Estes Valley Watershed Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472792100
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Estes Park, CO, USA
Phone
6233639300
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$293,310
Expenses
$256,854
Assets
$169,708
Liabilities
$22,800

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BOB LEAVITT (PRESIDENT)
  • RACHEL AMES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANDY AMES (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CELESTE FRASER (DIRECTOR)
  • JENNIFER WATERS (DIRECTOR)
  • BOB LEAVITT (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to bring together local, state, and federal partners to collaborate on projects that support the water, forests, and wildlife of the estes valley.

What it reported doing in 2025

The fish creek beaver meadow restoration project seeks to continue work on two sections of the creek which were damaged during the 2013 floods: the cheley property, and the bassow property located just downstream. The stated goal of the fish creek project is to restore the beaver meadow complex along fish creek on these properties by reconnecting the floodplain via beaver mimicry treatments, localized grading, and re-vegetation treatments conducted under an adaptive management program. Evwc was able to work with stillwater sciences, dr. Ellen wohl (csu), and brad johnson (johnson environmental consulting, llc) and worchester polytechnic institute to gather data to develop a post project monitoring plan that looks at water temperature, vegetation health, camera traps to monitor wildlife, water flow and a weather station. Gathering this data not only helps support future adaptive management.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -17% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $257K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.