ExtremeFire Type Extreme results. The Fire Type Extreme results were provided in three categories ranging from lowest (Category 1) to highest (Category 3). categories ranging from lowest (Category 1) to highest (Category 3). Map 3.7 shows the CO-WRAP Fire Type Extreme results. The Fire Type Extreme results were provided in three Composite Wildfire Hazard Ranking categories ranging from lowest (Category 1) to highest (Category 3). Composite Wildfire Hazard Ranking Composite Wildfire Hazard Ranking The results for the Flame Length and Fire Intensity were each categorized by seventh-level watershed into five The results for the Flame Length and Fire Intensity were each categorized by seventh-level watershed into five The results for the Flame Length and Fire Intensity were each categorized by 7categories using the assessment categorization scheme, described above, withth Level watershed into five the following metric formula. categories using the assessment categorization scheme, described above, with the following metric formula. categories using the assessment categorization scheme, described above, with the following metric formula.The tabular results for both Flame Length and Fire Intensity are presented in Appendix X. The tabular results for both Flame Length and Fire Intensity are presented in Appendix X.

(% in Category 3 + 2 × % in Category 4 + 3 × % in Category 5) Flame Length/Fire Intensity Metric = (% in Category 3 + 2 × % in Category 4 + 3 × % in Category 5) Flame Length/Fire Intensity Metric = Watershed Area Watershed Area The results for the Fire Type Extreme was also categorized by seventh-level watershed into five categories The results for the Fire Type Extreme was also categorized by 7The results for the Fire Type Extreme was also categorized by seventhth level watershed into five categories using the -level watershed into five categories using the assessment categorization scheme with the following metric formula: assessment categorization scheme with the following metric formula:using the assessment categorization scheme with the following metric formula: (% in Category 2 + 2 × % in Category 3) Fire Type Extreme Metric = (% in Category 2 + 2 × % in Category 3) Fire Type Extreme Metric = Watershed Area Watershed Area The results for all three rankings were combined and re-categorized to create the Composite Wildfire Hazard The results for all three rankings were combined and re-categorized to create the Composite Wildfire Hazard The results for all three rankings were combined and re-categorized to create the Composite Wildfire Hazard Ranking. This ranks all seventh-level watersheds in the Upper Poudre Watershed into five categories ranging Ranking. This ranks all 7Ranking. This ranks all seventhth Level watersheds in the Upper Poudre Watershed into five categories ranging from -level watersheds in the Upper Poudre Watershed into five categories ranging from lowest (Category 1) to highest (Category 5), based on all three Wildfire Hazard factors: Flame Length, Fire lowest (Category 1) to highest (Category 5), based on all three Wildfire Hazard factors: Flame Length, Fire from lowest (Category 1) to highest (Category 5), based on all three Wildfire Hazard factors: Flame Length, Fire Intensity, and Fire Type Extreme. For tabular results, see Table X in Appendix X. Intensity, and Fire Type Extreme. The full tabular results are presented in Table B-3 in Appendix BIntensity, and Fire Type Extreme. For tabular results, see Table X in Appendix X. .

th Figure 4.6 shows the results for the Composite Wildfire Hazard Ranking. Table 4.6 presents thethe 77th levellevel Map 3.8 shows the results for the Composite Wildfire Hazard Ranking. Table 3.8 presents the 7th Level watersheds ranked with the highest hazard (Category 5).. watersheds ranked with the highest hazard (Category 5). Table 4.6 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Composite Wildfire Hazard

Wildfire Hazard Rank th 6th Level Watershed 7th7th LevelLevel WatershedWatershed Rounded Headwaters Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP 55 3 One chain equals 66 feet Sevenmile Creek--Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Upper CLP River 55 UT3 to Elkhorn Creek 55 Elkhorn Creek UT2 to Elkhorn Creek page 32 55 Hill Gulch--Cache La Poudre River UT to Poudre River 55

page 7 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.8 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Composite Wildfire Hazard4 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Headwaters Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Upper CLP River UT3 to Elkhorn Creek Elkhorn Creek UT2 to Elkhorn Creek Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River UT to Poudre River North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Bull Creek Upper Mill Creek Trail Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre River Hamxe Creek MIddle North Fork Lone Pine Creek Lower North Fork Lone Pine Creek North Fork Lone Pine Creek Windy Gap Lake Creek Outlet North Fork Lone Pine Creek Lone Pine Creek UT3 to Lone Pine Creek Upper Meadow Creek Halligan Reservoir UT to Meadow Creek Rabbit Creek Headwaters North Fork Rabbit Creek Well Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Spring Canyon

3.2.4.Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat Composite Ranking The Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat Composite Ranking was created by combining the final rankings for the three factors for each 7th level watershed. The watershed rankings were re-categorized with the assessment categorization scheme, based on the sum of the factors. The Value A Composite Ranking map is useful in comparing relative watersheds based on the factors within Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat.

Map 3.9 shows the Value A Composite Ranking for the Upper Poudre Watershed. The tabular results that display the individual rankings for Canopy Closure Rank, Resilient Conditions Rank, and Wildfire Hazard Rank, as well as the Composite Rankings, are presented in Table B-4 in Appendix B. The highest ranked (Category 5) 7th Level watersheds for the Value A Composite Rank are presented in Table 3.9.

4 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 33 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.9 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat5 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Pennock Creek UT4 to Pennock Creek Little Beaver Creek UT to Little Beaver Creek Headwaters Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP Willow Creek-Cache La Poudre River Grass Lake Creek Sheep Creek Sheep Creek Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River UT3 to Headwaters CLP Dadd Gulch Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Upper CLP River Elkhorn Creek UT2 to Elkhorn Creek Trail Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Trail Creek Lower North Fork Lone Pine Creek North Fork Lone Pine Creek Windy Gap Lake Creek Halligan Reservoir UT to Meadow Creek Well Gulch Arthurs Rock Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Mill Creek Spring Canyon

3.3. Value B - Resilient River Corridor

The Cache la Poudre River and its aquatic ecosystems should maintain key ecological/hydrological functions including; connection to the floodplain, diverse aquatic habitats, appropriate water quality conditions (physical, chemical, biological), and functional riparian areas. A resilient, functioning river corridor would provide the following ecosystem benefits and services; biodiversity, downstream flood/erosion protection, fish habitat, reduced sediment delivery, and recreation. A resilient river corridor is at risk from the following; wildfire, drought, insect/disease, floods, pollution, and land use.

The analysis of Value B: Resilient River Corridor is based upon the following four factors that are described below;

✦ Factor 1 - Roads

✦ Factor 2 - Debris Flow Hazard

✦ Factor 3 - Soil Erodibility/Granitic Parent Material Hazard

✦ Factor 4 – Sediment Transport

5 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 34 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

3.3.1. Factor 1 – Roads Road Density

Roads can convert subsurface runoff to surface runoff and then route the surface runoff to stream channels, increasing peak flows (Megan and Kidd 1972, Ice 1985, and Swanson et al. 1987). Therefore, watersheds with higher road densities have a higher sensitivity to increases in peak flows following wildfires. Road density in miles of road per square mile of watershed area was used as an indicator of flooding hazard. The U.S. Forest Service roads data was used on National Forest System (NFS) lands because it is the most accurate roads data for those roads in the forest. On all other lands the Larimer County roads data was used.

The results of road density, in miles of road per square mile watershed area, were categorized into the 5 assessment categories, using the assessment categorization scheme. Table 3.10 presents the highest ranked 7th Level watersheds for road density. It displays some expected differences in road density throughout the watershed, with the highest road densities near more populated areas.

Table 3.10 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Road Density6 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Swamp Creek Elkhorn Creek UT1 to Elkhorn Creek Headwaters Gordon Creek UT4 to Gordon Creek Gordon Creek UT3 to Gordon Creek Upper Gordon Creek Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River UT to Hill Gulch UT2 to North Fork-Panhandle Creek North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek Middle North Fork-Panhandle Creek Lower Panhandle Creek Fish Creek-Dale Creek Little Fish Creek Columbine Canyon North Fork Lone Pine Creek MIddle North Fork Lone Pine Creek Horsetooth Reservoir Santanka Gulch Lower Rist City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Empire Gulch

6 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 35 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Roads Close to Streams

In order to further qualify the effect that roads may have on streams, the road density near streams was calculated using a 100 meter buffer. The 7th Level watersheds with the highest rank in roads close to streams are presented in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Roads Close to Streams7 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper South Fork CLP River Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River Lower Upper CLP River Headwaters Gordon Creek Gordon Creek Upper Gordon Creek Upper Lower CLP River Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Lower Lower CLP River North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek Lower Panhandle Creek Sheep Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre Creek Middle Sheep Creek-North Fork Trail Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre River Devils Creek Halligan Reservoir Middle Meadow Creek Santanka Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Spring Creek Outlet Poudre River City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Lower Rist Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Empire Gulch Figure 4.9: Upper Poudre Watershed Roads Close to Streams Rank Results

Road/Stream Crossings Road/Stream Crossings The density of road/stream crossings was calculated for each 7The density of road/stream crossings was also calculated for eachth Level watershed then categorized into the 5 seventh-level watershed then categorized into assessment categories. The road/stream crossings were manually acquired using the road and stream layers in the 5 assessment categories. The road/stream crossings were manually acquired using the road and stream combination with aerial imagery verification. The streams were identified to be either ephemeral or perennial layers in combination with aerial imagery verification. The streams were identified to be either ephemeral or streams. Perennial stream crossings were weighted by a factor of 2 and the metric for the density of road/perennial streams. Perennial stream crossings were weighted by a factor of 2 and the metric for the density of stream crossings were calculated with the following formula:road/stream crossings were calculated with the following formula:

# '( )*+),)-./ 01-)., 2-'003!40 5 6 × # '( *)-)!!3./ 01-)., 2-'003!40 Road/Stream Crossings Metric = Watershed Area The 7Figureth Level watersheds with the highest ranking for Road/Stream Crossings 4.10 shows the Road/Stream Crossings rankings for the seventh-levelare presented in Table 3.12. watersheds in the Upper Poudre Watershed. The seventh-level watersheds with the highest ranking are presented in Table 4.10. The full tabular results are shown in Appendix X.

Table 4.10 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Road/Stream Crossings

Crossing 7 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC. Density Rank 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Rounded Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre Twin Lake Reservoir 5 River page 36 Pennock Creek UT2 to Pennock Creek 5 Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Upper South Fork CLP River 5 Poudre River Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow 5 UT2 to Gordon Creek 5 Gordon Creek Middle Gordon Creek 5 Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River UT to Hill Gulch 5 Soldier Canyon 5 Horsetooth Reservoir Well Gulch 5

Figure 4.10: Upper Poudre Watershed Road/Streams Crossings Rank Results

Composite Roads Rank Finally, the results for all three roads rankings were combined and re-categorized to create the Composite Roads Ranking. The 7th Level watersheds were ranked from 1 (low road impacts) to 5 (high road impacts). Figure 4.11 shows the Composite Roads Rankings for the Upper Poudre Watershed area and the tabular data can be found in Appendix X.

The seventh-level watersheds with the highest composite road impact rankings are shown in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Composite Roads

Roads Composite Rank 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Rounded Pennock Creek UT2 to Pennock Creek 5

page 11 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.12 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Road/Stream Crossings8 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre River Twin Lake Reservoir Pennock Creek UT2 to Pennock Creek Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper South Fork CLP River Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow UT2 to Gordon Creek Gordon Creek Middle Gordon Creek Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River UT to Hill Gulch Soldier Canyon Horsetooth Reservoir Well Gulch

Composite Roads Rank

The results for all three roads rankings were combined and re-categorized to create the Composite Roads Ranking. The 7th Level watersheds were ranked from 1 (low potential road impacts) to 5 (high potential road impacts). Map 3.10 shows the Composite Roads Ranking for the Upper Poudre Watershed area and the full tabular results can be found in Table C-1 in Appendix C.

The 7th Level watersheds with the highest composite road rankings are shown in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Composite Roads9 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Pennock Creek UT2 to Pennock Creek

Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River Upper South Fork CLP River

UT to Sevenmile Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River Lower Upper CLP River

Elkhorn Creek UT1 to Elkhorn Creek

Middle Gordon Creek

Gordon Creek Headwaters Gordon Creek

Upper Gordon Creek

Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River UT to Hill Gulch

North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek Lower Panhandle Creek

8 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

9 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 37 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

3.3.2. Factor 2 – Debris Flow Hazard The Debris Flow Hazard is based on a factor referred to as ruggedness. Watershed steepness or ruggedness is an indicator of the relative sensitivity to debris flow following wildfires (Cannon and Reneau, 2000). The more rugged the watershed, the higher its sensitivity to generating debris flow following wildfire (Melton 1957). The Melton ruggedness factor is basically a slope index.

Melton (1957) defines ruggedness, R, as; -0.5 R = HbAb

Where Ab is basin area and Hb is basin height measured from the point of highest elevation along the watershed divide to the outlet.

The ruggedness result in some watersheds was adjusted because they do not accurately reflect the slope in those watersheds. Those situations are most common in composite watersheds because they are disconnected from their headwaters. These watersheds can have a high hazard for debris flows because they contain a main stem of a creek or river with several steep first order streams as tributaries. In those situations, the ruggedness calculations were adjusted up by reducing the watershed area.

Map 3.11 shows the Debris Flow Hazard Ranking for the Upper Poudre Watershed and tabular results are presented in Table C-2 in Appendix C, with adjustments listed. The 7th Level watersheds with a higher ranking debris flow hazard are located mostly in the southern half of the Upper Poudre Watershed. The 7th Level watersheds with the highest ranking (Category 5) for debris flow hazard are listed in Table 3.14.

Table 3.14 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Debris Flow Hazard10 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre River UT to Head South Fork CLP White Rock Creek Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River UT to South Fork CLP River UT to Pendergrass Creek Sheep Creek Sheep Creek UT2 to Headwaters CLP Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Washout Gulch Crown Point Gulch Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Buck Gulch Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 3 Horsetooth Reservoir Well Gulch City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 1

10 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 38 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

3.3.3. Factor 3 – Soil Erodibility/Granitic Parent Material Hazard High-severity fires can dramatically change runoff and erosion processes in watersheds. Water and sediment yields may increase as more of the forest floor is consumed (Wells et al. 1979, Robichaud and Waldrop 1994, Soto et al. 1994, Neary et al. 2005, and Moody et al. 2008) and soil properties are altered by soil heating (Hungerford et al. 1991). Potential Soil Erodibility

The U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) SSURGO soils data were used in the soil erodibility analysis. SSURGO data is available at an appropriate scale (generally ranges from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360) for this analysis. The soil erodibility analysis used a combination of two standard erodibility indicators: the inherent susceptibility of soil to erosion (K factor) and land slope derived from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 30-meter digital elevation models (DEM). The K factor data from the SSURGO spatial database was combined with a slope grid using NRCS (USDA NRCS 1997) slope-soil relationships (Table 3.15) to create a classification grid divided into slight, moderate, severe, and very severe erosion hazard ratings. The potential soil erodibility analysis from the intersection of the SSURGO data and the criteria in Table 3.15 is displayed in Map 3.12.

The K-factor analysis required using multiple soil survey data layers. Some of the SSURGO values were missing in the K-factor mapping. In addition, at the intersection of some of the soil survey plots which created the SSURGO dataset, the K-factors did not follow expected patterns. The solution was to overlay the coarser resolution STATSGO soil data and use it to fill in missing SSURGO K-factors. Neighboring polygons that were inconsistent with the overall layer or that created dramatic differences at arbitrary break lines were also adjusted using the STATSGO data to create a uniform K-factor layer for the entire area.

Table 3.15. NRCS Criteria for Determining Potential Soil Erodibility Percent Slope K Factor <0.1 K Factor 0.1 to 0.19 K Factor 0.2 to 0.32 K Factor >0.32

0-14 Slight Slight Slight Moderate

15-34 Slight Slight Moderate Severe

35-50 Slight Moderate Severe Very Severe

>50 Moderate Severe Very Severe Very Severe

Each 7th level watershed was then categorized for potential soil erodibility using the assessment categorization scheme. For this categorization, the Potential Soil Erodibility Metric was calculated with the following formula. The results were then categorized into the five hazard rankings, Category 1 (low hazard) to Category 5 (high hazard).

Soil Erodibility Metric = (% Severe + 2 x % Very Severe)

The highest ranked watersheds for potential soil erodibility are listed in Table 3.16.

page 39 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.16 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Potential Soil Erodibility11

6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Hague Creek Upper Hague Creek Willow Creek-Cache La Poudre River Lower Willow Creek CLP Sheep Creek Sheep Creek Roaring Creek Lower Roaring River UT5 to Headwaters CLP Middle Headwaters CLP Headwaters Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Upper Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow UT2 to Headwaters CLP UT1 to Headwaters CLP Washout Gulch Youngs Gulch Lower Youngs Gulch Lower Middle CLP River Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Lower Skin Gulch Upper Lower CLP River Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River UT to Hill Gulch Hill Gulch City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River UT to Lewstone

Granitic Parent Material

It was determined by the CPRW Science and Monitoring Subcommittee that the potential for granitic parent material and granitic soils in the watershed would increase potential soil erosion. Soil scientists have observed that K-factor does not adequately identify soil erodibility on granitic soils. Therefore, where substantial areas of granitic soils exist, a geology layer was used to identify areas of granitic soils and increase the erodibility rating for those soils (Front Range Watershed Protection Data Refinement Work Group 2009).

Using the Colorado State Geology layer and the Wyoming State Geology layer, granitic and phaneritic (coarse grained) plutonic geology, within each 7th Level watershed, was identified. Map 3.13 shows the map of granitic geology for the Upper Poudre Watershed. The 7th Level watersheds were then ranked separately by percent area of granitic soil or parent material, using the assessment categorization scheme. The Granitic Parent Material Ranking, for which there are 85 7th Level watersheds with the highest ranking (Category 5), illustrates the abundance of granitic geology in the area. The 7th Level watersheds with the highest ranking for granitic geology are listed in Table 3.17.

11 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 40 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.17 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Granitic Parent Material12 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Upper Head South Fork CLP Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre River UT to Head South Fork CLP Roaring Creek Upper Roaring River Tunnel Creek Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Williams Gulch UT3 to Upper CLP River Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River UT1 to Upper CLP River Eggers Gulch Upper Elkhorn Creek UT5 to Elkhorn Creek UT4 to Elkhorn Creek Elkhorn Creek Middle Elkhorn Creek UT3 to Elkhorn Creek UT2 to Elkhorn Creek UT1 to Elkhorn Creek Youngs Gulch UT to Stove Prairie Gulch Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River UT to Middle CLP River Gordon Creek Headwaters Gordon Creek Headwaters North Fork-Panhandle Creek UT2 to North Fork-Panhandle Creek Middle North Fork-Panhandle Creek North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek Pearl Creek South Fork Panhandle Creek Lower North Fork-Panhandle Creek Eaton Reservoir Sheep Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre Creek Upper Sheep Creek-North Fork Trout Creek Upper North Fork-Bull Creek Upper Bull Creek Upper Mill Creek North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Bull Creek Middle Mill Creek Willow Creek-Mill Creek Lower Mill Creek Little Bull Creek Upper Trail Creek UT5 to Trail Creek Trail Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre River UT4 to Trail Creek UT3 to Trail Creek Hamxe Creek Upper West Fork Dale Creek Mud Creek UT2 to Lower Dale Creek Lower Dale Creek UT1 to Lower Dale Creek Upper Georges Gulch Lower Georges Gulch

12 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 41 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Headwaters Fish Creek Little Fish Creek Kelsey Lake Upper Fish Creek UT6 to Fish Creek Fish Creek-Dale Creek UT5 to Fish Creek UT4 to Fish Creek UT3 to Fish Creek UT1 to Fish Creek Lower Fish Creek Deadman Creek UT4 to Deadman Creek Upper South Fork Lone Pine Creek UT to South Fork Lone Pine Creek South Fork Lone Pine Creek Bellaire Creek Middle South Fork Lone Pine Creek Lower South Fork Lone Pine Creek Headwaters North Fork Lone Pine Creek Upper North Fork Lone Pine Creek Columbine Canyon MIddle North Fork Lone Pine Creek North Fork Lone Pine Creek UT to North Fork Lone Pine Creek Lower North Fork Lone Pine Creek Windy Gap Lake Creek Outlet North Fork Lone Pine Creek Headwaters Lone Pine Creek UT3 to Lone Pine Creek Lone Pine Creek Upper Lone Pine Creek Middle Lone Pine Creek Upper Sixmile Creek Halligan Reservoir Upper Meadow Creek UT to Meadow Creek Headwaters North Fork Rabbit Creek Middle North Fork Rabbit Creek UT to North Fork Rabbit Creek Lower North Fork Rabbit Creek Rabbit Creek Middle Fork Rabbit Creek UT to Rabbit Creek UT to South Fork Rabbit Creek South Fork Rabbit Creek Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache La Poudre River UT2 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir

page 42 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Composite Soil Erodibility/Granitic Material Ranking

The Composite Soils/Granitic Material Composite Ranking was calculated by summing the rankings for both Potential Soil Erodibility and Granitic Geology for each 7th Level watershed, and re-categorizing with the assessment categorization scheme. Some adjustments were made to the composite metric because the results were skewed.

The Soil Erodibility/Granitic Parent Material Composite Ranking is shown in Map 3.14. Tabular data is also presented in Table C-3 in Appendix C. With the adjustments for geology, there are 18 7th Level watersheds with the highest hazard (Category 5) for soil erodibility/granitic parent material composite, listed in Table 3.18.

Table 3.18 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Soil Erodibility/Granitic Material Composite13

6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Upper Head South Fork CLP Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre River UT to Head South Fork CLP Hague Creek Upper Hague Creek Roaring Creek Lower Roaring River Headwaters Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Upper Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River UT to Poudre River North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek Lower North Fork-Panhandle Creek Upper North Fork-Bull Creek North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Bull Creek Lower Mill Creek Fish Creek-Dale Creek UT1 to Fish Creek Lower North Fork Lone Pine Creek North Fork Lone Pine Creek Outlet North Fork Lone Pine Creek Headwaters Lone Pine Creek Lone Pine Creek UT3 to Lone Pine Creek Upper Lone Pine Creek Middle Fork Rabbit Creek Rabbit Creek UT to South Fork Rabbit Creek

3.3.4. Factor 4 – Sediment Transport Understanding sediment generation and movement in watersheds and stream systems can provide valuable information on the hazards that disturbances might present to streams, water quality, and water supply infrastructure. Sediment transport and deposition is a complicated process in natural stream systems. A

13 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 43 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final simplified analysis was used in order to characterize sediment transport and deposition across many watersheds and provide a tool for use in targeting pre- and post-fire watershed protection activities.

This analysis used geomorphic indicators to evaluate where, and to what extent, in-stream sedimentation would occur after disturbance events. These indicators were used to rank the sensitivity of stream junctions to accumulating large deposits of sediment and debris, as well as channel changes in response to increased loads of sediment.

Although they interact, sediment transport and deposition are two distinct processes. For the Upper Poudre Watershed analysis, sediment transport is separated from sediment deposition. It was determined that sediment transport more directly affects Value B - Resilient River Corridor, and sediment deposition more directly affects Value C - Reliable Water Supply. The descriptions of each may relate to each other, much like the processes themselves, but the analyses remain discrete. Rosgen Stream Types

The streams of the assessment area were classified according to the Level 1 Rosgen classification method (Rosgen 1994). A Level 1 assessment characterizes streams based upon morphological characteristics. This characterization integrates the landform and fluvial features of the valley morphology with channel relief, pattern, shape and dimension. The longitudinal profiles inferred from topographical map layers and aerial imagery serves as the basis for breaking the stream reaches into slope categories that reflect profile morphology (Rosgen 1994). The characteristics of seven channel types are displayed in Table 3.19. The gradients and sinuosity measurements for each stream reach were determined using GIS. The sinuosity estimates using the existing stream line layers were determined to be relatively imprecise for stream classifications. Therefore, channel slope and inferred valley confinement were used as the main factors in classifying streams.

In general, stream channel positions in the drainage network and sediment transport characteristics of stream reach-level morphologies define source, transport, and response reaches (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). In steep areas, source reaches are transport limited and sediment storage sites are subject to intermittent debris flow scour (colluvial). Transport reaches are morphologically resilient, high-gradient, supply limited channels (bedrock, cascade, and step-pool) that rapidly convey increased sediment inputs. Response reaches are low-gradient, transport limited channels (plane-bed, pool-riffle, braided) in which significant morphologic adjustment occurs in response to increased sediment supply (Montgomery and Buffington 1997).

page 44 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.19. Summary of Rosgen Criteria for Broad-Level Characterization14

Entrench- Width/ Stream ment Depth Type General Description Ratio Ratio Sinuosity Slope Landform/ soils/features Aa+ Very steep, deeply < 1.4 < 12 1.0 to 1.1 > 0.10 Very high relief. Erosional, bedrock or entrenched, debris transport depositional features; debris flow potential. streams Deeply entrenched streams. Vertical steps with/ deep scour pools; waterfalls

A Steep, entrenched, cascading, < 1.4 < 12 1.0 to 1.2 0.04 to High relief. Erosional or depositional and step/pool streams. High 0.10 bedrock forms. Entrenched and confined energy/debris transport streams with cascading reaches. Frequently associated with depositional spaced, deep pools in associated step-pool soils. Very stable if bedrock or bed morphology boulder dominated channel B Moderately entrenched, 1.4 to 2.2 > 12 > 1.2 0.02 to Moderate relief, colluvial deposition and/or moderate gradient, riffle 0.039 residual soils. Moderate entrenchment and dominated channel, with W/D ratio. Narrow, gently sloping valleys. infrequently spaced pools. Rapids predominate with occasional pools Very stable plan and profile. Stable banks

C Low gradient, meandering, > 2.2 > 12 > 1.4 < 0.02 Broad valleys with terraces, in association point bar, riffle/pool, alluvial with floodplains, alluvial soils. Slightly channels with broad, well entrenched with well-defined meandering defined floodplains channel. Riffle- pool bed morphology. D Braided channel with n/a > 40 n/a < 0.04 Broad valleys with alluvial and colluvial fans, longitudinal and transverse Glacial debris and depositional features. bars. Very wide channel with Active lateral adjustment, with abundance of eroding banks. sediment supply.

DA multiple channels, narrow and > 4.0 < 40 variable < 0.005 Broad low gradient valleys with fine alluvium deep with expansive well and/or lacustrine soils. Anastomosed vegetated floodplain and (multiple channel) geologic control creating associated wetlands. Very fine deposition with well vegetated bars that gentle relief with highly are laterally stable with broad wetland variable sinuoisties. Stable floodplains. streambanks. E Low gradient, meandering > 2.2 < 12 > 1.5 < 0.02 Broad valley/meadows. Alluvial materials riffle/pool stream with low with floodplain. Highly sinuous with stable, width/depth ratio and little well vegetated banks. Riffle-pool deposition. Very efficient and morphology with very low width/depth stable. High meander width ratio. ratio.

F Entrenched meandering riffle/ < 1.4 > 12 > 1.4 < 0.02 Entrenched in highly weathered material. pool channel on low gradients Gentle gradients, with a high W/D ratio. with high width/ depth ratio Meandering, laterally unstable with high bank erosion rates. Riffle-pool morphology G Entrenched "gully" step/ pool < 1.4 < 12 > 1.2 0.02 to Gully, step-pool morphology with moderate and low width/depth ratio on 0.039 slopes and low W/D ratio. Narrow valleys, or moderate gradients deeply incised in alluvial or colluvial materials; i.e., fans or deltas. Unstable, with grade control problems and high bank erosion rates

14 Rosgen 1994

page 45 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Source reaches are generally located in steeper areas where there is a supply of sediment available for movement downstream (sediment source areas). Although these reaches are high gradient and fast moving, the amount of sediment available for transport usually exceeds the ability of the stream to move the sediments. These reaches are generally smaller tributaries or headwater areas where the streamflow is limited. Sediments are moved intermittently from the source reaches during peakflow or following a disturbance event such as a high-severity wildfire followed by a storm. Because of high gradients and velocities in these streams, peak flows can move large amounts of sediment.

Some reaches may have a greater capacity to transport sediments than the surrounding watershed and upper reaches can supply. These reaches are considered “supply limited” and have higher streamflows than source reaches and higher velocities than response reaches. Most sediment that is delivered to the reach is transported downstream. These stream reaches are called transport reaches, a reflection of their ability to move sediment downstream.

Lower gradient stream reaches are generally not able to transport all the sediment that is delivered to them from upper stream reaches, tributaries or the surrounding watershed. These reaches are “transport limited” because their ability to transport sediment is exceeded by the amount of sediment supplied to them. Increased sediment delivery to these reaches is deposited in the reach rather than transported further downstream. Therefore, these stream reaches are called response reaches. Response reaches are typically pool-riffles or braided channels and although they tend to have the highest streamflow in the system because of the higher water volume lower in the watershed, they are the slowest moving. Transport of sediments deposited in response reaches usually occurs during peak flows events (snowmelt runoff or summer rainstorms).

Sediment deposition in response reaches is a natural process. The sediment will form bars or be stored in banks, floodplains, etc. and the reach will retain its function. However, when sediment yield is increased or a catastrophic event occurs higher in the watershed, the amount of sediment delivered by a transport or source reach can overwhelm the response reach with sediment deposition and debris. The reach may move outside of dynamic equilibrium and not function properly until peak flow events possibly restore the channel to a functioning condition (dynamic equilibrium) by transporting the excess sediment downstream.

Stream segments were systematically identified as either “source,” “transport,” or “response” based on their Rosgen channel type (Table 3.20). The spatial distribution of source, transport, and response reaches governs the distribution of potential impacts and recovery times for the system.

page 46 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan dynamic equilibrium and not function properly until peak flow events possibly restore the channel to a functioning condition (dynamic equilibrium) by transporting the excess sediment downstream.

Stream segments were systematically identified as either “source,” “transport,” or “response” based on their Rosgen channel type (Table 4.18). The spatial distribution of source, transport, and response reaches governs the distribution of potential impacts and recovery times for the system.

Table 4.18. Relationship Between Sediment Transport Characteristics3 and Rosgen Channel Type

Sediment Transport Characteristics Rosgen Channel Type Gradient

Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Source FinalAa+ > 0.10

Table 3.20. Relationship Between Sediment Transport Characteristics15 and Rosgen Channel Type A 0.04 to 0.10 Sediment Transport Transport Characteristics B Rosgen Channel Type Gradient 0.03 to 0.039 Source Aa+ > 0.10 G A 0.04 to 0.10 0.03 to 0.039 Transport B 0.03 to 0.039 B 0.02 to 0.03 G 0.03 to 0.039

G B 0.02 to 0.03 0.02 to 0.03 Response G 0.02 to 0.03 Response C C < 0.02 < 0.02 E < 0.02 E < 0.02

Sediment Transport Using the USGS 30-meter DEM, the gradient of each stream reach was calculated to identify streams that are Sediment Transport source, transport, and response reaches. Map 3.15 shows the classified streams in the Upper Poudre Using the USGS 30-meter DEM, the gradient of each stream reach was calculated to identify streams that are Watershed. The miles of source and transport streams were calculated for each 7source, transport, and response reaches. The miles of source and transport streamsth Level watershed and were calculated for each 7th divided by the watershed area to give an indicator for the relative sediment transport, or Transport Hazard level watershed and divided by the watershed area to give an indicator for the relative sediment transport, or Metric for each watershed (see following formula). The source streams were weighted by a factor of 2. The Transport Hazard Metric for each watershed (see following formula). The source streams were weighted by a response streams were not considered in this metric because they are unlikely to deliver sediment factor of 2. The response streams were not considered in this metric because they are unlikely to deliver downstream.sediment downstream.

(Miles of transport stream + 2 × miles of source stream) Transport Hazard Metric = Watershed Area

Using this metric, the 7Using this metric, the 7th L levelevel watersheds were ranked into the 5 categories using the assessment watersheds were ranked into the 5 categories using the assessment categorization categorization scheme. scheme.

In addition to the transport hazard, based on a broader stream categorization, the streams in each watershed were further categorized by the average gradient of the stream. Because the streams within each type (source, transport, response) might be anywhere within a range of gradient values, it was deemed necessary to weight 3 the rankings by the actual average gradient of the streams in the watershed. In doing so, a transport reach that Montgomery and Buffington 1997 has a 9% gradient, for example, is ranked higher in sediment transport than a transport reach with a 4% gradient. In order to do this, the average gradient for all streams within each watershed was calculated, and page 21 those were ranked, according to the assessment categorization scheme.

The Sediment Transport Rank was then determined with a re-categorization based on the Sediment Transport Metric (see following formula), using the assessment categorization scheme.

Sediment Transport Metric = Transport Hazard Rank + Gradient Rank

15 Montgomery and Buffington 1997

page 47 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Map 3.16 shows the Upper Poudre Watershed Sediment Transport Rankings and complete tabular results for Sediment Transport are presented in Table C-4 in Appendix C. Table 3.21 presents the watersheds that rank highest for sediment transport hazard.

Table 3.21 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Sediment Transport16

6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Pennock Creek UT3 to Pennock Creek Pendergrass Creek-South Fork Cache La Poudre River White Rock Creek Sheep Creek UT1 to Sheep Creek Roaring Creek UT to Roaring River UT3 to Headwaters CLP Peterson Creek Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Headwaters CLP Washout Gulch Crown Point Gulch UT to Sevenmile Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Upper CLP River Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Buck Gulch Falls Gulch Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 3 Santanka Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Well Gulch Arthurs Rock Gulch Unnamed 2 City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 1

3.3.5. Value B - Resilient River Corridor Composite Ranking The Value B - Resilient River Corridor Composite Ranking was created by combining the rankings for the four factors for each 7th Level watershed. The watersheds are re-categorized based on the sum of these four factors. The Composite Ranking map is useful in comparing relative watershed hazards based solely on factors within Value B - Resilient River Corridor.

Map 3.17 shows the Value B - Resilient River Corridor Composite Ranking for the Upper Poudre Watershed. The tabular results that display the individual rankings for Roads Rank, Debris Flow Hazard Rank, Soil Erodibility/ Granitic Geology Rank and Sediment Transport Rank, as well as the Composite Rankings, are presented in Table

16 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 48 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

C-5 in Appendix C. The highest ranked (Category 5) 7th Level watersheds for the Value B - Resilient River Corridor Composite Ranking are listed in Table 3.22.

Table 3.22 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Value B Composite17

6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed UT to Head South Fork CLP Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre River Twin Lake Reservoir Pennock Creek UT3 to Pennock Creek UT2 to Headwaters CLP Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Washout Gulch Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River UT to Sevenmile Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Lower Skin Gulch UT to Hill Gulch UT to Poudre River Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Boyd Gulch Unnamed 3 Santanka Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Well Gulch Arthurs Rock Gulch Lower Rist City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Empire Gulch

3.4. Value C - Reliable Water Supply

A reliable and predictable water supply depends on clean water that is free of excess sediment or other pollutants. A clean and reliable water supply provides the following ecosystem benefits and services; Reliable/ predictable source of drinking and irrigation water.

The water supply is at risk from the following; wildfire, drought, insect/disease, floods, and pollution.

The analysis of Value C - Reliable Water Supply is based upon the following four factors that are described below;

✦ Factor 1 - Land Use Impacts on Water Quality

✦ Factor 2 - Existing Water Quality Impairment

✦ Factor 3 - Source Supply Areas

✦ Factor 4 - Sediment Deposition

17 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 49 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

3.4.1. Factor 1 - Land Use Impacts on Water Quality Land uses which impact water quality may include development of infrastructure, roads, and trails; grazing, agriculture, and pastures. It was determined by the CPRW Science and Monitoring Committee that the grazing and floodplain data was insufficient to include in this assessment. For more details, see Section 5.1 Address Data Gaps. Therefore, aquatic habitat, riparian, and water quality data were used as a metric for impacts from land use. Population was used as an indicator of development impacts on water quality. Population Density/Development

Address data from Larimer County was used as a surrogate for population. The density of addresses was calculated for each 7th Level watershed. The 7th Level watersheds were then ranked with the assessment categorization scheme from 1 (low potential impacts) to 5 (high potential impacts). Watershed Condition Framework

The U.S. Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) integrates the effect of all activities within a watershed. This framework, conducted in 2011, is an assessment of all 6th Level watersheds on National Forests to document the overall function of each watershed based on 12 condition indicators (USDA Forest Service 2011). For the Upper Poudre Watershed analysis, the condition indicators for: Roads and Trails Condition, Aquatic Habitat Condition, Riparian and Wetland Vegetation Condition, and Water Quality Condition were summed as a metric for impacts from land use. The WCF is a national scale dataset and is therefore only ranked at the scale of 6th Level watersheds. Each indicator, within each 6th Level watershed, is classified as Good, Fair, or Poor. The three ratings were translated in this analysis to a numeric value from 1 (Good) to 3 (Poor). Each 7th Level watershed was assigned the numeric value of the larger 6th Level watershed in which it is located, ranked 1-3 for each of the indicators chosen. Those numerical values were then summed to create a total WCF metric, which were then re-ranked from 1 (low potential impacts) to 5 (high potential impacts) for land use impact on water quality, using the assessment categorization scheme. Land Use Hazard

Finally, a Land Use Hazard Ranking between 1 and 5 was calculated by summing the Population Ranking and the WCF Ranking and re-categorizing with the assessment categorization scheme. The Land Use Rankings are shown in Map 3.18 and the tabular results for the Population Ranking, WCF Ranking, and Land Use Hazard Ranking are presented in Table D-1 in Appendix D. The highest ranking watersheds (Category 5) for Land Use Hazard are listed in Table 3.23.

page 50 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.23 Highest Ranking Watershed for Land Use Hazard18 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Stevens Gulch Headwaters Gordon Creek Gordon Creek UT4 to Gordon Creek UT3 to Gordon Creek Lower Panhandle Creek North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek Lower North Fork-Panhandle Creek Headwaters North Fork Lone Pine Creek Upper North Fork Lone Pine Creek North Fork Lone Pine Creek Columbine Canyon MIddle North Fork Lone Pine Creek Santanka Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Horsetooth Reservoir City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Empire Gulch

3.4.2. Factor 2 - Existing Water Quality Impairment To evaluate the existing water quality impairment in each 7th Level watershed, the streams with 303 (d) listings, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) identification, or non-attainment of classified uses were identified and quantified as a total length of stream in miles. The 7th Level watersheds were ranked based on the total length of impaired stream divided by the total area of the watershed, using the assessment categorization scheme. Category 1 is the lowest impairment, up to Category 5 for the highest impaired.

Map 3.19 shows Existing Water Quality Impairment Rankings, and the tabular results are presented in Table D-2 of Appendix D. The 7th Level watersheds that rank highest for water quality impairment are listed in Table 3.24.

18 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 51 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.24 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Water Quality Impairment19

6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Lower Dale Creek Mud Creek Deadman Creek UT1 to Deadman Creek South Fork Lone Pine Creek Bellaire Creek UT1 to Halligan Reservoir Halligan Reservoir UT2 to Halligan Reservoir Lower Meadow Creek Rabbit Creek UT to Rabbit Creek Tenmile Creek Stonewall Creek Upper Stonewall Creek UT1 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache La Poudre River UT3 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir Outlet North Fork-Seaman Reservoir

3.4.3. Factor 3 - Source Supply Areas Surface water intakes, diversions, conveyance structures, storage reservoirs, and streams are all susceptible to the effects of wildfires. Using the methodology from the Cache La Poudre Wildfire/Watershed Assessment (JW Associates 2010), source supply areas or Zones of Concern (ZOC) for water supplies were identified. The area (in acres) of water source supply in each 7th Level watershed, divided by the total watershed area, provided a source value percentage metric. This source value was then ranked from 1 (low water supply value) to 5 (high water supply value), using the assessment categorization scheme.

Map 3.20 shows the Source Supply Hazard Rankings and the tabular data is also presented in Table D-3 of Appendix D. There are 59 7th Level watersheds with the highest water supply value rank; they are listed in Table 3.25.

19 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 52 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.25 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Source Supply Hazard20

6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Beaver Creek Headwaters Browns Lake Beaver Creek Comanche Reservoir Hourglass Reservoir Headwaters Cache La Poudre River Chapin Creek Neota Creek La Poudre Pass Creek UT to Long Draw Reservoir Upper Joe Wright Creek North Fork Joe Wright Creek Sawmill Creek Joe Wright Creek Fall Creek-Joe Wright Creek Middle Joe Wright Creek Barnes Meadow Reservoir Willow Creek-Cache La Poudre River Peterson Lake Youngs Gulch Lower Youngs Gulch Cedar Gulch Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Lower Middle CLP River Unnamed 9 Upper Lower CLP River Falls Gulch Hill Gulch UT to Hill Gulch Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Watha Gulch UT to Poudre River Boyd Gulch Unnamed 3 Lower Lower CLP River Upper Panhandle Creek Middle Panhandle Creek North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek South Fork Panhandle Creek Lower Panhandle Creek Cow Creek Sheep Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre Creek Eaton Reservoir

20 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 53 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Bull Creek Lower North Fork-Bull Creek UT to Sixmile Creek Lower Sixmile Creek UT2 to Halligan Reservoir UT to Meadow Creek Halligan Reservoir Middle Meadow Creek UT1 to Halligan Reservoir Lower Meadow Creek Halligan Reservoir UT2 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir Greyrock Mountain Creek UT1 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache La Poudre River Obenchain Draw Outlet North Fork-Seaman Reservoir Miton Seaman Reservoir Santanka Gulch Soldier Canyon Well Gulch Arthurs Rock Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Mill Creek Spring Canyon Spring Creek Horsetooth Reservoir Unnamed 2 City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 1 Outlet Poudre River

3.4.4. Factor 4 – Sediment Deposition Sediment deposition occurs in places were sediment transport capacity decreases. Stream junctions or changes in gradient can be evaluated to determine where in the watershed potential problems with sediment deposition would occur. The most sensitive junctions in the watershed tend to be at the junction of other reaches with response reaches, where the velocity of the water is typically slower. When a transport reach encounters a response reach, there is a high potential for sediment deposition because the sediment transport capacity (in comparison to supply) of the upper transport reach is greater than the ability of the response reach to move sediment. A more sensitive stream junction is the point where a source reach enters a response reach. Source reaches can deliver sediment at higher flows, and in some cases debris flows, directly to

page 54 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final response reaches, overwhelming the ability of the slower water in the response reach to move the sediment and debris.

Once the streams in each 7th Level watershed were characterized by their sediment transport characteristics (see Section 3.3.4), the junctions of the different channel types were evaluated. Table 3.26 presents the guidelines used to classify junctions. Green tagged junctions are areas where problematic deposition is unlikely to occur because sediment transport capacity does not change, or increases. Some of the green junctions are unlikely to occur in the watershed, such as transport to source junctions. Yellow tagged junctions may experience impacts from increased sediment deposition that are pronounced and persistent. The transport to response junctions are discussed above and are areas of concern for increased sediment deposition. The source to transport junctions are also areas of concern, because source reaches can generate debris flows following wildfires and the gradient changes. Red tagged junctions are source to response junctions. These junctions were tagged red because source reaches can deliver debris flows in addition to increased sediment. The tagging of stream junctions allows a graphical presentation of sediment deposition in the watersheds and allows a simplified interpretation of potential problem areas. Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan

Transport Table 3.26. Stream Junction Sediment Transport Tagging GuidelinesSource Green Upstream Stream Reach Downstream Stream Reach Junction Tag Source Transport Yellow Source Source Green Transport Transport Transport Source Green Green Source Transport Yellow Response Transport Green Transport Transport Green

Source Response Response Transport Red Green Source Response Red Transport Response Yellow Transport Response Yellow

Response Response Response Response Green Green

The red and yellow tags can be viewed as sediment stops in the system, or areas of concern, and the green The red and yellow tags can be viewed as sediment stops in the system, or areas of concern, and the green tags as places where sediment continues to move downstream. However, sediment deposition at red and tags as places where sediment continues to move downstream. However, sediment deposition at red and yellow tags is available to be transported downstream under floods or other high streamflows. yellow tags is available to be transported downstream under floods or other high streamflows. For the sediment deposition analysis, the red and yellow junctions (sediment stops) were compiled for each 7For the sediment deposition analysis, the red and yellow junctions (sediment stops) were compiled for each 7thth Level watershed. The red junctions were given a weight of two and the weighted junctions summed for each level watershed. The red junctions were given a weight of two and the weighted junctions summed for each 7th 7levelth Level watershed, characterizing the total amount of possible sediment deposition in each watershed. A watershed, characterizing the total amount of possible sediment deposition in each watershed. A metric metric for sediment deposition was calculated using the following formula:for sediment deposition was calculated using the following formula:

(# '( 9)//': ;

Using this metric, the 7Using this metric, the 7thth Level watersheds were categorized into 5 sediment deposition hazard categories level watersheds were categorized into 5 sediment deposition hazard categories from from 1 (low hazard) to 5 (high hazard) with the assessment categorization scheme. Map 3.21 shows the red, 1 (low hazard) to 5 (high hazard) with the assessment categorization scheme. Figure 4.23 shows the map of yellow, and green stream junction tags. Map 3.22 shows the Sediment Deposition Rankings for the Upper the red, yellow, and green stream junction tags. Figure 4.24 shows the Sediment Deposition Rankings for the Upper Poudre watershed analysis and tabular data is presented in Table X of Appendix X. The 7th level watersheds that rank highest in sediment deposition are listed in Table 4.25. page 55 Table 4.25 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Sediment Deposition Hazard

Sediment Deposition Rank 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Rounded Sheep Creek Sheep Creek 5 Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Buck Gulch 5 Gordon Creek Upper Gordon Creek 5 Upper Lower CLP River 5 Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 3 5 Lower Lower CLP River 5 Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache La Outlet North Fork-Seaman Reservoir 5 Poudre River Santanka Gulch 5 Well Gulch 5 Horsetooth Reservoir Arthurs Rock Gulch 5 Horsetooth Reservoir 5

page 28 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Poudre Watershed and tabular data is presented in Table D-4 of Appendix D. The 7th Level watersheds that rank highest in sediment deposition are listed in Table 3.27.

Table 3.27 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Sediment Deposition Hazard21 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Sheep Creek Sheep Creek Skin Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Buck Gulch Gordon Creek Upper Gordon Creek Upper Lower CLP River Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 3 Lower Lower CLP River Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache La Poudre River Outlet North Fork-Seaman Reservoir Santanka Gulch Well Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Arthurs Rock Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 1

3.4.5. Value C - Reliable Water Supply Composite Ranking The Value C - Reliable Water Supply Composite Ranking is created by combining the final rankings for the four factors for each 7th Level watershed. The watersheds are re-categorized based on the sum of these four factors. Some adjustments were made to the composite metric because the results were skewed. The Composite Ranking map is useful in comparing relative watershed hazards based solely on factors within Value C - Reliable Water Supply.

Map 3.23 shows the Value C - Reliable Water Supply Ranking for the Upper Poudre Watershed. The tabular results that display the individual rankings for Land Use Impacts on Water Quality, Existing Water Quality Degradation, Source Supply Areas, and Sediment Deposition, as well as the Composite Rankings, are presented in Table D-5 in Appendix D. The highest ranked (Category 5) 7th Level watersheds for the Value C - Reliable Water Supply Composite are listed in Table 3.28.

21 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 56 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.28 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Value C - Reliable Water Supply Composite22 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Upper Lower CLP River Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 3 Lower Lower CLP River North Fork Cache La Poudre River-Panhandle Creek Lower Panhandle Creek Sheep Creek-North Fork Cache La Poudre Creek Eaton Reservoir UT2 to Halligan Reservoir Halligan Reservoir UT1 to Halligan Reservoir Lower Meadow Creek UT2 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir UT1 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache La Poudre River Obenchain Draw Outlet North Fork-Seaman Reservoir Miton Seaman Reservoir Santanka Gulch Horsetooth Reservoir Horsetooth Reservoir City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Outlet Poudre River

3.5. Overall Watershed Priority Analysis

The overall rank for each 7th Level watershed was calculated by adding the composite rank of all three values (A, B, and C) and re-categorizing with the assessment categorization scheme. Map 3.24 shows the Overall Priority Rankings and the tabular results for this combined analysis are presented in Table E-1 in Appendix E. The highest ranking watersheds (Category 5) for the Overall Watershed Priority Analysis are listed in Table 3.29.

22 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 57 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 3.29 Highest Ranking Watersheds for Overall Watershed Priority23 6th Level Watershed 7th Level Watershed Headwaters South Fork Cache La Poudre River Twin Lake Reservoir Sheep Creek Sheep Creek UT2 to Headwaters CLP Washout Gulch Black Hollow-Cache La Poudre River Lower Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow Crown Point Gulch UT to Sevenmile Sevenmile Creek-Cache La Poudre River UT2 to Upper CLP River UT1 to Upper CLP River UT to Poudre River Hill Gulch-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 3 Lower Lower CLP River North Fork Lone Pine Creek MIddle North Fork Lone Pine Creek Halligan Reservoir UT to Meadow Creek Miton Seaman Reservoir-North Fork Cache La Poudre River Obenchain Draw Santanka Gulch Soldier Canyon Horsetooth Reservoir Well Gulch Arthurs Rock Gulch Mill Creek City of Fort Collins-Cache La Poudre River Unnamed 1

23 These watersheds were all ranked as Highest (Red) or Category 5. Watersheds are sorted by HUC.

page 58 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

4.Priority Watershed Targets & Treatments This section discusses the determination of the priority watershed target areas, presents an analysis of the target areas, and presents treatment options to increase watershed resilience for each of the target areas. 4.1. Priority Watershed Target Areas

Six priority watershed target areas have been identified (Table 4.1 and Map 4.1). The priority watershed target areas were developed by looking for groups of red and orange ranked watersheds based on the final priority ranking. Then target areas were determined using 7th Level watersheds that have similar characteristics. These areas were then reviewed by CPRW and the stakeholder group and revised. The resulting areas are broader than just the red and orange ranked watersheds and include some lower ranked watersheds. These areas are designed to be targeted but inclusive enough to support moderate-scale projects.

Table 4.1. Priority Watershed Target Areas in the Upper Poudre Watershed Number of 7th Watershed Target Area Level Watersheds Area (acres) Horsetooth Reservoir 8 10,992 Lone Pine Creek 11 29,549 Lower Poudre - Hill Gulch 20 23,770 Meadow Creek 14 29,887 Pennock Creek 12 24,737 Upper Poudre - Black Hollow 28 47,331 Totals 93 166,266

The priority watershed areas together include nearly 100 small watersheds and over 166,000 acres. These areas are still relatively broad targets. The analysis presented below attempts to use the results of the watershed resilience analysis to identify target watersheds and projects within the watershed target areas. The priority watershed target areas are analyzed in the order listed in Table 4.1. 4.2. Actions to Increase Watershed Resilience

Watersheds were ranked based on three main categories and 11 sub-components. For many of these components, like soil erodibility, we do not have the ability to manage them to increase watershed resilience. They are important components in understanding why specific watershed are ranked high or low. There are some components that we can modify and increase watershed resilience. These include; canopy cover, non- resilient forest, wildfire hazard, roads, land use and water quality impacts. The options for increasing

page 59 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final watershed resilience will focus on actions that could increase watershed resilience. An overview of these actions is presented below.

4.2.1. Forest/Vegetation Management Forest and vegetation management actions would be designed to increase forest resilience at critical locations in Watershed Target Areas. Reducing forest density (canopy cover) and increasing forest type and canopy cover diversity would be the primary goals of forest treatments. Disconnecting dense forest areas from adjacent dense forest or watersheds would be a goal for forested areas that would not be able to be treated directly.

In areas of high wildfire hazard, the reduction of the extent of high wildfire severity is the goal for minimizing adverse hydrologic responses following intense wildfires. Wildfire severity is the effect that the fire has on the ground. Vegetative forest treatments can be effective in reducing the threat of crown fire (Graham et al. 1999). Treatments that reduce density and change the composition of forested stands would reduce the probability of crown fire, decrease severity, and enhance fire-suppression effectiveness and safety (Oucalt and Wade 1999, and Pollet and Omi 2002). In forested stands that have developed without regular disturbance, combinations of mechanical harvest/thinning and prescribed fire are the most effective technique for altering the fuels matrix (Graham et al. 2004). Ponderosa pine restoration treatments have been shown to reduce fire severity and tree mortality (Ecological Restoration Institute 2013). Xeric Ponderosa Pine Treatments

The treatment objective on the xeric ponderosa pine sites would be to create more open forested conditions. The treatments would reduce canopy closure to approximately 25-30 percent by removing smaller trees, creating clumps of trees, and creating openings of 1 to 40 acres where at most individual trees are present would cover 25 percent of the area. Douglas-fir would be removed, as much as possible, from all but north- facing slopes in this forest type. Mesic Ponderosa Pine and Xeric Mixed Conifer

Forest management treatment objectives in mesic ponderosa pine and xeric mixed conifer are similar because they occupy similar places on the landscape and have similar disturbance regimes. The treatment objective would be to create more open forested conditions, similar to xeric ponderosa pine treatments but with somewhat denser forest remaining. The treatments would reduce canopy closure to approximately 25-35 percent by removing smaller trees, creating clumps of trees, and creating openings of 1 to 40 acres where at most individual trees are present covering 20 percent of the area. Mesic Mixed Conifer

Mesic mixed conifer forests naturally have a higher density than xeric mixed conifer forests. Canopy cover target for this forest type would be between 35 and 50 percent. Openings in mesic mixed conifer would cover 10 percent of the area. Mixed conifer forests have smaller root systems and therefore a greater dependency on other trees for support. Therefore, patchy openings could be created to encourage regeneration and provide an increase in age class diversity. Areas with evidence of disease or insect infestation should be priority areas for creating these openings. Small clumps of trees may be left scattered across the larger (greater than 1 acre) openings to create structural diversity and provide seed for natural regeneration. The less shade tolerant

page 60 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final species would generally be favored for these leave tree clumps. Following treatment, prescribed fires could be used to reintroduce fire to the landscape. The current vegetative conditions may preclude the use of prescribed fires because of the density of the forest. Lodgepole Pine

Lodgepole pine would be treated based on the conditions of the forest and amount of road access. The treatments listed below would be applied based upon what is needed to achieve greater age-class diversity and increase the health in lodgepole pine forest.

Sanitation thinning would be implemented in areas of dwarf mistletoe and mountain pine beetle, including the following treatments;

✦ Remove trees containing dwarf mistletoe, create patch cuts in large infestations ✦ Remove and treat trees infested with mountain pine beetle or other insects ✦ Remove unhealthy and suppressed trees Thin from below, remove most small diameter regeneration that is less than 6 inches DBH; retain a limited amount of regeneration of all size classes.

Create forest openings of irregular size and shape ranging in size. Openings should be established in areas of mortality. Enlarge existing openings were available. Aspen

Treatments in aspen would be designed to restore the health and vigor of the existing aspen clones and expand their current extent. Treatments could include the removal of competing conifer trees and some cutting of aspen to encourage new growth. Where aspen is a dominant species treatment would remove encroaching conifer species, while taking care to limit damage to remaining aspen.

In lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer areas where there is an aspen component, openings would be used to convert those areas to aspen. To accomplish this, an area would be cleared around the aspen clone of 1.5 times the average tree height of the surrounding non-aspen species. By reducing competition and propagating younger trees, the health and vigor of the aspen would be improved, and the remaining and new aspen would have increased resistance to insects and disease. Spruce-fir

Spruce-fir forests are climax forests that can become very dense over large connected areas at high elevations. Forest treatments in spruce-fir would be unevenaged treatments designed to increase structural and age class diversity. They would include;

✦ Sanitation thinning could be implemented in areas of insect or disease mortality.

✦ Create forest openings of irregular size and shape ranging in size. Openings should be established in areas of mortality, if present. Enlarge existing openings were available.

✦ Ridgetop or roadside fuel breaks could also be implemented to separate adjacent dense forest areas.

page 61 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Fuel Breaks

Fuel breaks are strips of land in which forest density is reduced to improve fire control opportunities. The goal of a fuel break is to break the continuity of forest fuels at strategic locations to slow the progress of a wildfire or modify its behavior so that fire suppression efforts are more effective. Fuel breaks would likely be located where natural features, such as ridgetops, or manmade features, such as roads, would increase their effectiveness. The activities required to construct a fuel break would vary depending on the existing conditions, but would likely include thinning and prescribed fire to create and maintain open conditions. Crown separation is a critical factor for fuel breaks. A minimum of 20-30 foot spacing between the edges of tree crowns is desirable. All logging slash would be removed. Prescribed Fire

Prescribed burns can improve forest conditions by reducing ground and ladder fuels, removing low hanging branches, and even removing some larger trees. Prescribed fire could be used in most forest types that have been treated mechanically or by hand, or it could be used as a treatment by itself. Prescribed burn treatments may include broadcast burning, pile burning, or a combination of both. Treatments may be used to reduce litter and duff layers, slash produced by treatments, surface fuels, and regeneration. By reducing these fuel layers, the treatments would reduce ladder fuels which can carry fire from the forest floor into the canopy. Prescribed fire would also be used to maintain open forest conditions and to create small openings. Prescribed fire treatments would include;

1. Burning slash piles that are the result of forest treatments. These piles need to be burned to remove fuels generated during forest treatments.

2. Broadcast burning to reduce fuels generated by forest treatments. Broadcast burning is sometimes desirable because it can reduce fuels created by treatments like mastication and also has the benefit of killing small trees which reduces ladder fuels. 3. Broadcast burning used as an initial treatment or maintenance treatment. This treatment has not been used extensively but is a valuable tool where it can be controlled.

4.2.2. Managing Wildland Fire In many high hazard watersheds, active forest management is not possible due to logistical or administrative inaccessibility. In these areas, as well as areas that are accessible, wildland fire can be a good tool that can create more resilient forest and watersheds. In order to manage wildland fire for watershed protection benefits, the Upper Poudre Watershed stakeholders would need to work with federal and state agencies to plan for managing wildland fires in specific locations as a management tool that would allow wildfire to reduce wildland fuels under defined circumstances. The conditions would be monitored frequently to ensure that the fire stays within that management prescription or suppression efforts would be required.

4.2.3. Road Management Roads can be a major source of sediment delivery to streams. Roads can convert subsurface runoff to surface runoff and then route the surface runoff to stream channels, increasing peak flows (Megan and Kidd 1972, Ice 1985, and Swanson et al. 1987). Therefore, watersheds with higher road densities have a higher sensitivity to

page 62 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final increases in peak flows following wildfires. Flooding and increased peak flows following wildfires have lead to erosion and sometimes catastrophic failure of roads next to streams. Many road/stream crossings can become overwhelmed during floods and post wildfire rainfall/runoff events due to the high volumes of streamflow and debris. These road/stream crossings can fail and become debris flows in worst-case scenarios.

Actions to identify and manage roads in high hazard watersheds can reduce the hazards presented by poorly located or designed roads. Actions are dependent on the problem that specific roads present in those watersheds, but could involve; improved drainage, better road surfacing, relocation or decommissioning of problem roads, and replacing undersized culverts that would improve both ditch drainage and road/stream crossings. Some road/stream crossings may need to be replaced with bottomless culverts or bridges in order to achieve adequate capacity. Low water stream crossings may function better than culverts on low volume roads. Well-designed waterbars and cross-road drainage may function better that ditch relief culverts that need more frequent maintenance.

4.2.4. Riparian and Floodplain Restoration Restoration of riparian and floodplain areas can increase the function of these critical areas and thereby increase watershed resilience. Riparian areas are more resilient if they contain tree species that resprout quickly after disturbances, such as willows and aspen. They are also more resilient if they have native vegetation protecting stream banks and over bank areas. Floodplains that are connected to the stream in a manner that allows flooding during peak flows increase resiliency by diverting water and sediment into the floodplains where it slows down and provides nutrients and moisture for plants and trees. Side channels and areas of the floodplain that routinely flood are areas that increase stream resilience.

Riparian and floodplain restoration projects could include;

✦ Removal of non-native vegetation and planting and/or seeding of native vegetation

✦ Remove encroaching conifers and re-establish hardwoods (i.e. willows and aspen)

✦ Reshape, protect, and vegetate eroding stream banks

✦ Create connections to side channels and floodplain areas

✦ Reshape stream channels to more natural morphology

4.3. Horsetooth Reservoir Watershed Target Area

4.3.1. Summary of Conditions in the Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area The Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area is composed of eight 7th Level watersheds that total over 10,000 acres (Table 4.1). All watersheds, except for the Horsetooth Reservoir watershed, are small tributaries that flow directly into Horsetooth Reservoir. The land ownership of these watersheds is dominated by Lory State Park and several of Larimer County’s open spaces, including Horsetooth Mountain Park (Map 4.2). There are also some smaller areas of private lands mostly in Santanka Gulch and Spring Creek. There are no special management areas, such as wilderness or roadless areas.

page 63 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

The forest types in the Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area are dominated by xeric (dry) ponderosa pine (Map 4.3). Because there are no special management areas, such as wilderness or roadless areas, the non-resilient forest types outside of special management areas are the same as the total non-resilient forest areas (Figure 4.1). The area of non-resilient forest types is dominated by xeric (dry) ponderosa pine (Figure 4.1 and Map 4.5). However, there are some areas of mixed conifer and aspen. The mixed conifer occurs mostly on north facing slopes at higher elevations (Map 4.3).

3,000

2,250

1,500 Area (acres) 750

0 Total Area Area Outside WUTR Area Outside WUTR/Roadless

Xeric Ponderosa Pine Mesic Ponderosa Pine Xeric Mixed Conifer Mesic Mixed Conifer Aspen Lodgepole Pine Spruce-Fir Figure 4.1. Horsetooth Reservoir Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions1

The watershed rankings within the Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area have some of the highest rankings in the Upper Poudre Watershed. There are five highest (red) overall ranked watersheds (Table 4.2 and Map 4.4). Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat ranks highest for four of the watersheds, primarily because of areas of non- resilient forest, dense canopy cover and high wildfire hazard. Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks are high or highest for six of the watersheds, mostly because of high sediment transport, and debris flow rankings. Two of the watershed also have high roads rank. Value C - Reliable Water Supply ranks high or highest for all watersheds, because of the combination of being very close to a major water supply, with high sediment deposition ranks, and some watersheds with high land use ranks.

1 This figure uses non-resilient forest areas only. WUTR = Wilderness Areas and Upper Tier Roadless Areas

page 64 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 4.2. Horsetooth Reservoir Small Watershed Component Ranking Value C - Area Value A - Resilient Value B - Resilient Reliable Water Overall Watershed 7th Level Watershed Name (acres) Upland Habitat River Corridor Supply Priority Santanka Gulch 376 3 5 5 5 Soldier Canyon 564 3 4 4 5 Well Gulch 287 5 5 4 5 Arthurs Rock Gulch 457 5 5 4 5 Mill Creek 821 5 4 4 5 Spring Canyon 969 5 2 4 4 Spring Creek 1,218 3 4 4 4 Horsetooth Reservoir 6,301 2 3 5 4 Totals 10,992

4.3.2. Targeted Actions in the Horsetooth Reservoir Watershed Target Area There have been a number of forest management actions that have occurred in the Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area. These past actions have created some opportunities to continue or expand forest management treatments, and some may have created some followup treatments that would benefit watershed resiliency. Some of the followup actions would be; burning slash piles, prescribed fire in openings, and review of past actions to evaluate where future actions make sense. Areas of non-resilient forest should be evaluated to determine the appropriate actions.

The high and highest Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks in this target area are largely a result of steep streams that have debris flow potential and high sediment transport. The only actions that could be taken to increase watershed resilience for this value is to investigate road density in the Santanka Gulch watershed and road/streams crossings for several watersheds. Riparian areas and floodplains should also be investigated to see if restoration would increase resiliency.

The high and highest Value C - Reliable Water Supply ranks in this target area are largely a result of being so close to Horsetooth Reservoir, an important water source, and the streams ranked high or highest for sediment deposition. The only action that could increase watershed resilience would be to investigate land use in the Santanka Gulch watershed.

The list of actions by 7th Level watershed are presented in Table 4.3.

page 65 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 4.3. Horsetooth Reservoir Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds 7th Level Watershed Name Targeted Action Areas Treatment Options Evaluate impacts of development and design treatments if appropriate. Santanka Gulch Areas of development and high road density Evaluate road impacts and design treatments if appropriate. Lodgepole Drive road/stream crossing of Santanka Gulch Evaluate capacity of road/stream crossing Santanka Gulch and other road/stream crossings Collect data on riparian conditions to determine Santanka Gulch Riparian area in lower Santanka Gulch if restoration actions are needed Lodgepole Drive road/stream crossing of Soldier Soldier Canyon Evaluate capacity of road/stream crossing Canyon Collect data on riparian conditions to determine Soldier Canyon Riparian area in lower Soldier Canyon if restoration actions are needed xeric ponderosa pine treatments Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine mostly below 6,500 feet on north facing slopes. Areas of mesic mixed conifer treatments Well Gulch non-resilient mesic mixed conifer above 6,500 ridgeline fuel breaks feet on north facing slopes. prescribed fire Lodgepole Drive road/stream crossing of Well Well Gulch Evaluate capacity of road/stream crossing Gulch Collect data on riparian conditions to determine Well Gulch Riparian area in lower Well Gulch if restoration actions are needed Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine on north xeric ponderosa pine treatments facing slopes. Areas of non-resilient mesic mixed mesic mixed conifer treatments Arthurs Rock Gulch conifer on north facing slopes. Both areas are ridgeline fuel breaks south of Arthurs Rock Gulch. prescribed fire Lodgepole Drive road/stream crossing of Arthurs Arthurs Rock Gulch Evaluate capacity of road/stream crossing Rock Gulch Evaluate impacts of road close to Arthurs Rock Arthurs Rock Gulch Lodgepole Drive adjacent to Arthurs Rock Gulch Gulch Collect data on riparian conditions to determine Arthurs Rock Gulch Riparian area in lower Arthurs Rock Gulch if restoration actions are needed Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine on east and ponderosa pine treatments north facing slopes. Areas of non-resilient mixed mixed conifer treatments Mill Creek conifer at higher elevations. Areas are on both ridgeline fuel breaks sides of Mill Creek. prescribed fire Lodgepole Drive road/stream crossing of Mill Mill Creek Evaluate capacity of road/stream crossing Creek Collect data on riparian conditions to determine Mill Creek Riparian area in lower Mill Creek if restoration actions are needed ponderosa pine treatments Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine and mixed mixed conifer treatments Spring Canyon conifer at higher elevations. ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire Shoreline Drive road/stream crossing of Spring Spring Canyon Evaluate capacity of road/stream crossing Canyon Collect data on riparian conditions to determine Spring Canyon Riparian area in lower Spring Canyon if restoration actions are needed

page 66 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final 4.4. Lone Pine Creek Watershed Target Area

4.4.1. Summary of Conditions in the Lone Pine Creek Target Area The Lone Pine Creek Target Area is composed of 11 7th Level watersheds that total almost 30,000 acres (Table 4.1). The North Fork Lone Pine Creek watershed comprises most of this target area, with two 7th Level watersheds in the upper potions of Lone Pine Creek and the lowest watershed in the South Fork Lone Pine Creek. Land ownership is mostly characterized by a checkerboard pattern comprised of alternating National Forest and private lands (Map 4.6). There are some areas that are more broken ownership and some places that are more consolidated including a large area of private land at Red Feather Lakes.

The North Lone Pine Roadless Area covers the eastern portion of the target area (Map 4.7). Part of the North Lone Pine Roadless Area is classified as Upper Tier. There are no wilderness areas in this target area.

The forest types in the Lone Pine Creek Target Area display an expected pattern with xeric (dry) ponderosa pine and some mixed conifer occupying the south facing slopes, and mesic (wet) mixed conifer occupying the north facing slopes (Map 4.8). There are some areas of lodgepole pine at higher elevations in the western portion of the target area. There is a small area of spruce-fir at the highest elevations above the lodgepole pine (Map 4.8).

The North Lone Pine Roadless Area is in the lower elevations of the target area. The distribution of non- resilient forest types outside of special management areas show that some areas of xeric ponderosa pine and mixed conifer area occupy the roadless area (Figure 4.2). The area of non-resilient forest types is mostly xeric ponderosa pine, with xeric and mesic mixed conifer also occupying large areas (Figure 4.2 and Map 4.10).

4,000

3,000

2,000 Area (acres) 1,000

0 Total Area Area Outside WUTR Area Outside WUTR/Roadless

Xeric Ponderosa Pine Mesic Ponderosa Pine Xeric Mixed Conifer Mesic Mixed Conifer Aspen Lodgepole Pine Spruce-Fir Figure 4.2. Lone Pine Creek Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions2

2 This figure uses non-resilient forest areas only. WUTR = Wilderness Areas and Upper Tier Roadless Areas

page 67 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

The watershed rankings within the Lone Pine Creek Target Area show one watershed with one of the highest rankings in the Upper Poudre Planning Area (Table 4.4). Most of the other watersheds are rated as high (orange) overall (Table 4.4 and Map 4.9). Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat ranks highest for two of the watersheds, primarily because of areas of high wildfire hazard. A total of five watersheds are rated as highest (red) for wildfire hazard. Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks are high (orange) for five of the watersheds, mostly because of high or highest combined soil erodibility and granitic parent material combined. Two of the watersheds ranked high for roads. Value C - Reliable Water Supply contains only two high (orange) watersheds. Those two watersheds and two others were ranked as highest (red) for Land Use. The high Land Use rank was due to high ratings for development, riparian impacts, road impacts and aquatic habitat impacts.

Table 4.4. Lone Pine Creek Small Watershed Component Ranking Value A - Value C - Overall Area Resilient Upland Value B - Resilient Reliable Watershed 7th Level Watershed Name (acres) Habitat River Corridor Water Supply Priority Lower South Fork Lone Pine Creek 2,573 4 3 2 4 Headwaters North Fork Lone Pine Creek 4,709 3 4 3 4 Upper North Fork Lone Pine Creek 5,226 4 4 3 4 Columbine Canyon 2,229 4 4 4 4 Middle North Fork Lone Pine Creek 3,723 4 4 4 5 UT to North Fork Lone Pine Creek 2,019 4 3 2 3 Lower North Fork Lone Pine Creek 3,107 5 3 3 4 Windy Gap Lake Creek 1,993 5 3 2 4 Outlet North Fork Lone Pine Creek 2,262 4 3 3 4 Headwaters Lone Pine Creek 897 3 3 2 3 UT3 to Lone Pine Creek 810 4 4 3 4 Totals 25,580

4.4.2. Targeted Actions in the Lone Pine Watershed Target Area There are five highest (red) ranked Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat ranked watersheds based on wildfire hazard. Non-Resilient forest and areas with high wildfire hazard should be targeted for forest treatments to increase watershed resilience.

The high and highest Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks in this target area are largely a result of steep streams that have debris flow potential and high sediment transport. The only actions that could be taken to increase watershed resilience for this value is to investigate road density in the Columbine Canyon watershed and road/streams crossings for several watersheds. Riparian areas and floodplains should also be investigated to see if restoration would increase resiliency.

There are two watersheds ranked high (orange) based upon high road density and roads close to streams. All of the watersheds have either high (orange) or highest (red) rankings for soils/geology hazard, primarily because of the presence of granitic soils. Roads do represent a higher hazard on granitic soils. There are many road/stream crossings in this Target Area. A detailed plan to evaluate roads would be needed to identify specific roads to monitor.

page 68 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

There are four watersheds with highest (red) ranking for land use impacts related to a combination of low Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) rankings for road, aquatic habitat and riparian impacts, in combination with high population. The list of actions by 7th Level watershed are presented in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. Lone Pine Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds 7th Level Watershed Name Targeted Action Areas Treatment Options Evaluate impacts of development and design Headwaters North treatments if appropriate. Fork Lone Pine Areas of development and high road density Evaluate road impacts and design treatments if Creek appropriate. Evaluate impacts of development and design Upper North Fork treatments if appropriate. Areas of development and high road density Lone Pine Creek Evaluate road impacts and design treatments if appropriate. Evaluate impacts of development and design treatments if appropriate. Columbine Canyon Areas of development and high road density Evaluate road impacts and design treatments if appropriate. xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine and mixed Middle North Fork xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments conifer primarily north of North Fork Lone Pine Lone Pine Creek Creek ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire Evaluate impacts of development and design Middle North Fork treatments if appropriate. Areas of development and high road density Lone Pine Creek Evaluate road impacts and design treatments if appropriate. xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine and mixed Lower North Fork xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments conifer primarily north of North Fork Lone Pine Lone Pine Creek Creek ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments Windy Gap Lake Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine and mixed xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments Creek conifer throughout the watershed ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine and mixed Outlet North Fork xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments conifer primarily north of North Fork Lone Pine Lone Pine Creek Creek ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments UT3 to Lone Pine Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine and mixed xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments Creek conifer throughout the watershed ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire

page 69 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final 4.5. Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Watershed Target Area

4.5.1. Summary of Conditions in the Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area The Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area is composed of 20 7th Level watersheds that total over 23,000 acres (Table 4-1). The Milton-Seaman Reservoir is located in this target area and it includes seven 7th Level watersheds with tributaries that flow into the reservoir. Highway 14 crosses through the southern portion of the target area which also follows the mainstream of the Lower Cache La Poudre River. Land ownership is mostly National Forest in the north and western sections of this target area, with State and Local ownership surrounding Milton-Seaman Reservoir (Map 4.11). There are some areas that are more broken ownership and some places that are more consolidated. There is also a large area of private land in the south-eastern third of the target area.

There is a Roadless Area covering about one-third of the target area, north of the CLP River and west of the Milton-Seaman Reservoir (Map 4.12).

The forest types in the Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area are dominated by xeric (dry) ponderosa pine, with mixed conifer at slightly higher elevations or on north facing slopes (Map 4.13). The lower elevation valley north of the reservoir is dominated by grasslands. Because there are no Wilderness or Upper Tier Roadless (WUTR) areas, the non-resilient forest types outside of WUTR are the same as the total non-resilient forest areas (Figure 4.3). However, the non-resilient forest types outside both WUTR and roadless area includes about two-thirds the the area of non-resilient xeric ponderosa pine, indicating that the roadless area contains about one-third of the non-resilient xeric ponderosa pine; it also includes some xeric mixed conifer, as the area is slightly lower outside WUTR/Roadless (Figure 4.3).

5,000

3,750

2,500 Area (acres) 1,250

0 Total Area Area Outside WUTR Area Outside WUTR/Roadless

Xeric Ponderosa Pine Mesic Ponderosa Pine Xeric Mixed Conifer Mesic Mixed Conifer Aspen Lodgepole Pine Spruce-Fir Figure 4.3. Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions3

3 This figure uses non-resilient forest areas only. WUTR = Wilderness Areas and Upper Tier Roadless Areas

page 70 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

The watershed rankings within the Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Target Area show five watersheds with the highest Overall Watershed Priority ranking (Table 4.6). Of the remaining 15 watersheds, 10 are rated as high (orange) overall and 5 are rates as moderate (yellow) overall (Table 4.6 and Map 4.14). Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat does not rank highest for any of the watersheds, although one watershed does rank highest for wildfire hazard. These lower rankings for Value A are because much of this area burning the High Park and Hewlett Gulch fires of 2012. Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks are highest (red) for three of the watersheds, mostly because of high or highest sediment transport rankings and debris flow rankings. One watershed also has a highest combined soil erodibility and granitic parent material combined ranking, which caused it to be one of the highest overall ranked for Value B. There are also 7 watersheds that rank high (orange) for Value B - Resilient River Corridor, due mostly to high or highest sediment transport rankings and debris flow rankings. Value C - Reliable Water Supply contains 9 highest ranked (red) watersheds and 9 high ranked (orange) watersheds. All except one of those watersheds are ranked highest (red) for Source Supply Areas. The one exception is ranked low (blue) for Source Supply but is ranked highest (red) for Water Quality.

Table 4.6. Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Small Watershed Component Ranking Value C - Overall Area Value A - Resilient Value B - Resilient Reliable Watershed 7th Level Watershed Name (acres) Upland Habitat River Corridor Water Supply Priority Upper Lower CLP River 1,908 4 4 2 4 Falls Gulch 849 2 4 5 4 Hill Gulch 1,924 1 4 4 3 UT to Hill Gulch 893 2 3 4 4 Watha Gulch 717 1 3 4 3 UT to Poudre River 829 3 5 4 5 Boyd Gulch 777 2 5 4 4 Unnamed 3 180 1 5 5 5 Lower Lower CLP River 1,971 3 4 5 5 UT3 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir 842 2 3 4 3 UT2 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir 1,283 2 3 5 4 Long Draw 2,133 2 2 3 3 Greyrock Mountain Creek 2,235 2 3 4 4 UT1 to North Fork-Seaman Reservoir 641 2 3 5 4 Obenchain Draw 879 3 4 5 5 Outlet North Fork-Seaman Reservoir 1,115 2 2 5 4 Miton Seaman Reservoir 1,754 2 2 5 3 Unnamed 2 748 2 4 4 4 Unnamed 1 420 3 4 4 5 Outlet Poudre River 1,670 1 3 5 4 Totals 8,077

page 71 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

4.5.2. Targeted Actions in the Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Watershed Target Area The Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat rankings show that one watershed, Upper Lower CLP River, is ranked high due to a high (orange) wildfire hazard rank. That watershed was partly burned in the High Park Fire of 2012 and may be incorrectly classified. There are some small, steep watersheds that may have non-resilient ponderosa pine forest but they would be very difficult to treat because of steep slopes and no access. No actions have been identified for Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat.

The high and highest Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks in this target area are largely a result of steep streams that have debris flow potential and high sediment transport. Two watersheds, Lower Lower CLP River and Outlet Poudre River, have high (orange) rankings for roads by streams and road/stream crossings. One watershed is a concern because it has a combination of highest debris flow hazard and moderate roads rank, Unnamed 3. Riparian areas and floodplains should also be investigated to see if restoration would increase resiliency.

Most of the watersheds in this target area have high and highest Value C - Reliable Water Supply ranks. Most of these watersheds are ranked highest (red) for source areas because they are very close to diversions on the Poudre mainstem and just upstream of Milton Seaman Reservoir. Six watersheds are also ranked high (orange) or highest (red) for sediment deposition. Three watersheds are ranked highest (red) for water quality impacts.

The list of actions by 7th Level watershed are presented in Table 4.7.

page 72 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 4.7. Lower Poudre-Hill Gulch Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds 7th Level Watershed Name Targeted Action Areas Treatment Options Lower Lower CLP Roads by streams (mostly Highway 14) and road/ Evaluate impacts of roads by streams and River stream crossings capacity of road/stream crossings Evaluate impacts of development and design Lower Lower CLP treatments if appropriate. Riparian, aquatic habitat and road impacts River Complete riparian and floodplain monitoring and evaluation Roads by streams (mostly Highway 14) and road/ Evaluate impacts of roads by streams and Outlet Poudre River stream crossings capacity of road/stream crossings Evaluate impacts of roads by streams and Unnamed 3 Private road along stream in Unnamed 3 capacity of road/stream crossings Evaluate impacts of development and design Upper Lower CLP treatments if appropriate. Riparian, aquatic habitat and road impacts River Complete riparian and floodplain monitoring and evaluation Upper Lower CLP North facing slopes with non-resilient ponderosa Field evaluation of forest conditions to River pine determine treatment options Evaluate impacts of development and design treatments if appropriate. Obenchain Draw Riparian, aquatic habitat and road impacts Complete riparian and floodplain monitoring and evaluation UT3 to North Fork- Evaluate source of water quality impairment Water quality impairment Seaman Reservoir and determine treatment options UT1 to North Fork- Evaluate source of water quality impairment Water quality impairment Seaman Reservoir and determine treatment options Outlet North Fork- Evaluate source of water quality impairment Water quality impairment Seaman Reservoir and determine treatment options

4.6. Meadow Creek Watershed Target Area

4.6.1. Summary of Conditions in the Meadow Creek Target Area The Meadow Creek Target Area is composed of 14 7th Level watersheds that total almost 30,000 acres (Table 4.1). The Halligan Reservoir is located in this target area and all of the 7th Level watersheds within the target area have tributaries that flow into the reservoir. Land ownership is mostly characterized by a checkerboard pattern comprised of alternating National Forest and private lands, with some areas of state owned land as well (Map 4.16). There is a portion of NGO-Land Trust land owned by The Nature Conservancy, called Cap Rock. There are no special management areas, such as wilderness or roadless areas.

The forest types in the Meadow Creek Target Area are mostly xeric ponderosa pine, mesic mixed conifer, and sagebrush/shrubland (Map 4.17). Because there are no special management areas, such as wilderness or roadless areas, the non-resilient forest types outside of special management areas are the same as the total non-resilient forest areas (Figure 4.4). The area of non-resilient forest types is dominated by xeric (dry)

page 73 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final ponderosa pine (Figure 4.4 and Map 4.19). However, there are some areas of mesic and xeric mixed conifer and mesic ponderosa pine (Figure 4.4 and Map 4.19).

6,000

4,500

3,000 Area (acres) 1,500

0 Total Area Area Outside WUTR Area Outside WUTR/Roadless

Xeric Ponderosa Pine Mesic Ponderosa Pine Xeric Mixed Conifer Mesic Mixed Conifer Aspen Lodgepole Pine Spruce-Fir Figure 4.4. Meadow Creek Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions4

The watershed rankings within the Meadow Creek Target Area show just one watershed with the highest (red) Overall Priority Ranking and 6 watersheds ranked high (orange) overall (Table 4.8 and Map 4.18). Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat ranks highest for just one of the watersheds, UT to Meadow Creek, the same one with the highest overall priority. Six watersheds rank high (orange) for Value A. The high and highest rankings for Value A are mostly due to high and highest rankings for Wildfire Hazard, as well as moderate and high rankings for Resilient Conditions. Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks are moderate (yellow) or lower for this target area. However, 9 watersheds rank high or highest for combined soil erodibility and granitic parent material ranking. Value C - Reliable Water Supply contains 3 highest ranked (red) watersheds and 4 high ranked (orange) watersheds. All of those watersheds are ranked highest (red) for Source Supply and 5 of 7 are ranked high (orange) or highest (red) for Water Quality.

4 This figure uses non-resilient forest areas only. WUTR = Wilderness Areas and Upper Tier Roadless Areas

page 74 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 4.8. Meadow Creek Small Watershed Component Ranking Value C - Overall Value A - Resilient Value B - Resilient Reliable Watershed 7th Level Watershed Name Area (acres) Upland Habitat River Corridor Water Supply Priority Middle North Fork-Bull Creek 3,877 4 3 3 4 Upper Mill Creek 1,947 4 3 2 3 Middle Mill Creek 3,172 4 3 2 4 Willow Creek-Mill Creek 2,212 4 3 2 4 Lower Mill Creek 1,644 4 3 2 4 Little Bull Creek 4,444 3 2 3 3 Lower North Fork-Bull Creek 2,218 3 2 4 4 UT2 to Halligan Reservoir 725 1 2 5 3 Upper Meadow Creek 818 4 3 2 4 UT to Meadow Creek 929 5 3 4 5 Middle Meadow Creek 1,972 2 2 4 3 UT1 to Halligan Reservoir 1,089 1 1 5 3 Lower Meadow Creek 1,998 2 3 5 3 Halligan Reservoir 2,840 1 1 4 2 Totals 20,240

4.6.2. Targeted Actions in the Meadow Creek Watershed Target Area There are three highest (red) and four high (orange) ranked watersheds based on wildfire hazard. Non- Resilient forest and areas with high wildfire hazard should be targeted for forest treatments to increase watershed resilience.

In Value B - Resilient River Corridor, there are two watersheds, Middle Mill Creek and Lower Meadow Creek, that ranked high (orange) for roads, primarily due to road density and roads close to streams. A detailed plan to evaluate roads would be needed to identify specific roads to monitor. Riparian areas and floodplains should also be investigated to see if restoration would increase resiliency.

The high and highest Value C - Reliable Water Supply ranks in this target area are largely a result of being so close to Halligan Reservoir, an important water source, and the streams ranked high or highest for water quality impacts.

The list of actions by 7th Level watershed are presented in Table 4.9.

page 75 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 4.9. Meadow Creek Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds 7th Level Watershed Name Targeted Action Areas Treatment Options xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments Middle North Fork- There are many areas of non-resilient ponderosa xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments Bull Creek pine and mixed conifer throughout the watershed ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments There are many areas of non-resilient ponderosa xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments Upper Mill Creek pine and mixed conifer throughout the watershed ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments There are many areas of non-resilient ponderosa xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments Middle Mill Creek pine and mixed conifer throughout the watershed ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire Evaluate impacts of road density, roads by Middle Mill Creek Several roads in the watershed streams and road/stream crossings xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments There are some large areas of non-resilient Willow Creek-Mill xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments ponderosa pine with some mixed conifer Creek throughout the watershed ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments There are some large areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine north of Mill Creek and some xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments Lower Mill Creek large areas of non-resilient mixed conifer south of ridgeline fuel breaks Mill Creek prescribed fire Lower North Fork- Evaluate source of water quality impairment Water quality impairment Bull Creek and determine treatment options UT2 to Halligan Evaluate source of water quality impairment Water quality impairment Reservoir and determine treatment options xeric & mesic mixed conifer treatments Upper Meadow Areas of non-resilient mixed conifer mostly south ridgeline fuel breaks Creek of the creek prescribed fire xeric & mesic ponderosa pine treatments UT to Meadow Areas of non-resilient ponderosa pine mostly in ridgeline fuel breaks Creek the upper portions of the watershed prescribed fire UT to Meadow Evaluate source of water quality impairment Water quality impairment Creek and determine treatment options UT1 to Halligan Evaluate source of water quality impairment Water quality impairment Reservoir and determine treatment options Lower Meadow Evaluate impacts of road density, roads by Several roads in the watershed Creek streams and road/stream crossings Lower Meadow Evaluate source of water quality impairment Water quality impairment Creek and determine treatment options

page 76 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final 4.7. Pennock Creek Watershed Target Area

4.7.1. Summary of Conditions in the Pennock Creek Target Area The Pennock Creek Target Area is composed of 12 7th Level watersheds that total almost 25,000 acres (Table 4.1). Twin Lake Reservoir is located in this target area but only has one tributary, which is located within the same watershed as the reservoir. Land ownership is mostly National Forest, State, and private lands (Map 4.20). The State-owned lands comprise the CSU’s Colorado Mountain Campus. There is a portion of NPS land, which lies in the northeast corner of the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (Map 4.20).

A large percentage of this target area is covered by special use areas. The portion within Rocky Mountain National Park is managed as wilderness, in addition to about one-third of the area in the southern portion of the target area that is designated wilderness. The Comanche Peak Adjacent Area is designated as both Roadless and Upper Tier Roadless, and portions of both lie within this target area.

The forest types in the Pennock Creek Target Area are dominated by lodgepole pine, with spruce-fir at the highest elevations above the lodgepole pine (Map 4.22). There is some mesic and xeric mixed conifer throughout the lower elevations. The areas of wilderness and upper tier roadless (WUTR) contain about one- third of the lodgepole pine and almost all of the spruce-fir forest, as well as about 20 percent of the mixed conifer (Figure 4.5). The roadless area contains almost another third of the lodgepole pine forests and about half of the mixed conifer, both xeric and mesic.

5,000

3,750

2,500 Area (acres) 1,250

0 Total Area Area Outside WUTR Area Outside WUTR/Roadless

Xeric Ponderosa Pine Mesic Ponderosa Pine Xeric Mixed Conifer Mesic Mixed Conifer Aspen Lodgepole Pine Spruce-Fir Figure 4.5. Pennock Creek Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions5

5 This figure uses non-resilient forest areas only. WUTR = Wilderness Areas and Upper Tier Roadless Areas

page 77 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

The watershed rankings within the Pennock Creek Target Area show just one watershed with the highest (red) Overall Priority Ranking and 6 watersheds ranked high (orange) overall (Table 4.10 and Map 4.23). Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat ranks highest (red) for just one of the watersheds due to a highest rank for both Canopy Cover and Resilient Conditions. Seven watersheds rank high (orange) for Value A. The high and highest rankings for Value A are almost entirely caused by high and highest rankings for Canopy Cover and Resilient Conditions. The Wildfire Hazard Ranks are relatively low for this target area.

Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks 3 watersheds at highest (red) and 4 watersheds at high (orange). There are 2 watersheds that rank highest (red) for Roads, one watershed that ranks highest (red) for Sediment Transport, and one watershed that ranks highest (red) for Combined Soil Erodibility and Granitic Parent Material. Most of the high and highest rankings in Value B are due to high Debris Flow and Sediment Transport Ranks. There are no high or highest rankings for Value C - Reliable Water Supply in this target area (Table 4.10). However, one watershed is ranked high (orange) for Water Quality.

Table 4.10. Pennock Creek Small Watershed Component Ranking Value C - Overall Area Value A - Resilient Value B - Resilient Reliable Watershed 7th Level Watershed Name (acres) Upland Habitat River Corridor Water Supply Priority Lower Beaver Creek 3,805 4 3 2 3 UT to Head South Fork CLP 957 2 5 1 3 Fall Creek-Headwaters South Fork CLP 2,734 2 4 1 3 Twin Lake Reservoir 992 4 5 3 5 Lower Head South Fork CLP 2,971 3 4 2 4 Upper Pennock Creek 3,396 4 3 1 3 UT4 to Pennock Creek 1,149 5 4 2 4 UT3 to Pennock Creek 1,937 3 5 1 4 UT2 to Pennock Creek 796 4 4 2 4 UT1 to Pennock Creek 1,134 4 3 2 3 Lower Pennock Creek 2,656 4 3 2 4 Upper South Fork CLP River 2,210 4 3 3 4 Totals 17,941

4.7.2. Targeted Actions in the Pennock Creek Watershed Target Area There are eight high (orange) and highest (red) ranked watersheds based on non-resilient forest and canopy closure. Upper Pennock Creek and the highest ranked watershed, UT4 to Pennock Creek, are within wilderness and roadless areas, so no treatment is identified there. In Value B - Resilient River Corridor, there are three watersheds, Twin Lake Reservoir, UT2 to Pennock Creek and Upper South Fork CLP River that have high (orange) or highest (red) road density, road close to streams and road/stream crossings rank. Riparian areas and floodplains should also be investigated to see if restoration would increase resiliency.

The list of actions by 7th Level watershed are presented in Table 4.11.

page 78 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 4.11. Pennock Creek Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds 7th Level Watershed Name Targeted Action Areas Treatment Options lodgepole pine treatments Pingree Park Road provides access through some aspen treatments Lower Beaver lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forest. A fuel break mesic mixed conifer treatments Creek could be constructed along this road. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire lodgepole pine treatments There is a road around Twin Lake Reservoir that aspen treatments Twin Lake provides access to some areas of mixed conifer mesic mixed conifer treatments Reservoir and lodgepole pine. ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire Twin Lake Evaluate impacts of road density, roads by Several roads in this watershed Reservoir streams and road/stream crossings lodgepole pine treatments UT3 to Pennock Treatment options along the County Road 65 in spruce-fir treatments Creek lodgepole pine and spruce-fir ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire lodgepole pine treatments Some options along County Road 65 and other aspen treatments UT2 to Pennock roads to create fuel breaks and provide access to mesic mixed conifer treatments Creek a large area of lodgepole pine ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire UT2 to Pennock County Road 65 and several other roads in this Evaluate impacts of road density, roads by Creek watershed streams and road/stream crossings lodgepole pine treatments aspen treatments UT1 to Pennock Treatment options along the Buckhorn Road in spruce-fir treatments Creek lodgepole pine, aspen and spruce-fir ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire lodgepole pine treatments aspen treatments Lower Pennock Few options here because of lack of access across mesic mixed conifer treatments Creek river and mostly within roadless and wilderness ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire lodgepole pine treatments aspen treatments Upper South Fork Mixed conifer, lodgepole pine and aspen mesic mixed conifer treatments CLP River throughout the watershed. ridgeline fuel breaks prescribed fire Upper South Fork Pingree Park Road and other roads in the Evaluate impacts of road density, roads by CLP River watershed streams and road/stream crossings

page 79 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final 4.8. Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Watershed Target Area

4.8.1. Summary of Conditions in the Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area The Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area is composed of 28 7th Level watersheds that total over 47,000 acres (Table 4.1). The entire target area runs along the upper section of the main stem of the Cache la Poudre River (Map 4.25). Land ownership is mostly National Forest, with some private lands mostly in the northern section of the target area and some State-owned patches along the Cache la Poudre LP River (Map 4.25).

There is a portion of the Comanche Peak Wilderness within this target area, in the southwestern corner (Map 4.26). The Comanche Peak Adjacent Area also includes some Roadless and Upper Tier Roadless areas and there is a section of roadless area north of the Cache la Poudre River as well.

The forest types in the Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area are dominated by mesic mixed conifer, with large portions of xeric mixed conifer, xeric ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine (Figure 4.6 and Map 4.27). The lodgepole pine dominates the higher elevation forests, with spruce-fir at even higher elevations. There are some aspen areas lining the border between mixed conifer and lodgepole pine throughout the target area (Map 4.27). The areas of wilderness and upper tier roadless (WUTR) contain over 10 percent of the mixed conifer and about one-third of the lodgepole pine forest, as well as about half of the spruce-fir (Figure 4.6). The roadless area contains another third of the mixed conifer forests, about 25 percent of the ponderosa pine, and over half of the lodgepole pine forest (Figure 4.6).

7,000

5,250

3,500 Area (acres) 1,750

0 Total Area Area Outside WUTR Area Outside WUTR/Roadless

Xeric Ponderosa Pine Mesic Ponderosa Pine Xeric Mixed Conifer Mesic Mixed Conifer Aspen Lodgepole Pine Spruce-Fir Figure 4.6. Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Non-Resilient Forest Type Distributions6

6 This figure uses non-resilient forest areas only. WUTR = Wilderness Areas and Upper Tier Roadless Areas

page 80 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

The watershed rankings within the Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Target Area show seven watersheds with the highest (red) Overall Priority Ranking and 18 watersheds ranked high (orange) overall (Table 4.12 and Map 4.28). Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat ranks highest (red) for 4 of the watersheds and high (orange) for 22 watersheds. The high and highest rankings for Value A are caused mostly by high or highest rankings for Resilient Conditions and Wildfire Hazard. However, there are also 5 watersheds with a highest (red) rank for Canopy Closure.

Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks only 3 watersheds at highest (red) and 13 watersheds at high (orange). There are 7 watersheds that rank highest (red) for Sediment Transport, 3 watersheds that ranks highest (red) for Debris Flow, and 2 watersheds that ranks highest (red) for Roads. The Combined Soil Erodibility and Granitic Parent Material Ranking has no highest (red) ranked watersheds but has 14 watersheds ranked high (orange) for that factor, which is more watersheds with a high or highest ranking than any other factor under Value B in this target area.

There are no highest rankings for Value C - Reliable Water Supply in this target area, likely because there are no Source Supply Areas (Table 4.12). However, three watersheds are ranked high (orange) for Value C (Table 4.12).

4.8.2. Targeted Actions in the Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Watershed Target Area There are 25 watersheds that rank high (orange) or highest (red) for Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat. However, a number of watersheds are either in wilderness or upper tier roadless or have no access and forest management appears difficult. These are; UT3 to Headwaters CLP, UT2 to Headwaters CLP, Washout Gulch, and UT2 to Upper CLP River. have been a number of forest management actions that have occurred in the Target Area. These past actions have created some opportunities to continue or expand forest management treatments, and some may have created some followup treatments that would benefit watershed resiliency. Some of the followup actions would be; burning slash piles, prescribed fire in openings, and review of past actions to evaluate where future actions make sense. Areas of non-resilient forest should be evaluated to determine the appropriate actions.

The high and highest Value B - Resilient River Corridor ranks in this target area are largely a result of steep streams that have debris flow potential and high sediment transport, as well as some areas of granitic soils. The only actions that could be taken to increase watershed resilience for this value is to investigate road density, roads close to streams and road/stream crossings in three watersheds. Riparian areas and floodplains should also be investigated throughout the target area to evaluate if restoration could increase resiliency.

The high Value C - Reliable Water Supply ranks in this target area are a result of sediment deposition, water quality impairment and one watershed with land use impacts.

The list of actions by 7th Level watershed are presented in Table 4.13.

page 81 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 4.12. Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Small Watershed Component Ranking Value A - Value C - Overall Area Resilient Upland Value B - Resilient Reliable Watershed 7th Level Watershed Name (acres) Habitat River Corridor Water Supply Priority UT3 to Headwaters CLP 1,036 5 4 2 4 Peterson Creek 1,316 4 4 3 4 Middle Headwaters CLP 3,965 4 3 3 4 UT2 to Headwaters CLP 621 4 5 4 5 UT1 to Headwaters CLP 2,997 4 4 1 4 Washout Gulch 692 4 5 3 5 Black Hollow Creek 4,267 4 3 1 3 Lower Headwaters CLP-Black Hollow 3,110 4 4 4 5 Sheep Creek-Black Hollow 1,955 4 3 3 4 Crown Point Gulch 1,030 4 4 3 5 Mineral Springs Gulch 1,363 4 3 3 4 Upper Sevenmile Creek 3,088 4 3 2 3 Lower Sevenmile Creek 1,505 4 4 2 4 UT to Sevenmile 953 4 5 2 5 Upper Upper CLP River 1,531 4 3 3 4 Dadd Gulch 1,894 5 2 3 4 UT3 to Upper CLP River 1,255 4 3 2 4 UT2 to Upper CLP River 652 5 4 4 5 Middle Upper CLP River 2,283 4 4 3 5 UT1 to Upper CLP River 1,540 4 3 2 4 Eggers Gulch 1,243 3 4 3 4 Lower Upper CLP River 2,696 4 4 2 4 UT5 to Elkhorn Creek 1,119 4 4 2 4 UT4 to Elkhorn Creek 837 4 4 2 4 Middle Elkhorn Creek 2,124 4 2 2 3 UT3 to Elkhorn Creek 909 4 3 2 4 UT2 to Elkhorn Creek 689 5 3 2 4 UT to Middle CLP River 661 3 4 2 4 Totals 18,004

page 82 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 4.13. Upper Poudre-Black Hollow Targeted Actions within 7th Level Watersheds 7th Level Watershed Name Targeted Action Areas Treatment Options lodgepole pine treatments Peterson Creek Fuelbreak along ridgetop road roadside fuel breaks Evaluate source of water quality impairment Peterson Creek Water quality impairment and determine treatment options Evaluate source of water quality impairment UT2 to Headwaters CLP Water quality impairment and determine treatment options lodgepole pine treatments There are some existing treatments along spruce-fir treatments UT1 to Headwaters CLP County Road 79E. They could be expanded or re-evaluated for effectiveness. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire lodgepole pine treatments There are some existing treatments along spruce-fir treatments Black Hollow Creek County Road 79E. They could be expanded or re-evaluated for effectiveness. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire Lower Headwaters CLP- Fuelbreak along ridgetop road - County Road lodgepole pine treatments Black Hollow 71B roadside fuel breaks Lower Headwaters CLP- Evaluate impacts of road density, roads by Road crossings Black Hollow streams and road/stream crossings Evaluate impacts of development and design Lower Headwaters CLP- Land use, riparian, aquatic habitat and road treatments if appropriate. Black Hollow impacts Complete riparian and floodplain monitoring and evaluation lodgepole pine treatments There are some existing treatments along Sheep Creek-Black spruce-fir treatments Crown Point Road. They could be expanded Hollow or re-evaluated for effectiveness. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire lodgepole pine treatments There are some existing treatments along spruce-fir treatments Crown Point Gulch Crown Point Road. They could be expanded or re-evaluated for effectiveness. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire Evaluate source of water quality impairment Crown Point Gulch Water quality impairment and determine treatment options lodgepole pine treatments There are some existing treatments along a aspen treatments Mineral Springs Gulch spur from Crown Point Road. They could be expanded or re-evaluated for effectiveness. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire Evaluate source of water quality impairment Mineral Springs Gulch Water quality impairment and determine treatment options lodgepole pine treatments Fuelbreak along ridgetop road - County Road aspen treatments Upper Sevenmile Creek 71B roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire

page 83 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

7th Level Watershed Name Targeted Action Areas Treatment Options mixed conifer treatments County Road 68C runs along the creek. aspen treatments Lower Sevenmile Creek Treatments could be competed from this road. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire mixed conifer treatments County Road 69 runs along the creek. ponderosa pine treatments UT to Sevenmile Treatments could be competed from this aspen treatments road and other roads. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire Road density, roads close to streams and Evaluate impacts of road density, roads by UT to Sevenmile road/stream crossings streams and road/stream crossings lodgepole pine treatments There are some existing treatments along a mixed conifer treatments Dadd Gulch spur from Crown Point Road. They could be expanded or re-evaluated for effectiveness. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire mixed conifer treatments ponderosa pine treatments Low volume forest road across upper UT3 to Upper CLP River aspen treatments watershed could be used for access roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire mixed conifer treatments ponderosa pine treatments Low volume forest road across upper UT1 to Upper CLP River aspen treatments watershed could be used for access roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire Evaluate source of water quality impairment UT1 to Upper CLP River Water quality impairment and determine treatment options mixed conifer treatments ponderosa pine treatments Crown Point Road and other roads provide Lower Upper CLP River aspen treatments access roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire Road density, roads close to streams and Evaluate impacts of road density, roads by Lower Upper CLP River road/stream crossings streams and road/stream crossings mixed conifer treatments ponderosa pine treatments Marpa Point Road provides access to mixed UT5 to Elkhorn Creek aspen treatments conifer and ponderosa pine. roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire

page 84 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

7th Level Watershed Name Targeted Action Areas Treatment Options mixed conifer treatments ponderosa pine treatments Low volume forest road across upper UT4 to Elkhorn Creek aspen treatments watershed could be used for access roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire mixed conifer treatments Treatments could expand on existing ponderosa pine treatments Middle Elkhorn Creek treatments at Boy Scout Ranch aspen treatments prescribed fire mixed conifer treatments ponderosa pine treatments Upper portion of watershed has limited UT3 to Elkhorn Creek aspen treatments access roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire mixed conifer treatments ponderosa pine treatments UT2 to Elkhorn Creek Limited access aspen treatments roadside fuel breaks prescribed fire

page 85 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

5. Monitoring Approach The Upper Poudre Watershed Resilience Plan has identified priorities to improve watershed resiliency at the 7th Level (14 code HUC) watershed including target areas and specific actions. As the project moves forward, several tasks need to be completed in conjunction or prior to designing treatment: identified data gaps in the resilience plan analysis need to be filled; conditions in targeted watersheds need to be confirmed; a long-term plan to evaluate watershed trends needs to be put in place. In order to meet these short and long-term goals, a monitoring plan has been developed which includes the following three components:

✦ Gather data to fill in gaps in the resilience analysis in the plan. ✦ Confirm or refine conditions in targeted watersheds. ✦ Assess watershed conditions and trends over time. 5.1. Address Data Gaps

The main data gaps that have been identified in the resilience plan analysis include:

✦ Riparian and floodplain conditions and function, ✦ Livestock grazing areas and conditions. During the analysis phase, information was collected on riparian and floodplain locations and conditions, and the current grazing locations and conditions in the Upper Poudre Watershed. However, additional data and information is still needed to adequately characterize these components.

5.1.1. Riparian and Floodplain Condition and Function Although there is some existing data on riparian and floodplain areas, these data are incomplete and lack a sufficient robust quality component to be useful in the resilience analysis. Functional riparian areas and connected floodplains increase the resilience of watersheds, especially downstream from focus areas that have high identified hazards. Additional floodplain and riparian data would allow the analysis to be more fully complete and would be useful to identify which floodplain and riparian areas could most benefit from improvements, thereby providing the most benefit to watershed resiliency.

The focus of this data collection would be in Target Watershed Areas, downstream of high hazard small watersheds. These areas are the most critical to understand and would be high priority for floodplain or riparian improvement projects. A monitoring approach for floodplains and riparian areas has been drafted (Appendix F). This approach uses some of the same indicators as the River Health Assessment Framework (RHAF) developed by the City of Fort Collins (2015) and currently being implemented in the mainstem of the Cache La Poudre River, mostly downstream of the Upper Poudre Watershed.

page 86 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

5.1.2. Livestock Grazing Locations and Conditions Livestock grazing can have negative impacts on riparian areas and floodplains, as well as upland areas. The existing data for the Upper Poudre Watershed consists of grazing allotments on federal lands (BLM and National Forest), and some land use data that designates some private lands as pasture. The review of these data concluded that the grazing allotment data on federal lands did not include riparian or floodplain conditions. The Watershed Condition Framework was also reviewed to identify grazing impacts but that data is averaged over 6th Level watersheds and available only for watersheds that contain National Forest lands. Review of the land use data for pasture lands on private lands concluded that that data did not identify all grazing activities on private lands and did not include any upland or riparian condition information.

Monitoring impacts from grazing will be done in conjunction with the riparian and floodplain monitoring. Where grazing impacts are identified, additional upland condition evaluations may be advised. The need for upland grazing assessments would be determined by an evaluation of the field data and analysis, as well as recommendations from the field team. 5.2. Confirm Watershed Conditions

Some of the key pieces of data that were used to evaluate resilient watershed conditions, such as canopy cover, were only available at a large-scale resolution, mostly 30-meter pixel scale. Therefore, site-specific watershed conditions may not be represented at a resolution that is needed for designing projects to increase watershed resilience. Confirming or refining key watershed attributes in target areas would be one of the first steps in refining those actions. The target areas are the locations where watershed resilience projects would be the initial focus of this monitoring.

5.2.1. Forest Types and Density Small watersheds that are being considered for forest treatments would be the focus of monitoring to verify forest type and canopy density. Forest areas that are potential targets of forest treatments would be identified specifically in GIS prior to field work. A starting point and a 100-meter transect would be identified using topographic, vegetation type and density mapping. The actual starting point and layout could be modified for access and safety considerations in the field. This monitoring is not designed to be scientifically rigorous, but rather would identify if the mapping for the target areas is correct.

Canopy cover (density) is one of the key parameters that was used to determine forest resiliency. Canopy cover would be measured using a GRS densitometer to take point measurements at 100 points per transect. These measurements would be completed at consistent intervals. Ground cover would be estimated at each canopy measurement point. The ten closest trees to the canopy measurement point would be documented by tree species. Photographs of the beginning and end of the transect would be taken along the transect for the beginning point and back at the completed transect for the ending point. The canopy cover measurements would be compared to the mapped canopy density used in the analysis. The distribution of tree species would also be compared to the forest type used in the analysis. If these data prove a different metric than the analyses, then additional data collection may be required.

page 87 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

5.2.2. Roads Three types of road conditions were identified as hazards in the analysis: high overall road density, roads next to streams, and road/stream crossings. The conditions of roads would need to be documented in the field. The focus of the road monitoring would be the evaluation of roads in watersheds that have high road densities, road next to streams and/or significant road/stream crossings. The goal will be to document all the roads in the watershed target areas. Data collection forms have been created for ditch relief culverts and stream crossing culverts (Appendix G). The data collected can be documented in GIS and used to design road improvement projects. In addition to the field forms, discharge for a full flowing culvert at stream crossings should be calculated. The discharge can then be compared to design storms for 25, 50 and 100-year return intervals to determine the adequately of the culvert size and configuration.

5.2.3. Sediment Transport and Delivery The sediment transport and delivery analysis provides an overview of how sediment moves through the stream system. The channel gradients and depositional areas would be documented to confirm whether the analysis is correct, and to gather data to revise the analysis if necessary. Stream gradients would be measured using a clinometer or similar device. Sediment deposition areas would be documented through visual observation, photographs and field notes of stream conditions. Training of field personnel would likely be required to complete this monitoring piece. This monitoring would likely be directed at critical streams within or downstream of proposed forest treatment target areas. 5.3. Watershed Conditions and Trends

The evaluation of watershed conditions and trends would require a long-term monitoring approach. The collection of data to support this long-term monitoring would require multiple years and be directed at areas that have projects designed to increase watershed resilience. The following parameters should be monitored:

1. Forest canopy density, 2. Patterns of openings, 3. Forest type composition, 4. Road density, 5. Length of roads next to streams, 6. Road/stream crossings that meet post-fire capacity, 7. Floodplain connections to streams, 8. Riparian health, 9. Wildfire behavior.

page 88 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

A monitoring approach should be developed with the Science and Monitoring team. Some examples of monitoring programs are;

Colorado Front Range Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project, Ecological Monitoring of Treatment Effects on Stand Structure and Fuels through 2013

Upper Monument Creek Adaptive Management and Monitoring Report Final March 2016

page 89 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

6. Implementation Schedule

The implementation schedule for the Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan is based primarily on the following;

1. Location of high priority watersheds identified in the analysis

2. Existence of stakeholders and relationships with them

3. Existing or past similar projects in the area

4. Existing planning or priorities for other organizations

5. Current and/or future funding applicable, or ability to leverage funding from other groups

6. Project types, ownership patterns, etc. provide CPRW with unique ability to provide leadership

The key actions for implementation in order are;

✦ Identify project types and locations from Section 4 of this report for the high priority Watershed Target Areas ✦ Complete data gap monitoring to identify additional projects, if needed ✦ Identify stakeholders ✦ Complete verification monitoring, if needed ✦ Work with stakeholders to identify funding and implementation resources ✦ Implement projects ✦ Monitor results of projects

The identified implementation priorities for the Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan are shown in Table 6.1.

page 90 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Table 6.1. Implementation Priority for Watershed Target Areas

Watershed Target Area Priority Reasons for Ranking ✦ Some of the highest priority watersheds in the Upper Poudre assessment ✦ Existing relationships with stakeholders Horsetooth Reservoir Highest ✦ Stakeholders are working on similar projects ✦ Stakeholders have some planning and funding to leverage CPRW’s funding ✦ Some of the highest priority watersheds in the Upper Poudre assessment ✦ Important area with high priority watersheds associated with the Poudre Main Stem Upper Poudre - Black Hollow Highest ✦ CPRW is currently implementing projects with stakeholders ✦ Good working relationships with stakeholders ✦ Stakeholders have funding to leverage CPRW’s funding ✦ Checkerboard ownership is difficult for agencies to work with but CPRW can facilitate projects across multiple ownerships Meadow Creek High ✦ There are some existing opportunities for projects ✦ Good working relationships with stakeholders ✦ Current funding opportunities ✦ Checkerboard ownership is difficult for agencies to work with but CPRW can facilitate projects across multiple ownerships ✦ There are some existing treatments on both public and private lands to Lone Pine Creek Moderate leverage ✦ Good working relationships with stakeholders, but more difficult because of the large number of landowners ✦ Checkerboard ownership is difficult for agencies to work with but CPRW can facilitate projects across multiple ownerships ✦ Post-fire projects are still a priority here Lower Poudre - Hill Gulch Moderate ✦ No project identified ✦ Good working relationships with stakeholders, but more difficult because of the large number of landowners ✦ Ownership patterns, access and special land status limits potential Pennock Creek Lower projects ✦ No projects identified

page 91 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

7. References

Bartos, D.L., 2000. Landscape dynamics of aspen and conifer forests. Pages 5-14 In proceedings, Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes. Grand Junction, CO. RMRS-P-18. Bessie, W. C., and E. A. Johnson. 1995. The relative importance of fuels and weather on fire behavior in subalpine forests. Ecology 76(3):747-762.

Belsky, A.J. and D.M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology 11(2): 315-327.

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1): 419-431.

Bessie, W.C. and E.A. Johnson. 1995. The Relative Importance of Fuels and Weather on Fire Behavior in Subalpine Forests. Ecology 76(3) 747-762.

Billica, J., J. Loftis, and J. Moore. 2008. Design of a Collaborative Water Quality monitoring Program for the Upper Cache la Poudre River. Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Utilities. 2008. Available Online. Accessed May 15, 2016.

Brown, P.M., M.R. Kaufmann, and W.D. Shepard. 1999. Long-term, landscape patterns of past fire events in a ponderosa pine forest of central Colorado. Landscape Ecology 14(6): 513-532.

Cannon, S.H. and S.L. Reneau. 2000. Conditions for generation of fire-related debris flows, Capulin Canyon, New Mexico. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 25: 1103-1121.

Colorado State Forest Service. 2016. Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Summary Report - Upper Poudre. Report Generated using www.ColoradoWildfireRisk.com, January 26, 2016.

Colorado Water Conservation Board. 2014. Climate Change in Colorado, A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation. Second Edition - August 2014. Western Water Assessment, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado Boulder.

Crane, M. F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest habitat types. USDA Forest Service final report. 272 pp.

Davis, Kathleen M.; Clayton, Bruce D.; Fischer, William C. 1980. Fire ecology of Lolo National Forest habitat types. INT-79. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 77 p.

Ecological Restoration Institute. 2013. The efficacy of hazardous fuel treatments: A rapid assessment of the economic and ecologic consequences of alternative hazardous fuel treatments: A summary document for policy makers. Northern Arizona University. 28 pp.

page 92 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Front Range Watershed Protection Data Refinement Work Group. 2009. Protecting Critical Watersheds in Colorado from Wildfire: A Technical Approach to Watershed Assessment and Prioritization.

Funk, Jason and Stephen Saunders. 2014. Rocky Mountain Forests at Risk, Confronting Climate-driven Impacts, Wildfires, Heat and Drought. September 2014. Union of Concerned Scientists and The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, T.B. Jain, and J.R. Tonn. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463, 27 p.

Graham, R.T., S. McCaffrey, and T.B. Jain. 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120, 43 p.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol. 4: 1-23.

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.

Ice, G.G. 1985. Catalog of landslide inventories for the Northwest. Tech. Bull. 456. New York: National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. 78 p.

Jolly, W. Matt, Mark A. Cochrane, Patrick H. Freeborn, Zachary A. Holden, Timothy J. Brown, Grant J. Williamson and David M.J.S. Bowman. 2015. Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun. 6:7537 doi: 10.1038/ncomms8537 (2015).

JW Associates. 2010. Cache La Poudre Wildfire/Watershed Assessment. Available Online.

Kaufmann, M.R.; Binkley, D.; Fulé, P.Z.; Johnson, M.; Stephens, S.L.; Swetnam, T.W. 2007. Defining old growth for re-adapted forests of the western United States. Ecology and Society 12(2):15.

Kaufmann, Merrill R., Thomas T. Veblen, and William H. Rome. 2006. Historical Fire Regimes in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Colorado Front Range, and Recommendations for Ecological Restoration and Fuels Management.

Kaufmann, M.R., L.S. Huckaby, and P. Gleason. 2000. Ponderosa pine in the Colorado Front Range: Long historical fire and tree recruitment intervals and a case for landscape heterogeneity. Proceedings, Joint fire Science Conference and Workshop, Boise, ID. Volume 1. 153-160.

Kulakowski, D. and T. Veblen. 2006. Historical Range of Variability for Forest Vegetation of the Grand Mesa National Forest, Colorado. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Colorado State University. Final Report for: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

page 93 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Lotan, James E. 1964. Initial germinaation and survival of lodgepole Pine on prepared seedbeds. USDA Forest Service. Front Range Experimental Station No. INT-29

Megan, W., and W. Kidd. 1972. Effects of logging and logging roads on erosion and sediment deposition from steep terrain. Journal of Forestry 70:136-41.

Melton, M.A. 1957. An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface properties, and geomorphology. Technical Report 11. Department of Geology, Columbia University. New York, NY. p. 102.

Montgomery and Buffington. 1997. Channel Reach Morphology in Mountain Drainage Basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 109:596–611.

Moody, J.A. and D.A. Martin. 2001. Initial hydrologic and geomorphic response following a wildfire in the Colorado Front Range. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 1049-1070.

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.

Naiman, R.J., J.M. Melillo, and J.E. Hobbie. 1986. Ecosystem Alteration of Boreal Forest Streams by Beaver (Castor Canadensis). Ecology 67(5): 1254-1269.

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

Oucalt, K.K. and D.D. Wade. 1999. The value of fuel management in reducing wildfire damage. In: Neuenschwander, LF and KC Ryan (editors). Proceedings of the conference on crossing the millennium: integrating spatial technologies and ecological principals for a new age in fire management. University of Idaho, Moscow.

Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on wildfire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11:1-10.

Pusey B.J. and A.H. Arthington. 2003. Importance of the riparian zone to the conservation and management of freshwater fish: a review. Marine and Freshwater Research 54(1):1-16.

Reynolds, Richard T.; Sánchez Meador, Andrew J.; Youtz, James A.; Nicolet, Tessa; Matonis, Megan S.; Jackson, Patrick L.; DeLorenzo, Donald G.; Graves, Andrew D. 2013. Restoring composition and structure in Southwestern frequent- re forests: A science-based framework for improving ecosystem resiliency. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-310. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 76 p.

Roath, L. and W.C. Kreuger. 1982. Cattle grazing and behavior on a forested range. Journal of Range Management 35(3): 332-338.

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.

page 94 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Romme, W. H., M. L. Floyd, and D. Hanna. 2009. Historical range of variability and current landscape condition analysis: South Central Highlands section, Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute at Colorado State University and USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena. 22. 169-199.

Schoennagel, T., T. T. Veblen, and W. H. Romme. 2004. The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests. Bioscience 54(7):661-676.

Shepperd, Wayne D. and Robert R. Alexander. 1983. Silviculture of spruce-fir forests in the central Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 163: 688.

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.

Swanson, F.J.; Benda, L.E.; Duncan, S.H.; Grant, G.E.; Megahan, W.F.; Reid, L.M.; Ziemer, R.R. 1987. Mass failures and other processes of sediment production in Pacific Northwest forest landscapes. In: Salo, Ernest O.; Cundy, Terrance W., eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions: Proceedings of a symposium; 1986 February 12-14; Seattle. Contribution No. 57. Seattle: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 9-38. Chapter 2.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. Available Online. Accessed May 15, 2016.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework, A Framework for Assessing and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-977.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2009. Rapid Watershed Assessment: Cache la Poudre Watershed. Available Online. Accessed May 15, 2016.

USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1994. Rangeland Reform ’94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) LANDFIRE. October 2015. Available at: http://www.landfire.gov

Veblen, T.T. and J.A. Donnegan. 2005. Historical Range of Variability for Forest Vegetation of the National Forests of the Colorado Front Range. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Colorado State University. Final Report for: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Veblen, T. T., T. Kitzberger, and J. Donnegan. 2000. Climatic and human influences on fire regimes in ponderosa pine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Ecological Applications 10(4):1178-1195.

Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville. 2014. Our changing climate. In Climate change impacts in the United States: The third National

page 95 Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final

Climate Assessment, edited by J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science 313, 940 (2006); DOI: 10.1126/science.1128834

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.

Wohl, E. 2001. Virtual rivers: lessons from the mountain rivers of the Colorado Front Range. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Wohl, E. 2005. Compromised Rivers: Understanding Historical Human Impacts on Rivers in the Context of Restoration. Restoration. Ecology and Society 10(2): 2.

page 96