HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2022-08-23The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
7:00 p.m.
In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public
ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT
By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific
agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at
https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, August 23, 2022. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the
agenda item and added to the final packet.
REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING
Remote participation in the meeting will be available by call-in (telephone) or online via Zoom Webinar
which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. Instructions are also available at
www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”.
Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not
via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
CALL-IN (TELEPHONE):877-853-5257 (toll-free) Webinar ID: 982 1690 2040
ONLINE (ZOOM WEBINAR): https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Bills.
2.Town Board Minutes dated August 9, 2022.
3.Family Advisory Board Minutes dated July 7, 2022 (acknowledgment only).
4.Change Order for a Contract Extension of the 2022 Overlay & Patching Program with
Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. for $227,042 – Budgeted.
5. Resolution 63-22 First Extension of the Memorandum of Understanding for Workforce
Housing Occupancy Certification with the Estes Park Housing Authority.
Prepared 08-12-2022
*Revised
Page 1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
6. Resolution 64-22 Intergovernmental Agreement for Fleet Services with the Estes
Valley Fire Protection District, $43,885 – Budgeted.
7. Resolution 65-22 Amendment to Idlewild Water Lease.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1.ESTES PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (EDC) UPDATE.
Board Chair Cramer and President/CEO Shake.
Update on Estes Park Economic Development Corporation Activities
ACTION ITEMS:
1.RESOLUTION 66-22 2022 ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN. Town Administrator Machalek.
Consideration to adopt the 2022 Estes Valley Fire Protection District Community
Wildfire Protection Plan.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.WORKFORCE HOUSING REGULATORY LINKAGE FEE. Town Clerk Williamson.
ADJOURN.
Page 2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 9, 2022
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 9th day of August, 2022.
Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Scott Webermeier, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Marie Cenac
Kirby Hazelton
Barbara MacAlpine
Patrick Martchink
Cindy Younglund
Also Present: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
Absent: Town Administrator Machalek
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited
the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Cenac) to approve the Agenda as
presented, and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Wu Lee/County citizen and John Meissner/Town citizen spoke regarding noise issues
from Full Throttle Distillery and Grill. They stated the loud music has become a regular
occurrence and occurs from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Fridays.
Kelsey Johnson & Randy Smith/Town citizens, and Kimberly Gonzales/Town citizen
spoke regarding the incline of the sidewalk along Highway 7 and accessibility, especially
for the disabled and handicapped.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee comments were heard and have been summarized: The Trustees spoke in favor
of the upcoming ballot measure for an increase to the lodging tax. The Regional Air
Quality Council met and approved forwarding the Ozone State Implementation Plan to
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The Platte River Power
Authority held a picnic for the Board to meet staff. Western Heritage met and discussed
the 2022 Rooftop Rodeo and plans for the 2023 event. The Colorado Association of Ski
Towns annual meeting would be held August 25, 2022. The Comprehensive Plan
Advisory Committee held a joint meeting with the Estes Valley Planning Advisory
Committee and discussed future land use issues and the drafted goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Family Advisory Board met and discussed a joint resource guide
with Park R-3 School District.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Assistant Town Administrator Damweber requested and it was determined to schedule a
discussion of 1A Sales Tax Renewal for a future Study Session.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Bills.
2.Town Board Minutes dated July 26, 2022 and Special Joint Study Session Minutes
dated August 1, 2022.
3.Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Minutes dated July 14, 2022
(acknowledgment only).
DR
A
F
T
Page 3
Board of Trustees – August 9, 2022 – Page 2
4.Family Advisory Board Minutes dated June 2, 2022 (acknowledgement only).
5.Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated June 16, 2022 (acknowledgment only).
6.Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated June 15, 2022 (acknowledgment
only).
7.Letter of Support for a Grant Application to CDOT Federal Transit Authority Rural
Area Formula Program for Fiscal Year 2023 for Estes Transit Operations and
Administration.
It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Hazelton) to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.RESOLUTION 61-22 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS #2 TO THE
2022 BUDGET. Director Hudson presented Resolution 61-22 to approve budget
appropriations including reductions to the General Fund and Community
Reinvestment Fund as a result of the April 2022 TABOR De-Brucing; and increases
to fund the Fall River Trail Phase 1B, Graves Avenue Trail, two one-ton trucks,
correcting a salary projection error, and Public Works restructuring. It was moved
and seconded (Hazelton/Younglund) to approve Resolution 61-22, and it passed
unanimously.
2.RESOLUTION 62-22 GRANT AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE WITH THE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. Director Muhonen and
Consultant Christy Crosser presented Resolution 62-22 for a grant agreement of the
FEMA Project Scoping program which would provide the Town the opportunity to
support conceptual and preliminary engineering, environmental feasibility, utility
impacts, and a benefit cost analysis all to support future construction grant
applications. The Board discussed the effective date of the grant agreement, the
date matching funds would be needed and whether the grant agreement and
Downtown Estes Loop timelines would impact each other.
John Meissner/Town citizen requested clarification on if this grant agreement would
help the Town get additional federal funding.
It was moved and seconded (Younglund/Martchink) to approve Resolution 62-
22, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
DR
A
F
T
Page 4
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 7, 2022
Minutes of a meeting of the FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Rooms 202/203 of
the Estes Park Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 7th day of July,
2022.
Committee: Chair Patti Brown, Vice Chair Nancy Almond, Members Debra
Avezzano, Deanna Ferrell, Aleta Kazadi, Laurie Dale
Marshall, Rut Miller, Jessica Moffett, Nicole White, and Sue
Yowell
Also Attending: Town Board Liaison Younglund, Assistant Town Administrator
Damweber, Interim Captain Rick Life and Deputy Town Clerk
Beers
Absent: Member Laurie Dale Marshall
Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None.
LIAISON REPORT.
None.
MEETING MINUTES DATED JUNE 2, 2022.
It was moved and seconded (Almond/White) to approve the meeting minutes dated
June 2, 2022, and it passed unanimously.
WELCOME NEW MEMBER.
Chair Brown welcomed newly appointed member Aleta Kazadi.
REPORT ON POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO FAMILIES IN MATTERS OF
VIOLENT CRISIS. At the June 28, 2022 FAB meeting staff requested information related
to the Estes Park Police Department’s response to crisis situations at the Estes Park
schools. Interim Captain Life stated the Police Department works closely with the school
and has had communication with Superintendent Ruby Bode regarding school safety in
the upcoming school year. A training opportunity would be held at the school which
volunteers will be requested to assist local agencies in a training exercise. He stated if an
event occurred in Town, Larimer County Department of Emergency Services would be
engaged to assist the community. Interim Captain Life introduced Ryan Hale, a licensed
clinician with SummitStone Health Partners (SummitStone). SummitStone receives
funding from the State to provide behavioral health services throughout Larimer County.
Hale stated there are four licensed clinicians dedicated to Larimer County. He stated
situations which involve mental health issues or substance abuse may require additional
services. Hale has participated in reintroduction of students who have been involved in
previous threats and commended the schools for their policies to remove and safely
reintegrate individuals while keeping all students safe. In the event of a mass casualty
event in Estes Park local, regional, and state resources may be requested depending on
the level of severity or impact. FAB questions have been summarized: Whether any
policies have been discussed regarding extreme risk protection orders related to the Red
Flag Law; whether there is a Community Emergency Response Team within the Police
Department; how the support of Larimer County Behavioral Health grants could be
applied for additional SummitStone positions dedicated to the area; and what are the
common issues impacting the community. The FAB would research and provide the Town
Board with information related to the services provided by SummitStone and grant funding
opportunities.
Page 5
Family Advisory Board – July 7, 2022 – Page 2
CHAIR REPORT.
a.“Cups of Conversation”: Chair Brown stated gratitude for individual meetings held
with FAB members to get to know them.
b.Visit Estes Park Lodging Tax Task Force Follow Up and Next Steps: The Task
Force presented information to the Town Board at the June 28, 2022 meeting. If
the tax item is placed on the November 2022 ballot the Town, Visit Estes Park and
Larimer County would not be able to lobby support. A joint meeting will be held on
August 1, 2022 with the Town Board, Larimer County Commissioners, and Visit
Estes Park to discuss the Task Force recommendations. Larimer County has
expressed support for the Task Force recommendations.
c.The ARC of Larimer County Contact: Chair Brown was posed a question regarding
the resources and services available for developmentally disabled individuals. The
Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success (EVICS) has held partnerships with
The ARC of Larimer County to provide supportive services for children with special
needs. Sue Yowell stated Foothills Gateway may have information related to
individuals with special needs as well as EVICS. Chair Brown stated she would
reach out to community organizations to ensure individuals are aware of services
available through The ARC of Larimer County, EVICS, Crossroads Ministries and
Foothills Gateway.
COMMUNITY RESOURCE GUIDE.
Members Miller and White would meet to review the current Community Resource Guide
and bring recommendations to the FAB at a future meeting.
SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS.
The FAB has charged subcommittees in the past to handle specific tasks and bring
information back for FAB to consider presenting to the Town Board. Chair Board
designated the following subcommittees:
o Nicole White – Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
o Aleta Kazadi and Sue Yowell – Schools and Youth
o Jessica Moffett – Housing
o Nancy Almond and Laurie Dale Marshall – Childcare
o Rut Miller – English as a Second Language Community
o Patti Brown and Deanna Ferrell – Health
o Debra Avezzano – Food Security
Committee reports would be added to the agenda as an opportunity for each
subcommittee to present findings to FAB.
It was recommended in the August agenda include information regarding the common
issues seen in the community identified by Ryan Hale.
A brief discussion was held regarding Community Initiative Funding and available funds.
The YMCA would be taking over the Mountaintop childcare services previously provided
at the YMCA of the Rockies and would be taking on infants as young as six weeks.
There being no further business Chair Brown adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk
Page 6
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: David Hook, PE, Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 23, 2022
RE: Change Order for a Contract Extension for the 2022 Overlay & Patching
Program with Coulson Excavating Co., Inc. for $227,042 - Budgeted
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Public Works staff seeks Town Board approval of a contract change order with Coulson
Excavating Co., Inc. (Coulson) for the 2022 Overlay & Patching Program. This change
order will provide asphalt paving at the Fairgrounds, which is a budgeted Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) for the Community Services Department, Special Events
Division.
Present Situation:
On March 8, 2022, Public Works staff presented information regarding the Street
Improvement Program (STIP) during a Town Board Study Session. The information
presented included pavement condition updates, planned work for 2022, and an
overview of pavement work performed utilizing the 1A STIP funds. At the Town Board
meeting on April 26, 2022, the Board approved a contract extension change order with
Coulson to complete the 2022 Overlay & Patching Program.
Events staff approached Public Works about incorporating asphalt paving at the
Fairgrounds into the 2022 Overlay & Patching Program since Public Works already has
Coulson under contract. Special Events has $250,000 budgeted for this project, and
knowing that construction costs are increasing annually, they prefer to complete the
project in 2022. Coulson performed a site walk with Events and Public Works staff and
then prepared a cost proposal to complete the work as a component of the 2022
Overlay & Patching Program.
Proposal:
Page 7
Staff proposes approving this change order for the 2022 Overlay & Patching Program to
add asphalt paving at the Fairgrounds which is a budgeted project for Special Events.
Advantages:
•This change order accomplishes a CIP for Special Events by providing additional
asphalt pavement at the Fairgrounds, and therefore reducing ground maintenance
needs.
•Construction costs continue to increase annually, with larger increases in recent
years, so it is most cost-effective to perform this work this year.
•This change order incorporates increased unit prices but lower mobilization cost
since the contractor is already performing the Town’s 2022 overlay & patching work.
Disadvantages:
•This change order work will need to be performed when there are no events
occurring at the Fairgrounds; however, Special Events has provided an outline of no-
work dates to be observed by the contractor.
•Work and equipment may temporarily impact traffic flow and could result in brief
disruptions of neighborhoods and business; however, the Town and contractors will
make every effort to inform impacted property owners, residents, and business
owners in advance of the construction.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Contract Change Order in the amount of
$227,042 to expand the contract with Coulson for the 2022 Overlay & Patching Program
to include paving at the Fairgrounds. Additionally, staff seeks authorization to
administratively approve another change order in an amount not to exceed $22,958, if
needed for Coulson to perform additional work at the Fairgrounds should unanticipated
conditions be encountered during construction.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Previously, Public Works proposed to spend up to $635,000 from the STIP fund on
overlay and patching work, using an additional $80k redirected from the chip and crack
seal line item and an additional $25k from the parking lot line item. By inserting this
work at the Fairgrounds as a change order, the Special Events project budget of
$250,000 is now available to address the work outlined in Change Order 10.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest is expected to be low.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial of Contract Change Order No. 10. PW staff are authorized
to pay Coulson up to the project budget of $250,000 if needed to address unanticipated
conditions encountered during construction.
Attachments:
1.Construction Change Order No. 10
2. Coulson Cost Proposal
3.Events Complex Asphalt Site Map
Page 8
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 10
Date 8/15/2022 Contractor Coulson Excavating Co.
Submitted by Ryan Barr Address 3609 Madison Ave
Project name 2022 Overlay & Patching Program City State Zip Loveland, CO 80538
Project #OVRLAY
1 Reason for change (narrative)
A Adding work items and quantities for paving improvements at the Fairgrounds. This is a budgeted project for the Events Department, and they want to complete the work in 2022
given the annual increases in construction costs.
B Provide contract time extension to perform the 2022 program work, including the Fairgrounds scope of work.
2a Description of change (narrative)
A Insert quantities and unit costs for the Fairgrounds scope of work. Amounts are as presented in the contractor's proposal for the Fairgrounds, and all are deemed reasonable.
B Increase contract time by two months, to the end of October 2022, to allow for completion of the 2022 program including the Fairgrounds scope of work.
2b ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION
CURRENT
QTY UNIT UNIT COST
CURRENT
ITEM COST
CHANGE
ORDER QTY
CHANGE
ORDER AMT
ADJUSTED
ITEM COST
2022
202-00220 Removal of Asphalt Mat 570 SY $ 8.00 $ 4,560.00 $ -$ 4,560.00
202-00240 Removal of Asphalt Mat (Planing)2,420 SY $ 6.00 $ 14,520.00 $ -$ 14,520.00
210-01710 Adjust Water Valve 2 EA $ 350.00 $ 700.00 $ -$ 700.00
210-04010 Adjust Manhole 2 EA $ 550.00 $ 1,100.00 $ -$ 1,100.00
304-09100 Aggregate Base Course (RAP-from Town yard)10 CY $ 37.00 $ 370.00 $ -$ 370.00
306-01000 Reconditioning (Subgrade)570 SY $ 5.00 $ 2,850.00 $ -$ 2,850.00
403-00720 HMA (Patch 4")(Gr SX)(75)(PG 58-28)1,212 TON $ 170.00 $ 206,040.00 $ -$ 206,040.00
403-34721 HMA (Gr SX)(75)(PG 58-28)1,275 TON $ 98.00 $ 124,950.00 $ -$ 124,950.00
403-34721.2 HMA (Gr SX)(75)(PG 58-28)(Leveling Course)1,150 TON $ 98.00 $ 112,700.00 $ -$ 112,700.00
609 Asphalt Curb 130 LF $ 25.00 $ 3,250.00 $ -$ 3,250.00
626-00000 Mobilization 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ -$ 50,000.00
627-00011 Pavement Marking Paint (Latex/Waterborne)4 GAL $ 300.00 $ 1,200.00 $ -$ 1,200.00
627-00003 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking (Inlaid)94 SF $ 25.50 $ 2,397.00 $ -$ 2,397.00
630-00016 Traffic Control (Special)1 LS $ 90,000.00 $ 90,000.00 $ -$ 90,000.00
$ 614,637.00 $ 614,637.00
A Fairgrounds
1 Mobilization 0 EA $ 3,500.00 $ - 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00
2 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase A 0 SY $ 2.00 $ - 2,029 $ 4,058.00 $ 4,058.00
3 Asphalt Paving-Phase A (4" HMA GR S)0 TN $ 108.00 $ - 465 $ 50,220.00 $ 50,220.00
4 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase B 0 SY $ 2.00 $ - 1,780 $ 3,560.00 $ 3,560.00
5 Asphalt Paving-Phase B (4" HMA GR S)0 TN $ 108.00 $ - 405 $ 43,740.00 $ 43,740.00
6 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase C 0 SY $ 2.00 $ - 1,910 $ 3,820.00 $ 3,820.00
7 Asphalt Paving-Phase C (4" HMA GR S)0 TN $ 108.00 $ - 440 $ 47,520.00 $ 47,520.00
8 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase D 0 SY $ 2.00 $ - 667 $ 1,334.00 $ 1,334.00
9 Asphalt Paving-Phase D (4" HMA GR S)0 TN $ 108.00 $ - 155 $ 16,740.00 $ 16,740.00
10 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase E 0 SY $ 2.00 $ - 1,975 $ 3,950.00 $ 3,950.00
11 Asphalt Paving-Phase E (4" HMA GR S)0 TN $ 108.00 $ - 450 $ 48,600.00 $ 48,600.00
$ 227,042.00 $ 227,042.00
841,679.00$
PROJECT #4STLR ELKPAV OVRLAY
PROJECTS FOURTH ST E. ELKHORN OL&PATCH TOTALS
COSTS Original contract amount (2019)619,403.50$ 333,780.50$ 264,612.00$ 1,217,796.00$
Change in contract costs previous change orders (2019)77,809.73$ 128,013.63$ (32,572.35)$ 173,251.01$
Adjusted contract amount (2019 Final)697,213.23$ 461,794.13$ 232,039.65$ 1,391,047.01$
Original contract amount (2020)740,449.50$ 740,449.50$
Change in contract costs previous change orders (2020)5,910.00$ 5,910.00$
Adjusted contract amount (2020 Final)746,359.50$ 746,359.50$
Original contract amount (2021)761,492.50$ 761,492.50$
Change in contract costs previous change orders (2021)8,940.00$ 8,940.00$
Adjusted contract amount (2021 Final)770,432.50$ 770,432.50$
Original contract amount (2022)614,637.00$ 614,637.00$
A Change in contract costs this change order (2022)227,042.00$ 227,042.00$
Adjusted contract amount (2022)841,679.00$ 841,679.00$
TIME Original contract time (2019)31 13 75 working days
Change in contract time previous change orders (2019)3 18 4 working days
Adjusted contract time (2019 Final)34 31 79 working days
Original completion date (2020)8/28/2020 date 8/28/2020
Original completion date (2021 - All Work)8/31/2021 date 8/31/2021
Revised completion date (2021 - All Work)11/19/2021 date 11/19/2021
Original completion date (2022)8/31/2022 date 8/31/2022
B Revised completion date (2022 - All Work)10/31/2022 date 10/31/2022
(8/15/2022) U:\Engineering\00-PROJECT FILES\Ballot 1A Projects\2022 Projects\2022 Overlay and Patching\02 Financial\Change Orders
file name: 2022 Overlay - Change Order 10
Attachment 1
Page 9
APPROVAL: This Change Order is accepted and the Contract is amended to conform thereto.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK CONTRACTOR
Approved by Project Manager Date Contractor signature Date
Approved by Engineering Manager Date Contractor title
Approved by Public Works Director Date TOWN SIGNATORY AUTHORITY THRESHOLDS
ENGINEERING MGR $30,000
DIRECTOR $50,000
Approved by Town Administrator Date TOWN ADMINISTRATOR $100,000
Copies to: project file, Finance Dept, Town Clerk
Approved by Town Board, Signed by Mayor Koenig Date
(8/15/2022) U:\Engineering\00-PROJECT FILES\Ballot 1A Projects\2022 Projects\2022 Overlay and Patching\02 Financial\Change Orders
file name: 2022 Overlay - Change Order 10 Page 10
Page 1 of 2
PROPOSAL DATE: 7/11/22
Proposal Title: Estes Park Fairgrounds Project Location: Estes Park Fairgrounds
Submitted To: Town of Estes Park Project City, State: Estes Park CO
Address: 170 McGregor, Estes Park CO Engineer/Architect:
Contact: Ryan Barr Estimator: Bill Clarkin
Phone: (719)205-6623 l
Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost
Item Phase A
1 Mobilization 1 EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00
2 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase A 2,029 SY $2.00 $4,058.00
3 Asphalt Paving-Phase A (4" HMA GR S)465 TN $108.00 $50,220.00
SUBTOTAL PHASE A $57,778.00
Item-Phase B
4 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase B 1,780 SY $2.00 $3,560.00
5 Asphalt Paving-Phase B (4" HMA GR S)405 TN $108.00 $43,740.00
SUBTOTAL PHASE B $47,300.00
Item-Phase C
6 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase C 1,910 SY $2.00 $3,820.00
7 Asphalt Paving-Phase C (4" HMA GR S)440 TN $108.00 $47,520.00
SUBTOTAL PHASE C $51,340.00
Item-Phase D
8 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase D 667 SY $2.00 $1,334.00
9 Asphalt Paving-Phase D (4" HMA GR S)155 TN $108.00 $16,740.00
SUBTOTAL PHASE D $18,074.00
Item-Phase E
10 Shape Existing Gravel Lot-Phase E 1,975 SY $2.00 $3,950.00
11 Asphalt Paving-Phase E (4" HMA GR S)450 TN $108.00 $48,600.00
SUBTOTAL PHASE E $52,550.00
Total $227,042.00
PROVISIONS:
Due to Recent Volatility in the Oil Market, Asphalt Cement Suppliers are Providing Month to Month Pricing Only with No Carry Over
Mobilization is based on all work being completed at the same time. Please add $3,500.00 if additional mobilizations are required.
Firm Prices can be Provided at the Beginning of Each Month for Work Completed that Month.
Final Billing will be Based on Actual Field Measurements
Sub-grade must be approved and within +/- 10th Prior To Any Base Or HMA Placement
Proposal Assumes (1) Mob./Demob. Should this Not be the Case, ADD $3,500.00 for Each Additional Paving, ADD for Each Additional Fly Ash Mobilization
that will be Required.
This Proposal and its Terms and Conditions are an Integral Part of any Contract or Agreement between Coulson Excavating and the Project Owner/General Contractor Relating
to Coulson Excavating’s Work on the Project that is the Subject of this Proposal
Item Description
Attachment 2
Page 11
Page 2 of 2
PROPOSAL DATE: 7/11/22
Proposal Title: Estes Park Fairgrounds Project Location: Estes Park Fairgrounds
Submitted To: Town of Estes Park Project City, State: Estes Park CO
Address: 170 McGregor, Estes Park CO Engineer/Architect:
Contact: Ryan Barr Estimator: Bill Clarkin
Phone: (719)205-6623 l
Owner/General Contractor Waive any and All Liability Against Coulson Excavating for any Defects, Alleged or Actual, in the Plans, Specifications, Drawings and/or Other
Design Documents for the Project
Coulson Excavating’s Work on the Project That is the Subject of this Proposal is Limited to the Scope of Work Defined Herein. Coulson Excavating’s Work Excludes any Labor
and/or Materials Not specifically Identified Herein. Owner and General Contractor Waive any and all Liability Against Coulson Excavating for any Claim and/or Demand
Arising Out of or Relating to any Work Not Specifically Identified on this Proposal
Owner and/or General Contractor Accept Coulson Excavating’s Work “As Is, Where Is, and With All Faults”
To the Fullest Extent Permitted by Law, Owner and/or General Contractor Shall Defend, Indemnify and Hold Harmless Coulson Excavating, it's Subcontractors, Consultants,
Agents and Employees from and Against All Claims that may Arise out of or Relate to the Performance of the Work Contained in this Proposal to the Extent Said Claim is Alleged
to Have Arisen out of Any Act or Omission of Owner and/or General Contractor or Anyone Employed Directly or Indirectly by Them.
Owner’s and/or General Contractor’s Failure to Provide a Written Objection to the Terms of this Proposal Within Ten (10) Days of Receipt Shall Constitute Owner’s
and/or General Contractor’s Acceptance of this Proposal and its Terms and Conditions. Additionally, any Payment by Owner or General Contractor, Partial or Otherwise,
to Coulson Excavating for Coulson Excavating’s Work Identified Herein Shall also Constitute Owner’s and/or General Contractor’s Acceptance to the Terms and Conditions Herein.
EXCLUSIONS:
Proposal Excludes Erosion Control - Assumed by Others
Proposal Excludes Any Work Beyond that Identified in Proposal
Proposal Excludes Traffic Control
Proposal Excludes Adjustment of Manholes and Water Valves - Assumed by Others
Proposal Excludes Street Washing (Cleaning) - Assumed by Others
Proposal Excludes Pavement Marking - Assumed by Others
Proposal Excludes Survey - Assumed by Others
Proposal Excludes Testing - Assumed by Others
Proposal Excludes Bonding - If Required - Add 1.5%
Acceptance of Proposal: Date:
Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 30 days.
Page 12
-
(1) (,.)
I I --.' I
,
1/ 4. I/,
(';,,,t
(j) 0 0 (Q (D s::
Q)
"t:, "'
Attachment 3
Page 13
Page 14
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: August 23, 2022
RE: Resolution 63-22 First Extension of the Memorandum of Understanding
for Workforce Housing Occupancy Certification with the Estes Park
Housing Authority
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Approve renewal of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town of Estes
Park and the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA).
Present Situation:
Workforce and attainable housing developments typically have covenants in place to
ensure that residents living in the units meet the predetermined criteria for workforce
housing. In most cases here in Estes Park, this simply means that the residents must be
able to demonstrate that they work within the Estes Park school district boundaries (for
a minimum of 30 hours per week) and in some cases that their annual income falls
below a certain level (for “attainable” housing). Last year, Town staff worked with EPHA
to determine and formalize roles and responsibilities associated with the administration
and enforcement of workforce housing covenants. This work involves sending out
annual certification letters, verifying that the information provided is accurate and that
the residents are or remain eligible, and enforcing the stipulations of the covenants
when necessary.
The attached Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and EPHA outlines the
tasks that EPHA handles on behalf of the Town and the terms for EPHA providing such
services. Per the MOU, EPHA will be responsible for processing applications for
workforce housing, verifying initial eligibility of the applicants, and sending out
certification letters annually to ensure that eligibility is maintained. Under the MOU, the
Town compensates EPHA for providing these services.
Proposal:
Staff proposes that the Board renew the MOU between the Town and EPHA.
Page 15
Advantages:
•The MOU defines roles and responsibilities of the Town and EPHA related to the
administration of the Town’s workforce housing regulations. EPHA is well
equipped to handle the administrative duties required to certify eligibility of
tenants of workforce housing units.
Disadvantages:
•None
Action Recommended:
Approve of the renewal of Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Estes
Park and the Estes Park Housing Authority.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Per the MOU, the Town would pay EPHA a $150.00 per unit fee for each verification
required by the Town. We anticipate the need for up to 80 verifications over the duration
of the MOU, depending on how many new units are completed and ready for move-in. If
the Town requests any additional work from EPHA, such as creating documents for
enforcement or non-compliance issues, there will be an additional fee of $100.00 per
certified hour worked.
Account #: 101-1945-419-22-84
Budgeted amount for term of MOU: $13,000
Level of Public Interest
High
Sample Motions:
•I move to approve Resolution 63-22.
Attachments:
1. Resolution 63-22
2.Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes
Park Housing Authority
3.First Extension of the Memorandum of Understanding
Page 16
RESOLUTION 63-22
APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE ESTES
PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY REGARDING WORKFORCE HOUSING OCCUPANCY
CERTIFICATION
WHEREAS, the Town and Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) executed a
memorandum of understanding on September 1, 2021 for the purpose of certifying the
qualifications of workforce housing occupants; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to renew the agreement referenced in the title
of this resolution for one year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the agreement referenced
in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board.
DATED this day of , 2022.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
Page 17
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK
ANO THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY REGARDING WORKFORCE
HOUSING OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU"), is effective this P1 day of
September, 2021, by and between the ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY ("EPHA")
and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK ("Town"), a Colorado municipal corporation.
RECITALS
THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY was formed by the Town of Estes
Park on April 7, 1993 through Resolution 15-93, and is organized under part 2 of article
4 of title 29, Colorado Revised Statutes.
EPHA'S mission statement is: "In order to create a balanced and sustainable
community, the Estes Park Housing Authority creates and facilitates housing
opportunities and services for persons of low to moderate income households."
EPHA, having been formed by the Town, is charged to investigate, research and
monitor on an ongoing basis the local housing market conditions, needs and gaps, and
to make recommendations, offer solutions and address housing deficiencies as they arise
in order to meet the housing needs of the Estes Park community. The EPHA develops
and manages housing projects and programs for the residents of the Estes Park School
District R-3.
The Town has provided continual financial and administrative support to assist
EPHA in providing affordable housing services to area residents.
The Town has entered into several separate restrictive covenants and agreements
with owners of residential property within the Town (each, an "Owner''), restricting
occupancy thereof either to those employed full-time locally or whose income is below a
specified threshold ("Covenants").
EPHA and the Town wish to document the level of anticipated support given by
EPHA to the Town to facilitate Owners' compliance with their applicable Covenants, and
compensation to EPHA therefor.
1
Attachment 2
Page 18
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING RECITALS AND
MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, THE TOWN AND EPHA AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
1.EPHA shall verify all Owners meet the requirements of each respective Covenant.
2.Town will provide a copy to EPHA of all new Covenants and amendments thereto
within fourteen (14) business days of their execution.
3.EPHA shall coordinate with the Town to determine the precise documentation to
be required of each Owner. Depending on the Covenant, Town code, whether the
unit is a rental or owner-occupied, and other considerations, such documentation
may include the current rental agreement for the unit, W-2 forms of the occupants,
an occupancy verification form, an employment verification form, proof of full-time
self-employment when applicable, and other materials to demonstrate eligibility.
Additional verifications may be required based on the circumstances of the unit,
employment, occupancy, rent or income, as applicable. If rent or income
restrictions apply, EPHA will use current limits set forth by Colorado Housing and
Finance Authority's Income Limit and Maximum Rent Tables for Larimer County,
where consistent with the Covenant.
4.On an annual basis, EPHA will notify each homeowner covered by a Covenant of
their upcoming annual requirement to submit eligibility documentation by the
deadline specified in their Covenant. EPHA shall list the documentation required
by the Town and include any forms the homeowner is required to complete. EPHA
shall make such notification between 30 and 60 days before such deadline.
5.EPHA will ensure all occupancy certification materials as applicable for each
Covenant are received from the respective Owner by the deadline specified in that
Covenant.
6.EPHA will ensure all verifications are complete and certified by EPHA for each
household (or, alternatively, that occupants are ineligible or nonresponsive) no
later than 60 days after such verification is required to be made.
7.As Owners or occupants of such units change, due either to change in renter or
owner-occupant, EPHA will coordinate with Owners and occupants to ensure all
occupancy certifications required by the Covenants are received from the Owner
specified in the Covenant for that unit.
2
Page 19
8.EPHA will provide to the Town, upon making a determination of eligibility after each
annual verification and change in occupancy, a certification on EPHA letterhead
that the household meets or does not meet the requirements of the specific
Covenant, generally in the form attached as Exhibit A.
9.Town will manage all enforcement or non-compliance issues that may arise with
the Owner. Town and EPHA will work together to establish policies and
procedures in regards to enforcement and non-compliance.
10.AII original documents will be housed and maintained by EPHA. Town will maintain
a copy of EPHA's certification. EPHA will provide copies of any documents
requested by the Town.
11. Payment to EPHA will be provided by the Town following EPHA's submittal of an
invoice. Invoices will be issued monthly, as needed, and payment is due within 31
days of invoice.
a.Town shall pay EPHA a $150.00 fee per unit for each verification required
annually or upon change in occupants. This per unit fee will be revisited by
the parties on an annual basis.
b.If the Town requests any additional work from EPHA, such as creating
documents for enforcement or non-compliance issues, will be at a fee of
$100.00 per certified hour worked.
12. Any notice required or permitted by this MOU will be deemed effective when
personally delivered in writing or three (3) days after notice is deposited with the
U.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt requested, and
addressed as follows:
Estes Park Housing Authority
Attn: Executive Director
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Town of Estes Park
Attn: Town Administrator
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
13.Term. The initial term of this MOU shall be one year from its effective date. Before
it expires, the Parties agree to meet, through their administrative staffs, to discuss
the terms and conditions of this MOU, any future issues, any other issues needed
to be addressed in this MOU, and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees
and the Housing Authority Commissioners for any appropriate amendment or
extension. Both EPHA and Town will remain flexible with regard to the process
3
Page 20
and any needed amendments as the workforce housing program grows and
evolves within the Estes Park community. If this MOU is extended, the Parties
intend that it would then be reviewed and renewed annually.
14.Entire Agreement. This MOU embodies the entire agreement of the Parties.
There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those
contained herein, and this MOU supersedes all previous communications,
representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the Parties. This
MOU may not be modified or amended except by written agreement of the parties.
15. Governmental Immunity. The Parties understand and agree that each party is
relying on and does not waive, by any provision of this MOU, the monetary
limitations, terms or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S., as from time to
time amended, or otherwise available to the Parties or any of their officers, agents
or employees.
16. Performance at EPHA's Expense. EPHA shall supply all personnel, buildings,
equipment and materials at EPHA's sole expense.
17. Provisions Construed as to Fair Meaning. Any tribunal enforcing this MOU shall
construe it as to its fair meaning, and not for or against any party based on
attribution to either party of the language in question.
18. Compliance with Ordinances and Regulations. EPHA shall perform all obligations
under this MOU in strict compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
laws, rules, statutes, ordinances, and regulations.
19. Financial Obligations of Town. All Town's financial obligations under this MOU are
contingent upon appropriation, budgeting, and availability of specific funds to
discharge those obligations. Nothing in this MOU constitutes a debt, a direct or
indirect multiple fiscal year financial obligation, a pledge of the Town's credit, or a
payment guarantee by the Town to EPHA.
20. Reliability of Reports. EPHA represents that all information EPHA has provided or
will provide to the Town is true and correct and the Town can rely on that
information in modifying or making payments, or taking any other action
concerning this MOU or the Covenants. Any intentional, false or misleading
material information or omission is just cause for the Town to terminate this MOU
and to pursue any other available remedy.
4
Page 21
21.Waiver. No waiver of any breach or default under this MOU shall be a waiver of
any other breach or default.
22. Severability. Invalidation of any specific provisions of this MOU shall not affect the
validity of any other provision of this MOU.
23.Counterpart Signatures. This MOU shall become effective only when the Town
receives one or more copies duly signed by all parties. Parties may sign separate
duplicates of this MOU. So long as all parties sign, the signed duplicates shall
constitute one MOU, and the MOU shall be effective as to all parties.
ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY TOWN OF ESTES PARK
ATTEST:
.:::). aq, • �
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
5
Page 22
Exhibit A
T '
Housing Authority
Upon review of received documents, Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) has
determined that the household located at
and as part of the _____________ development, is a qualified
household and thus certifies the current occupancy to meet the Restrictive Covenant
and Agreement dated ______ . This certification is valid through January 30th
of __ or until the occupants have changed.
This verification included, but may not be limited to:
•Rental or Home Ownership Unit
•Occupancy limitations
•Income restriction, if applicable
•Rent restriction, if applicable
•Workforce requirement
•Rental Agreement term requirement
•Number of units required for attainable and/or workforce
In order to complete the verification, EPHA obtained the following:
Received on:
•____ A copy of the Restricted Covenant and Agreement dated ___ _
•____ A copy of the current household's rental agreement
•____ A copy of the current household's Occupancy Certification
•____ A verification from the employer(s), verifying workforce and/or
income requirement (where applicable)
Based upon the above information, the current household is certified as qualified.
Signature of EPHA Representative
Print Name: ----------
Date
Telephone#: ______ _
Email: ____________ @estes.org
6
Page 23
Page 1 of 2
FIRST EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY
The parties, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town), a municipal corporation, and the
Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA), make this Extension to their Memorandum of
Understanding this __________ day of ____________________, 2022, at the Town of Estes
Park, Colorado, considering the following facts and circumstances:
1 RECITALS:
1.1 Town and EPHA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
September 1, 2021, for workforce housing administration.
1.2 Section 13 of the MOU originally provided that the term would continue for one year.
1.3 Town and EPHA desire to extend the Contract for an additional year.
2 EXTENSION: The term of the MOU is hereby extended for one year, through August 31,
2023.
3 PROVISIONS CONTINUE IN EFFECT: All provisions of the MOU remain in full force
and effect. All provisions of the MOU relating to the interpretation or application of the
MOU shall apply equally to this Extension as though fully set forth herein. This instrument
forms a contract only when executed in writing by duly authorized representatives of Town
and EPHA. By their signatures on this document, the signatories represent that they have
actual authority to enter this Extension for the respective parties.
Signature page to follow.
Attachment 3
Page 24
Page 2 of 2
ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY
By:
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 25
Page 26
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: August 23, 2022
RE: Resolution 64-22 Intergovernmental Agreement for Fleet Services with the
Estes Valley Fire Protection District, $43,885 - Budgeted
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Public Works staff seek Town Board approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD) for Fleet services.
Present Situation:
At present the Town of Estes Park Fleet Division provides Fleet services to all
Departments in the Town and one outside customer, the EVFPD. The Fleet Division
provides the same service for outside customers as they do for internal departments.
The EVFPD utilizes the Town’s Fleet services for an average of 165 billing hours
annually.
In 2022, the EVFPD expressed the desire to increase the number of Fleet service hours
they receive to 350 hours annually (approximately 7 hours per week). The Fleet Division
has reviewed this request and, with the new mechanic position, is confident they can
successfully provide the added service. With the added hours, the EVFPD will commit
through an IGA to fund the added service hours, share in the cost of mechanic training,
and pay the budgeted cost for Fleet Services. This funding will cover Operations and
Maintenance Labor and Overhead, Capital Cost Recovery Fee, Fuel Allowance, and
Parts Allowance.
Proposal:
Public Works recommends that the Town Board approve the IGA with EVFPD for Fleet
Services and accept the commitments expressed in the IGA.
Page 27
Advantages:
•Funding received from the EVFPD is increased for the added hours of service
provided by the Town Fleet Division.
•The EVFPD commits to fund the Emergency Vehicle Technician (EVT) training
for the new mechanic.
Disadvantages:
•Recruitment of a heavy truck mechanic in a challenging labor market; however,
eventual hiring of another mechanic will improve service delivery for all Fleet
customers.
Action Recommended:
Public Works staff recommend approval of Resolution 64-22 Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Estes Valley Fire Protection District for Fleet Services.
Finance/Resource Impact:
There is no impact to the Town budget. EVFPD will pay for a portion of the added
personnel cost, and reallocated customer charges from capital cost recovery (for the
shop building) to personnel will cover the balance of the cost. This has already been
included in a 2022 budget revision by the Finance Director.
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest is believed to be low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 64-22.
Attachments:
1. Resolution 64-22
2.IGA with EVFPD for Fleet Services
Page 28
RESOLUTION 64-22
APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ESTES VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR FLEET SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to enter the intergovernmental agreement
referenced in the title of this resolution for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District’s fleet
services; and
WHEREAS, the utilization by the Fire District of the vehicle maintenance services
of the Town avoids duplication of services, promotes cost efficiency for the tax-paying
public, and promotes collaboration and goodwill among local agencies; and
WHEREAS, the parties recognize that it is fiscally responsible for the Fire District
to pay for such services at rates equivalent to those paid by Town departments for both
fixed and variable costs of vehicle maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement sets forth the obligations of the parties with regard to
Fleet Services provided by the Town to the Fire District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the intergovernmental
agreement referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before
the Board.
DATED this day of , 2022.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
Page 29
FLEET SERVICES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
THIS FLEET SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered
into on 2022, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES
PARK (hereinafter referred to as the "Town"), and the ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT, a Colorado Special District (hereinafter referred to as the "Fire District").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Town provides vehicle maintenance services for the Town of Estes Park; and
WHEREAS, since January 1, 2010, the Town has been providing vehicle maintenance services
to the Fire District; and
WHEREAS, the utilization by the Fire District of the vehicle maintenance services of the Town
avoids duplication of services, promotes cost efficiency for the tax-paying public, and promotes
collaboration and goodwill among local agencies; and
WHEREAS, the parties recognize that it is fiscally responsible for the Fire District to pay for
such services at rates equivalent to those paid by Town departments for both fixed and variable
costs of vehicle maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, maintenance of the specialty equipment operated by the Fire District requires
specific technical knowledge not currently in possession by the Town's Fleet maintenance staff;
and
WHEREAS, Article XIV, Section 18(2)(a) of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and Part
2 of Article 1 of Title 29, C.R.S., encourage an authorized intergovernmental agreement of this
nature; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement sets forth the obligations of the parties with regard to Fleet
Services provided by the Town to the Fire District.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained below and other good
and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.Term of the Agreement. This is a five-year agreement effective on the date of the Agreement
above and subject to the terms herein. It expires December 31, 2027, unless earlier modified
in writing or terminated by the parties hereto.
2.Services to be provided by the Town. The Town shall utilize Fleet maintenance facilities,
equipment, tools, and capabilities which may be currently owned and operated by the Town
to the extent that such are reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement.
The Town and the Fire District further agree, in rendering and utilizing such services, that
Attachment 2
Page 30
each will adhere to the procedures contained in the Town's Fleet Operations Manual (Policy
871).
a.Labor. The Town will furnish approximately 350 hours of vehicle and equipment
service labor hours per year (approximately 7 hours each week).
b.Personnel (hiring). The Town will endeavor to recruit, hire and train one new heavy
truck mechanic as the primary contact and service provider to the Fire District to
deliver Department of Transportation inspections, preventative maintenance checks
and mechanical repairs as needed. This person would be made available to attend
continuing education training for certification as an Emergency Vehicle Technician
(EVT) Fire Apparatus Technician Level I within 15 months of hire, and certification
as a Fire Apparatus Technician Level II within 30 months of hire. The Town will pay
the costs associated with this mechanic obtaining Automotive Service Excellence
truck certifications (T2 Diesel Engines, T3 Drive Train, T4 Brakes, T5 Suspension &
Steering, and T6 Electrical Systems) required to obtain these EVT designations.
c.Personnel (separation). As a condition of employment, the Town will enter into a
contract with the trained mechanic that requires the trained mechanic to repay the
Town and the Fire District for all incurred training expenses if the trained mechanic
fails to complete the training/certifications or discontinues employment with the Town
within two (2) years of completing the training. In the event of such separation, the
Town agrees to expeditiously endeavor to recruit and hire a replacement heavy truck
mechanic or provide an existing mechanic to deliver the services described herein.
Any training needs for the replacement mechanic shall be implemented as described
above.
d.Parts, Fluids, and Fuel. The Town will procure and install parts, fluids, and fuel
needed for the maintenance services provided by the Town.
e.Records. The Town will record the actual labor and training hours and costs of parts,
fluids, and fuel provided by the Town to the Fire District. The Town will be the
custodian of such records, and will provide quarterly reports of such hours and costs to
the Fire District in January, April, July, and October of each year.
3.Services to be provided by the Fire District. The Fire District will reimburse the Town for
the EVT training (including training course and exam fees, transportation, lodging, and meal
costs) in two installments within 30 days of the Town documenting completion of the
separate EVT Level I and Level II certifications, respectively.
4.Compensation. The cost of delivering fleet maintenance services shall be determined
annually by the Town through an annual review as described in section 5 below. The 2022
budgeted costs of vehicle maintenance services provided by the Town to the Fire District
are as follows: $30,015 for Operations & Maintenance Labor & Overhead, $237 for
Capital Cost Recovery Fee, $8,224 for Fuel Allowance, and $5,409 for Parts Allowance.
The total amount budgeted for 2022 is $43,885. The Fire District hereby agrees to pay to
the Town one-twelfth of the budgeted amount for Operations & Maintenance Labor &
2
Page 31
Overhead ($2,501.25 for 2022) each month, plus the actual cost (no markup) of Parts,
Fluids, and Fuel used each month within 30 days of receipt of the invoice from the Town
as full compensation for the services rendered by the Town in the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement.
5.Cost Adjustment. Each year in September, the costs incurred to that date will be reviewed
by both parties for the purposes of forecasting and budgeting the expected costs over the
next budget year for labor and overhead, training, capital cost recovery fee, parts, fluids,
and fuel. Any new labor hour or cost adjustments will be documented in a supplement to
this Agreement approved administratively by the Fire Chief and the Public Works
Director. Such adjustments are not binding to either party until approved in the annual
budget adopted by each agency's governing body. If the parties do not so agree upon
adjustments or the budget for the next budget year by the time it begins, this Agreement
shall terminate automatically at that time.
6.Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving a minimum of six (6)
months' written notice of termination to the other party. Upon termination, the Fire
District's payments of any amounts due and owing as of the date of termination shall be the
Town's sole remedy.
7.Liability. The parties hereto shall be solely responsible for the actions or omissions of
their respective officers, agents and employees and shall not be responsible or legally
liable for the negligent acts of the other party.
8.Notices. Any and all notices or any other communication herein required or permitted shall
be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or deposited in the United States
postal service as regular mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows or to such other
person or address as a party may designate in writing to the other party:
Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Attn: Fire Chief
901 N. St. Vrain Ave.
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Town of Estes Park
Attn: Public Works Director
170 MacGregor Ave.
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
9.Entire Agreement. This writing constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties.
10.Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and incur to the benefit of the
parties hereto and the agents, assigns and successors in interest of each respectively.
11.Default. In the event either party should fail or refuse to perform according to the terms of
this Agreement, such party may be declared in default, and such defaulting party shall be
3
Page 32
allowed a period of fifteen (15) days within which to cure said default. In the event the
default remains uncorrected, the non-defaulting party may elect to:
a.Terminate the Agreement and seek damages; or
b.Avail itself of any other remedy at law or equity.
In the event of default of any of the covenants herein by either party which shall require
the party not in default to commence legal or equitable actions against the defaulting party,
the defaulting party shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for the non-defaulting party's
reasonable attorney's fees, and court costs incurred because of the default.
12.Good Faith. The Parties, their agents, and employees agree to cooperate in good faith in
fulfilling the terms of this Agreement. The Parties agree that they will attempt to resolve
any disputes concerning the interpretation of this Agreement and unforeseen questions and
difficulties which may arise in implementing the Agreement by good faith negotiations
before resorting to termination of this Agreement and/or litigation.
13.Modification. This document constitutes the full understanding of the Parties, and no term,
condition, understanding or agreement purporting to modify or vary the terms of this
Agreement shall be binding unless hereafter made in writing signed by the both Parties.
14.Non-Assignment; No Third-Party Beneficiary. This Agreement, and each and every
covenant herein, shall not be assignable except with the prior consent of both Parties.
This Agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be an Agreement for the benefit
of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have a right of action
hereunder for any cause whatsoever.
15.Merger. This Agreement constitutes a final written expression of all the terms of this
Agreement and is a complete and exclusive statement of those terms.
16.Immunity. The Parties, their officers, employees, volunteers, and agents, are relying on and
do not waive, or intend to waive, by any provision of this Agreement the monetary
limitations presently $350,000 per person and $990,000 per occurrence or any other rights,
immunities and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-
10-101, C.R.S., et seq., as amended, or otherwise available to the Parties or their officers,
agents, employees, and volunteers.
17.Annual Appropriations. The obligations of either Party as contained herein, shall not be
deemed to be a "multi-year financial obligation" under Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution. Accordingly, either Party shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the governing body of said Party
fails to appropriate money sufficient for the continued performance of the Agreement after
the end of such fiscal year, such non-appropriation being within the sole discretion of the
governing board. Appropriation shall be evidenced by the approval of a budget which
specifically provides for or appropriates funds for the Party's obligations under this
Agreement. Either Party may affect such termination by giving the other Party written
4
Page 33
notice of the non-appropriation within 30 days prior to the end of the then-current fiscal
year. In the event of termination, the Fire District shall pay all accrued liabilities through
the last day of the then-current fiscal year, but shall not be subject to any other penalty or
assessment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed the day and year first-above
written.
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor Date
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
�J� FireChief '-.
:t l 1..�\ 2-o1,z..
Date
5
Page 34
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Utilities Director Bergsten, Superintendent Eshelman
Date: August 23, 2022
RE: Resolution 65-22 Amendment to Idlewild Water Lease
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Approval of this amendment will reduce our administrative workload and costs by
consolidating multiple invoices and payments into a singular invoice and payment.
Present Situation:
The current agreement requires two separate payment dates of April 1 and June 1. We
have to wait until Northern Water’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report is released
(typically sometime in April) to create the 2nd invoice. This causes us to generate two
separate invoices and payment dates.
Proposal:
Staff requests approval of the resolution and the signing of the agreement. This
amendment will consolidate the payments into one payment date of July 1, allowing the
Town to create one invoice for the water which is released for Idlewild in August.
Advantages:
This amendment to the agreement will save the Town additional paperwork and staff
time. This will also improve the process for the Idlewild Water Users.
Disadvantages:
None
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the approval of the amendment to the agreement.
Finance/Resource Impact:
This amendment will increase efficiency and improve the customer’s experience. There
will be limited financial savings due to the elimination of one invoice.
Page 35
Level of Public Interest
Public interest is minimal.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution 65-22.
Attachments:
1. Resolution 65-22
2.Idlewild Water Lease, dated April 24, 2019
3.First Amendment to the Water Lease
Page 36
RESOLUTION 65-22
AMENDING A WATER LEASE WITH IDLEWILD WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the Town and Idlewild Water Users Association wish to amend the
agreement referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of consolidating
invoicing to one annual invoice on June 1 with payment by July 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the First Amendment to
Water Lease referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before
the Board.
DATED this day of , 2022.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
Page 37
WATER LEASE
THIS LEASE, ("·Lease") is made and entered into as of the 24�ay of April 2019, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado a municipal corporation
("'Town''), and IDLEWILD WATER USERS ASSOCIATION C"ldlewild .. ).1
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Town is the owner of units of Windy Gap Project water ("'Windy Gap Water") as such units are defined in the Allotment Contract between the Municipal
Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District ("'Municipal Subdistricf') and the Town. The Town utilizes its Windy Gap Water as part of an
augmentation and exchange plan decreed in Case No. 97CW126, District Court, Water
Division 1. The Town also owns units of Colorado Big Thompson Project water ('"CBT Water"), which it can use to firm the yield of its Windy Gap Water pursuant to the
collateralization policies and regulations of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District ('"Northern District") and the Municipal Subdistrict.
WHEREAS, the residents of the ldlewild Subdivision, located in Section I, Township 5 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M, living on Idlewild Lane had previously relied on water for irrigation from taps connected to the ldylwilde Dam water pipeline
owned by the City of Loveland. The current residents and their address are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference C'Idlewild Water
Users'').
WHEREAS, the Big Thompson River flood that occurred in September of 2013
damaged the ldylwilde Dam and water pipeline, and the City of Loveland demolished and
discontinued operation of the dam and pipeline.
WHEREAS, for purposes of coordinating and entering into this Lease, ldlewild
Water Users have organized and are members of the ldlewild Water Users Association.
WHEREAS, pursuant to this Lease, ldlewild seeks to secure from the Town a source of irrigation water for use on individual properties (set forth in Exhibit A and
depicted in Exhibit B} within the ldlewild_ Subdivision, and the Town desires to lease up to 3.5 acre feet annually of the Town's reusable Windy Gap Water, or such other fully
consumable water that is available to the Town and suitable for irrigation under this Lease,
("Rental Water'') to ldlewild, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Lease.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Town and ldlewild hereby agree as follows:
1 The current residents and their addresses are set forth in Exhibit A. Maps depicting the location of their
properties and the relation of those locations lo the Town of Estes Park is contained in Exhibit 8.
Attachment 2
Page 38
1.Term. The tenn of this Lease for up to 3.5 acre feet of Rental Water shall be for
twenty (20) years, beginning on the date of execution of this Lease ("Initial Tenn'") unless
tenninated sooner pursuant to the provisions of this Lease. ldlewild shall have the option
to renew this Lease for another ten (10) years, which option shall tenninate only if ldlewild
is in default of payment obligations under paragraph 7 ("Base Fee") and/or paragraph 8
("Annual Charge'·) of this Lease, or if Idlewild elects not to exercise its option to renew
this Lease for the ten (10) year tenn by giving notice to the Town not later than six (6)
months prior to the end of the existing tenn or if the Town, pennanently (not merely based
on temporary circumstances) is unable to meet the obligations of this Lease for unforeseen
reasons beyond the control of the Town. The Parties agree that in the event that Idlewild
detennines to exercise its option to renew this Lease set forth in this Section 1, the Parties
shall renegotiate the annual fee to reflect the then-current value of reusable Windy Gap
Water or other fully consumable water within the boundaries of the Northern District.
Both Parties shall negotiate in good faith to establish the new annual fee.
2.Termination. Any tennination pursuant to paragraphs 1 or 11 of this Lease (other
than tennination resulting from Idlewild's failure to pay the "Annual Fees·· pursuant to
paragraph 6 hereot) shall take place only after the tenninating party has given written
notice to the other party of its intent to tenninate, and at least six (6) months have elapsed
from the time the terminating party provided written notice of its intent to terminate.
3.Release of Rental Water. The Town a1:,rrees to release the Rental Water to the Big
Thompson River or Lake Estes for delivery downstream to ldlewild in the vicinity of
Section I, Township 5 North, Range 71 West of the 6 th P.M. No later than April I of each
year of the Lease, ldlewild shall provide the Town an estimate of anticipated monthly
Rental Water requirements, and the Parties shall coordinate with each other and the District
4 Water Commission as necessary throughout the season concerning the amount and
timing of Rental Water releases.
4.Use of Rental Water. The Rental Water shall only be used for irrigation purposes
on the properties described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit 8, and for no other
purpose, nor shall the Rental Water be sold, transferred, exchanged, traded, or otherwise
disposed ofby Idlewild.
5.Delivery of and Accounting for Rental Water. The Town shall be responsible
only for delivery of the Rental Water to the Big Thompson River or Lake Estes in
accordance with the District Four Water Commissioner's rules, regulations and policies.
Idlewild shall be responsible for any transit or stream losses associated with the delivery of
the water to Idlewild, and for the diversion of the Rental Water from the river. Further,
ldlewild shall be responsible for any fees or costs associated with the measurement of the
Rental Water diverted from the river. ldlewild shall provide information reasonably
required, including diversion infonnation, by the Town for purposes of the Town's water
accounting. The Town is responsible for providing accounting to the District Four Water
Commission and/or Division Engineer, along with any related costs and fees.
2
Page 39
6.Initial Fee. Upon execution of this Lease, Idlewild agrees to pay a one-time fee of
two thousand dollars ($2,000) to the Town for the Town's administrative costs. fees and
expenses related to reviewing and drafting this Lease, setting up the appropriate
accounting, and the ongoing administrative fees associated with complying with this
Lease.
7.Annual Base Fee (Base Fee). Idlewild shall pay an annual Base Fee of$1,400 per
year for the 3.5 acre feet. The annual fee shall increase fifty dollars ($50) per year for each
calendar year. Said payment will be made by April I of each year under this Lease. This
payment shall be nonrefundable, except under the terms of paragraph 12 herein, and is not
contingent upon ldlewild's actual usage of the water during that year. If Idlewi]d does not
make a payment when due, the Town has the option of terminating the Lease under the
provisions of paragraph 11 ("Remedies for Default") herein.
8.Annual Charge. ldlewild shall pay an Annual Charge to reimburse the Town for
the annual Municipal Subdistrict charge to the Town for carriage, pumping and Bureau of
Reclamation charges allocated and accrued to Windy Gap water per acre foot. The 2019
Annual Charge is set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. The Annual Charge for 2020 and each calendar year thereafter shall be based on
the previous year's Annual Charge. The Annual Charge shall be for the actual amount of
Windy Gap water released by the Town pursuant to Paragraph 3 of this Lease. The Town
shall provide the amount of the Annual Charge to ldlewild by May 1 of each year along
with documentation supporting the Annual Charge. The Annual Charge shall be paid on or
before June 1 of each calendar year.
9.Individual Residents. Idlewild shall be responsible for satisfying the terms of this
Lease and shall contract and coordinate with the ldlewild Water Users to assure Lease
compliance. The Town will correspond with a representative of ldlewild concerning all
aspects of this Lease and Lease compliance. The initial ldlewild contact shall be Joseph
Wright as representative of ldlewild. Should Joseph Wright no longer serve as
representative, ldlewild is responsible for informing the Town in writing of the name and
contact information for their chosen repr esentative. The Idlewild Water Users agree to
enter into a separate contract governing their individual responsibilities with ldlewild.
10.Costs and Charges. The Town shall be responsible for payment of all carriage,
pumping, and Bureau of Reclamation charges allocated and accrued to the Windy Gap
Water. The Town shall also be responsible for any firming or collateralizing expenses,
which it incurs as a result of its firming the yield of its Windy Gap Water due, without
limitation, to storage of water or borrowing CBT Water.
11.Remedies for Default. A default shall be deemed to have occurred if either party
breaches its obligations hereunder and fails to cure such breach within 30 days of the non
breaching party·s written notice, specifying the breach. Waiver or failure to give notice of
a particular default or defaults shall not be construed as condoning or acquiescing to any
continuing or subsequent default. In addition to other legal remedies available to it for a
default, including specific performance and damages, the non-breaching party shall also
3
Page 40
have the right to cancel the Lease by giving written notice of cancellation after the event of default as defined herein.
12.Curtailment. The Town represents that, under reasonable and foreseeablecircumstances, it should have adequate water to deliver Rental Water under this Lease.
ldlewild recognizes that the water provided hereunder is presently surplus to the Town'sneeds, but that the Town's water supply is dependent upon natural water resources that arevariable in quantity of supply from year to year, and which can be affected by causes
beyond the Town's control. The Town shall not be liable for failure to adequatelyanticipate availability of the Town's water supply or for an actual failure of Town·s water
supply, except to reimburse any fees paid in advance by Idlewild for acre feet that were notdelivered. In times of such shortage or failure, the Town may refuse to supply water orcurtail the amount of water provided pursuant to this Lease in order to meet the Town·sreasonable municipal needs for water.
13.Entire Agreement. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between theParties and supersedes all other prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations,and understandings of the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Lease. No
supplement, modification, or amendment of this Lease shall be binding unless executed inwriting by the Parties. No representations or warranties whatever are made by any party tothis Lease except as specifically set forth in this Lease or in an instrument deliveredpursuant to this Lease.
I 4. Full Authority. The undersigned represent that they have full authority to enter this Lease on behalf of the respective Parties.
15.Enforcement. This Lease shall be construed and governed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado, and it shall be deemed performable in Larimer County,Colorado. This Lease may be enforced in an action for specific performance, injunctive
relief, or damages in the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado.
I 6. Paragraph Headings. The headings of the paragraphs of the Lease are inserted solely for the convenience of reference and are not a part of and are not intended to govern,
limit, or aid in the construction of any term or provision herein.
17.No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Lease is solely for the benefit of ldlewild andthe Town and no third party shall be entitled to the benefit or any of the provisions of this
Lease.
18.Governmental Immunity Act. No term or condition of this Lease shall beconstrued or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, by the Town of any of the notices,requirements, immunities, rights, benefits, protections, limitations of liability, and otherprovisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq. andunder any other applicable law.
4
Page 41
19.Appropriation. To the extent this Lease constitutes a mu1tiple tisca1 year debt or
financia1 obligation of the Town, it sha11 be subject to annual appropriation pursuant to the
Town's annual budgeting process and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
The Town shall have no obligation to continue this Lease in any fiscal year in which no
such appropriation is made.
20.Pavments and Notices. Any payments and notices required or permitted to be
given under this Lease sha11 be in writing and shall be delivered by United States certified
mail, postage prepaid, or by hand delivery, directed to the following addresses:
LESSEES:
Joseph Wright, President
ldlewild Water Users Association
32 ldlewild Lane
Loveland, CO 8053 7
LESSOR:
The Town of Estes Park
Attn: Town Administrator
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Any such notices shal1 be deemed to be effective on the earlier of the date of its actual
receipt or the third day after the same is deposited with the United States Postal Service.
Either party, by notice given as provided above, may change the address to which future
notices are to be sent.
(Balance of page intentionally left blank)
s
Page 42
This page is the signature page for this Lease, by and between, the Town of Estes
Park, Colorado, and the collective ldlewild Water Users Association. These said
signatures shall activate this said Lease, on this said date as set forth, above.
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss:
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
LESSEE:
ldlewild Water Users Assoc·ation
The foregoing Water Lease was acknowledged before me this 6tb. day of April, 2019, by
Joseph Wright as President of the ldlewild Water Users Association.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: � 11, UJ2Q· .-. -----...��._,..._.._...,...,
1 /J.. _ , 1 ROXANNE I VIGIL
�J. �1) 1 Notary Public • State of Colorado
� �Notary ID 19984002216
My Commission Expires Dec 19. 2020
6
Page 43
LESSOR:
Th
ATTEST:
ST ATE OF COLORADO )
)ss:
COUNTY OF LARIMER)
The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this �day of April, 2019, by Todd
Jirsa as Mayor of the Town of Estes Park.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
7
KIMBERLY DISNEY
Not11rv Public
State of Color11do
Not11rv 10 41 20174043232
Mv Commission Exoires 10· 17-2021
Page 44
EXHIBIT A
Idlewild Lane Residents
Owner(s) Address
Jeffrey Brent 3 ldlewild Lane
Jerry Dauth, Daniel Dauth, Diana Gomez 7 ldlewild Lane
Jerry Duath, Daniel Dauth, Diana Gomez 17 Idlewild Lane
William & Lenda Lundquist 21 ldlewild Lane
24 ldlewild LLC 24 Idlewild Lane
(5 rental units)
Leslie Thompson 30 ldlewild Lane
Joseph & Lore Wright 32 ldlewild Lane
Richard & Nancy Watson 50 ldlewild Lane
Colin & Linda Napier 60 Idlcwild Lane
Colin & Linda Napier 80 ldlewild Lane
Gayle Grommon 128 Idlewild Lane
Joseph Filipponi Trust 156 ldlewild Lane
Natalie Lucero 215 Idlewild Lane
8
Page 45
- l
�· l
EXHIBITB
General location: Estes Park and Idlewild Subdivision
.. '
'·
9
'
'-.___.;;,._.;..._..,__.,,--..... _ ,.._
u t. -
.....
+4---
+--,-
Page 46
EXHIBIT C
2019 Annual Charge
Carriage Delivery Charge
Pumping (Energy & Wheeling) Charge
Bureau of Reclamation
Total Annual Charge per acre foot
lO
$100
$ 40
$ 35
$175
Page 47
FIRST AMENDMENT TO WATER LEASE
The parties, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town), a municipal corporation, and the
Idlewild Water Users Association (Idlewild), a Colorado nonprofit corporation, make this First
Amendment to Water Lease this __________ day of ____________________, 2022, at the Town
of Estes Park, Colorado, considering the following facts and circumstances:
1 RECITALS:
1.1 Town and Idlewild entered into a Water Lease on April 24, 2019 (Water Lease).
1.2 Town and Idlewild desire to amend the Water Lease to unify two invoice and
payment processes described in the Water Lease.
2 AMENDMENT: Sections 7 and 8 of the Water Lease are hereby amended, by adding
underlined material and deleting stricken material, to read as follows:
7.Annual Base Fee (Base Fee). Idlewild shall pay an annual Base Fee of $1,400 per
year for the 3.5 acre feet. The annual fee shall increase fifty dollars ($50) per year for each
calendar year. Said payment will be made by April July 1 of each year under this Lease. This
payment shall be nonrefundable, except under the terms of paragraph 12 herein, and is not
contingent upon Idlewild’s actual usage of the water during that year. If Idlewild does not
make a payment when due, the Town has the option of terminating the Lease under the
provisions of paragraph 11 ("Remedies for Default") herein.
8. Annual Charge. Idlewild shall pay an Annual Charge to reimburse the Town for
the annual Municipal Subdistrict charge to the Town for carriage, pumping and Bureau of
Reclamation charges allocated and accrued to Windy Gap water per acre foot. The 2019
Annual Charge is set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. The Annual Charge for 2020 and each calendar year thereafter shall be based on
the previous year's Annual Charge. The Annual Charge shall be for the actual amount of
Windy Gap water released by the Town pursuant to Paragraph 3 of this Lease. The Town
shall provide the amount of the Annual Charge to Idlewild by May June 1 of each year along
with documentation supporting the Annual Charge. The Annual Charge shall be paid on or
before June July 1 of each calendar year.
3 PROVISIONS CONTINUE IN EFFECT: All other provisions of the Water Lease remain in
full force and effect. All provisions of the Water Lease relating to the interpretation or
application of the Water Lease shall apply equally to this First Amendment as though fully
set forth herein. This instrument forms a contract only when executed in writing by duly
authorized representatives of Town and Idlewild. By their signatures on this document, the
signatories represent that they have actual authority to enter this First Amendment for the
respective parties.
Signature pages follow.
Attachment 3
Page 48
Page 2 of 3
IDLEWILD
By:
Title: _______________________________
STATE OF )
) ss:
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by ,
(Name of party signing)
as of
(Title of party signing) (Name of corporation)
a corporation, on behalf of the corporation, this
(State of incorporation)
day of , 2022.
Witness my hand and official Seal.
My Commission expires .
Notary Public
Page 49
Page 3 of 3
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:
Title: _______________________________
State of )
) ss:
County of )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by ,
as of the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation, this day of , 2022.
Witness my hand and official Seal.
My Commission expires .
Notary Public
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 50
8/17/2022
Vision
To create a sustainable year-around economy in the Estes Valley
through business diversification and entrepreneurialism while
maintaining our unique social, economic and environmental values.
How is the EDC helping you?
The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation is actively
working to improve our standard of living through the creation of jobs,
the support of innovation and new ideas, the creation of diverse
higher wealth, and the creation of an overall better quality of life for all
in the Estes Valley.
“Adam and Thomas have been doing amazing work to diversity their community’s
economy”-Trent Thompson, Economic Development Representative, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
EDA
Page 51
8/17/2022
What is Economic Development?
Anything a community does to foster and create a healthy economy can fall
under the auspice of economic development. There are only three approaches
used to enhance local economic development as they relate directly to
businesses. They are:
Economic Development also involves working on issues that directly affect
the ability of businesses to operate. This is why we are also involved in:
Workforce Housing & Workforce Development
Business
Retention
Business
Expansion
Business
Creation
Keeping successful businesses
in the Estes Valley
Helping businesses grow
revenues and jobs
Encouraging/supporting the
growth of new businesses
In 2016, the Estes Park EDC commissioned a Workforce Housing Needs Assessment which showed
that there was a current need for 1,800 additional housing units in the Estes Valley. The EDC worked
with the Town of Estes Park to change the Development Code, allowing for increased height (up to
three stories) and increased density in the R1 Zone for Workforce Housing. This produced a financial
incentive for developers to build in the Estes Valley, resulting in 70 new units since 2016.
In an effort to create more developer incentives, the EDC worked with the Estes Park Housing
Authority (EPHA) to advocate for the amortization of tap fees for developers and that was passed by
the Town Board of Trustees in June of 2021. The EDC also advocated for increased height allowances
in the downtown core and expansion of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) zoning throughout the Estes
Valley. Both of those measures were implemented by the Town in 2021.
In 2022 we advocated for Governor Polis to sign HB 22-1117 into law and then became an active
participant in the Visit Estes Park Lodging Tax Tax Force which developed recommendations for the
Visit Estes Park Board, Town and County.
Through our Workforce Housing Committee and the Town’s Workforce Housing Collaborative, we
continue to work with local, county, state and national stakeholders and developers to bring much
needed housing to the Estes Valley.
Estes Park EDC’s Housing Accomplishments
Page 52
8/17/2022
BASE Program Overview
The Business Accelerator Services of Estes Program is a free, 6-
month intensive dive into building and growing your business. The
program helps business leaders in three core areas:
Leadership Operations Innovation
•Self Assessment &
Awareness
•Purpose & Meaning
•Roles &
Responsibilities
•Strategic Planning
•Business Model
Canvas
•Customer Discovery
& Validation
•Value Propositions
•Marketing
•People
•Financials
•Growth Strategies
•New Revenue
Streams
•Projection Models
•Capital
BASE Program Testimonials
We have seen a 30% increase in revenue this year over last and attribute much
of this to the E-Center. The E-Center's commitment to helping us solve business
problems has been unparalleled. - Ryan Jordan, Backpacking Light (Cohort 2 & 3)
We have refined and adjusted our original ideas on our way to market thanks to
expert, concerned guidance from the E-Center.Not only has this saved us
potentially thousands in misplaced dollars but helped us build a solid business
strategy to profitability and sustainably serve Estes residents and visitors as we
adapt to the fluid post-COVID circumstances. – David LaSalle, Vert CoWorking
(Cohort 2)
I’ve done a lot of these programs over the years and paid a lot of money for them.
This is the best one I’ve ever been in by far! – Greg Rosener, SkyRun (Cohort 3)
The most valuable thing I walked out of today’s session with is the confidence to
feel like I could actually open a successful business!– Sarah Reynolds (Cohort 3)
Page 53
8/17/2022
Workforce Development – What’s Coming
•Partnership with Center for Rural Innovation - they fund and
host technology training and workforce development
programming
•Soft Goods Manufacturing Program in partnership with
Colorado Mountain College Aspen focused on upskilling our
youth and reskilling our adult workforce
•Continued work with the Larimer County Economic &
Workforce Development Office to provide “Estes Centric”
programming
If you have training needs, we can help!
What key problems is the EDC addressing in Estes Park?
●Declining and aging workforce
●Workforce attraction and retention
●Demand for workforce housing (missing middle)
●Demand for childcare services
●Better entrepreneurial ecosystem
●Frequency / intensity of natural disasters and resulting business
recovery challenges
Problem/Need Statement
Page 54
8/17/2022
How does Economic Development impact Estes Park?
● Business Retention and Expansion
● Jobs created / jobs retained
● Higher wages
●Increased workforce housing units
● Entrepreneurial services, training and mentorship programs
What does success look like?
● People can both live and work in Estes Park
● A year-round sustainable economy
● A diverse ecosystem
● An Entrepreneurial mindset
● Inclusive of all residents and visitors
Opportunity/Success for Estes Park
●Questions?
Thank you!
Page 55
Page 56
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S
OFFICE
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
From: Town Administrator Machalek
Date: August 23, 2022
RE: Resolution 66-22 2022 Estes Valley Fire Protection District Community
Wildfire Protection Plan
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: _____________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Town Board consideration of adoption of the 2022 Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Present Situation:
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) help communities assess local hazards
and identify strategic investments to mitigate risk and promote preparedness.
Assessments and discussions during the planning process can assist fire protection
districts with fire operations in the event of a wildfire and help to prioritize mitigation
actions. These plans also assist with funding gaps for fuel mitigation projects since
many grants require an approved CWPP.
In 2022, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD) completed an update of the
2009 CWPP that addresses changing conditions and takes advantage of advances in
fire science. This collaborative effort was led by the EVFPD, the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, the Colorado State Forest Service, and the Estes Valley Watershed
Coalition. It includes a wildfire risk analysis, prioritization of mitigation activities, and
implementation recommendations. This document is a tool for the Fire District, Town,
land managers, residents, communities, and homeowner’s associations (HOAs) to
begin prioritizing projects that make the Estes Valley a safer and more resilient
community to wildfire. The objectives of this project were to:
•Produce an actionable CWPP based on robust analyses of fuel hazards, burn
probability, evacuation routes, and community values across the fire district.
•Provide recommendations, including prioritization, for reducing fire hazards,
hardening homes, and increasing evacuation safety.
Page 57
•Engage community members during the CWPP process to address local needs
and concerns.
•Set the stage for planning and implementation within CWPP plan units to mitigate
hazards and promote community preparedness.
The CWPP concludes that, “the Estes Valley is at high risk for large, high-severity
wildfires due to dense forest conditions, dry and hot weather, and strong, gusty winds.
Increasing drought and warming temperatures exacerbate wildfire risk in the area. The
Estes Valley Fire Protection District and residents in the EVFPD must prepare for large
wildfire events. Proactive work is imperative.”
Proposal:
Town Board adoption of the 2022 CWPP signifies a commitment to working with our
community partners to implement the recommendations contained in the plan.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 66-22.
Finance/Resource Impact:
There are both costs and revenues associated with implementing the CWPP. Costs
include participation in mitigation efforts, fuel treatment projects, and emergency
management efforts. Revenues may include grant resources that are only accessible
with a CWPP.
Level of Public Interest
High. The importance of wildfire protection planning is at the top of many residents’
minds after two significant fire years in 2020 and 2021.
Sample Motion:
I move to approve/deny Resolution 66-22.
Attachments:
1.Resolution 66-22
2.Final 2022 Estes Valley Fire Protection District Community Wildfire Protection
Plan
Page 58
RESOLUTION 66-22
ADOPTING THE 2022 ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN
WHEREAS, the importance of wildfire protection planning is at the top of many
residents’ minds after two significant fire years in 2020 and 2021; and
WHEREAS, Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) help communities
assess local hazards and identify strategic investments to mitigate risk and promote
preparedness; and
WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD), in collaboration with
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, the Colorado State Forest Service, and the
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition, completed an update of the 2009 CWPP that
addresses changing conditions and takes advantage of advances in fire science; and
WHEREAS, the updated CWPP serves as a tool for the fire district, Town, land
managers, residents, communities, and homeowner’s associations (HOAs) to begin
prioritizing projects that make the Estes Valley a safer and more resilient community to
wildfire.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board adopts the plan referenced in the title of this resolution in the form now
before the Board.
DATED this day of , 2022.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
Page 59
{Citation}
ESTES VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
2022
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Attachment 2
Page 60
Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
2022 Update Prepared for Estes Valley F ire P rotection D istrict 901 N. Saint Vrain Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517
Prepared by The Ember Alliance 170 2nd Street SW, Loveland, CO 80537
Funded by Estes Valley Fire Protection District, Town of Estes Park, Estes Valley Watershed Coalition, and Visit Estes Park
Page 61
Table of ContentsAcronyms .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.a. Purpose and Need for a Community Wildfire Protection Plan .................................................................. 7
1.b. Partners and Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................................... 8
1.c. Introduction to Wildfire Behavior and Terminology .................................................................................. 10 Fire Behavior Triangle ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Categories of Fire Behavior ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Types of Fire Behavior ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Wildfire Threats to Homes ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Firefighting in the WUI .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Resources for More Information on Fire Behavior ........................................................................................ 16 2.Estes Valley Fire Protection District: Background ......................................................................................... 17
2.a. General Description .................................................................................................................................................... 17
2.b. Fire History Along the Colorado Front Range ................................................................................................ 25
2.c. Fuel Treatment History in and Around the EVFPD ..................................................................................... 32
2.d. Wildland-Urban Interface ....................................................................................................................................... 35
2.e. Resident Preparedness for Wildfire .................................................................................................................... 37
2.f. District Capacity .......................................................................................................................................................... 37
2.g. Community Values at Risk ....................................................................................................................................... 38
2.h. Accomplishments Since the Previous CWPP ................................................................................................... 43 Estes Valley Fire Protection District .................................................................................................................... 43 3.Becoming a Fire Adapted Community ................................................................................................................. 44
3.a. Individual Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 45 Mitigate the Home Ignition Zone ........................................................................................................................... 45 Defensible Space........................................................................................................................................................... 46 Home Hardening .......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Annual Safety Measures and Home Maintenance in the WUI ................................................................... 55 Mitigation Barriers and Opportunities ............................................................................................................... 56 Evacuation Preparedness ......................................................................................................................................... 58 Accessibility and Navigability for Firefighters ................................................................................................ 61
3.b. Neighborhood Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 63 Linked Defensible Space ........................................................................................................................................... 63 Mosaic Landscapes ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 Mitigation Barriers and Opportunities ............................................................................................................... 64 Accessibility and Navigability for Firefighters ................................................................................................ 65
3.c. Priority Plan Unit Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 66 CWPP Plan Units ........................................................................................................................................................... 66 Relative Hazard Ratings ............................................................................................................................................ 67
Page 62
3
3.d. Recommendations to Enhance EVFPD Capacity ........................................................................................... 80 District Capacity Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 80 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 81
3.e. Community-Wide Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................. 82 Evacuation Planning and Capacity ........................................................................................................................ 82
3.f. Outreach and Education .......................................................................................................................................... 83 Community Ambassador Program ....................................................................................................................... 83 Social Media ................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Visitor Outreach ........................................................................................................................................................... 85 Short-Term Rental Licensing .................................................................................................................................. 85 Collaboration ................................................................................................................................................................. 87
3.g. Funding Opportunities for Wildfire Hazard Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness ............ 88 Opportunities from Local and State Agencies in Colorado ......................................................................... 88 Funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .................................................... 88 Opportunities from Non-Governmental Organizations ............................................................................... 89 Supporting the Fire Protection District .............................................................................................................. 89 4.Implementation Recommendations for Fuel Treatments........................................................................... 90
4.a. General Objectives and Implementation of Fuel Treatments ................................................................. 90 Treatment Categories ................................................................................................................................................. 91 Treatment Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 91
4.b. Stand-Level Fuel Treatment Recommendations ........................................................................................... 92 Effective Treatment Design ..................................................................................................................................... 92 Treatment Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 93 Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed Conifer .............................................................................................................. 94 Lodgepole Pine and Wet Mixed Conifer ............................................................................................................. 95 Other Vegetation Types ............................................................................................................................................. 97 Priority Treatment Locations ................................................................................................................................. 97
4.c. Roadway Fuel Treatment Recommendations ............................................................................................. 100 Effective Treatment Design .................................................................................................................................. 100 Priority Locations ..................................................................................................................................................... 105
4.d. Slash Management ................................................................................................................................................... 107
4.e. Implementation Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 114 Stand-Level Fuel Treatments ............................................................................................................................... 115 Roadside Fuel Treatments .................................................................................................................................... 121
4.f. The Future of the CWPP and Implementation Plan ................................................................................. 125 5.Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 126 6.Index of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... 134 7.References.................................................................................................................................................................... 139
Page 63
4
Appendix A. Community Risk Assessment and Modelling Methodology ................................................. 148
A.1. CWPP Plan Units ....................................................................................................................................................... 148
A.2. Fire Behavior Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 149 Interpretations and Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 149 Model Specifications and Inputs ......................................................................................................................... 150 Predicted Flame Lengths ....................................................................................................................................... 154 Predicted Crown Fire Activity ............................................................................................................................. 157 Predicted Conditional Burn Probability and Fire Sizes ............................................................................ 160
A.3. Predicted Radiant Heat and Ember Cast Exposure .................................................................................. 164
A.4. Evacuation ................................................................................................................................................................... 169 Evacuation Congestion ........................................................................................................................................... 169
A.5. Roadway Survivability ........................................................................................................................................... 171
A.6. Climate Change Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 175
A.7. District Capacity Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 178 Quantitative Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 178 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................... 179 Qualitative Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 184
A.8. Community Values at Risk Assessment – Quantitative Methodology .............................................. 191 Non-Residential Values At Risk ........................................................................................................................... 191 Residential Values At Risk ..................................................................................................................................... 200 Appendix B. Treatment Prioritization Methodology ........................................................................................ 202
B.1. Plan Unit Hazard Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 202 Hazard Rating Scale ................................................................................................................................................. 202 Relative Risk Rating Form ..................................................................................................................................... 203
B.2. Fuel Treatment Prioritization Methodology ............................................................................................... 205 Appendix C. Focus Group and Survey ..................................................................................................................... 208
C.1. Methods ......................................................................................................................................................................... 208
C.2. Results ............................................................................................................................................................................ 208 Values at Risk .............................................................................................................................................................. 208 Mitigation Work ........................................................................................................................................................ 210 Barriers to Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................. 212 Educational Content ................................................................................................................................................ 214
Page 64
5
•
•Section 1.a to learn about CWPPs
•Section 1.c to learn about wildfire
•Section 2 to learn about the Estes Valley FPD
•Section 3.a to learn what your next steps can be
•Appendix C to learn about resident perceptions of
wildfire risk in my community
I want to learn the basics
about wildfires, my local
fire districts, and what a
CWPP is.
•
•Section 2.g to learn why action is important now
•Section 3.a to learn about the actions you can take,
including detailed recommendations and research-
backed guidance for protecting your home and family
•Section 3.c to find detailed hazard ratings and
recommendations for your neighborhood
I'm a resident /
homeowner and want to
learn about protecting my
family, home, and property
from wildfires.
•
•Sections 3.b, 3.e, 3.f., and 3.g. to learn about the
actions communities can take together to better
protect everyone, including funding opportunities
•Section 3.c to find detailed hazard ratings and
recommendations for your neighborhood
I want to learn about
community-lead wildfire
mitigation actions for
neighborhoods or HOAs.
•
•Section 2.b and 2.c to learn about fire history and
treatment history in the area
•Section 4.a to learn about fuel treatment objectives
•Section 4.b and 4.c. to learn about fuel treatment
priorities and recommendations
•Section 4.d. to learn about slash management
options
•Section 4.e. to see the project implementation plan
I'm with a government
agency or cross-boundary
organization and want to
learn about landscape-
scale wildfire mitigation.
•
•Appendix A to learn about modelling methodology for
fire behavior and evacuations
•Appendix B to learn about prioritization for plan units,
stand treatments, and roadway treatments
I want to learn about the
science behind these
recommendations and how
priorities were made.
How to use this CWPP Document
This document is designed for everyone that lives, works, and manages
land within and around the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Different
sections will be most helpful to different people; please use this guide to
direct you to the resources most relevant to you.
Look for:
Look for:
Look for:
Look for:
Look for:
Page 65
6
Acronyms CSFS Colorado State Forest Service CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan DFPC Division of Fire Prevention and Control EVFPD Estes Valley Fire Protection District FAC Fire Adapted Community FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FPD Fire Protection District HIZ Home Ignition Zone HOA Homeowner’s Association IIBHS Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety IRPG Incident Response Pocket Guide ISO Insurance Services Office LCSO Larimer County Sherriff’s Office NCFC Northern Colorado Fireshed Collaborative NFPA National Fire Protection Association NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group RAWS Remote Automatic Weather Stations TEA The Ember Alliance RMNP Rocky Mountain National Park USFS U.S. Forest Service VFD Volunteer Fire Department WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
For definitions of the words and phrases used throughout this document, refer to the Glossary.
Page 66
7
1.Introduction
1.a. Purpose and Need for a Community Wildfire Protection PlanCommunity Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) help communities assess local hazards and identify strategic investments to mitigate risk and promote preparedness (Figure 1.a.1). Assessments and discussions during the planning process can assist fire protection districts with fire operations in the event of a wildfire and help residents prioritize mitigation actions. These plans also assist with funding gaps for fuel mitigation projects since many grants require an approved CWPP. In 2022, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD) completed an update of the 2009 CWPP that addresses the changing landscape and takes advantage of advances in fire science. This collaborative effort was led by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, the Colorado State Forest Service, and the Estes Valley Watershed Collaboration. It includes a wildfire risk analysis, prioritization of mitigation activities, and implementation recommendations. This document is a tool for the fire district, land managers, residents, communities, and homeowner’s associations (HOAs) to begin prioritizing projects that make EVFPD a safer and more resilient community to wildfire. The objectives of this project were to:
•Produce an actionable CWPP based on robust analyses of fuel hazards, burn probability,evacuation routes, and community values across the fire district.
•Provide recommendations, including prioritization, for reducing fire hazards, hardeninghomes, and increasing evacuation safety.
•Engage community members during the CWPP process to address local needs and concerns.
•Set the stage for planning and implementation within CWPP plan units to mitigate hazardsand promote community preparedness.
This CWPP is a call to action. Estes Valley Fire Protection District shares some risk factors common to past catastrophic wildfires across the country. The 2022 CWPP provides an assessment of wildfire risk in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District and includes suggestions for residents, community leaders, and emergency responders to mitigate risk and enhance community safety.
Figure 1.a.1. Elements of a holistic
and actionable CWPP.
Page 67
8
1.b. Partners and Stakeholder EngagementCollaboration is an essential part of CWPPs. Community engagement, partner commitment, and follow through are what make a CWPP successful. The Ember Alliance—a Colorado nonprofit dedicated to fire management and community engagement—worked with many local organizations to manage and write the CWPP. The CWPP Core and Advisory Teams engaged stakeholders from across the district and neighboring District to develop the recommendations set forth in this CWPP. They incorporated lessons learned from the challenging 2020 wildfire season in Colorado and considered valuable insights shared by community members and other stakeholders. Core Team Members:
•Colorado State Forest Service
•Estes Valley Fire Protection District
•Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
•Larimer County Sheriff’s Office – Emergency Services
•Town of Estes ParkAdvisory Team Members:
•Big Thompson Watershed Coalition
•Colorado Forest Restoration Institute
•Larimer Conservation District
•Larimer County Office of Emergency Management
•Northern Colorado Fireshed Collaborative
•Northern Water
•Rocky Mountain National Park
•Town of Estes Park - Power and Communications
•United States Forest ServiceThe CWPP team would like to thank the following partners for their time and effort in developing, providing data, providing feedback, and planning implementation projects for this CWPP:
•Colorado Forest Restoration Institute
•Colorado Parks and Wildlife
•Colorado State Forest Service
•Estes Valley Fire Protection District
•Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
•Larimer Conservation District
•Larimer County Office of Emergency Management
•Larimer County Sheriff’s Office – Emergency Services
•Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA)
•Northern Colorado Fireshed Collaborative
•Rocky Mountain National Park
•Town of Estes Park
o Estes Park Power and Communications
•USFS: Arapaho-Roosevelt National ForestTEA is grateful to Larimer County, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, and the State of Colorado for sharing geospatial data across the EVFPD.
Page 68
9
Community engagement is a vital aspect of CWPP development and implementation. The Estes Valley CWPP Update is a collaborative effort lead by the Core Team: the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, the Colorado State Forest Service, and the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition. They incorporated lessons learned from the challenging 2020 wildfire season in Colorado and considered valuable insights shared by community members and other stakeholders. The Core Team provided opportunities for community involvement throughout the process. In fall of 2021, community leaders shared their perspectives on how best to interact with residents in the EVFPD and for their sense of the community’s current awareness, understanding, and commitment to wildfire preparedness. A community survey was created to capture feedback from residents unable to attend. See Appendix C. Focus Group and Survey for community leader feedback analysis. Questions developed by the Wildfire Research group (WiRē) were instrumental in conducting the survey. Multiple meetings were held between agencies and organizations with a shared interest in mitigation of wildfire hazards across the EVFPD.
•Core Team meeting September 10th to review initial findings of fire behavior.
•Core Team meeting October 6th to review the focus group plan and fire behavior analyses.
•Core Team meeting January 24th to discuss mitigation prioritization.
•Advisory Team meeting March 7th to discuss mitigation prioritization.
•Northern Colorado Fireshed Collaborative meetings April 13th and June 18th to discussmitigation implementation and collaboration.A final community meeting was held on May 26th to share findings with the community at large and to disseminate information about how to take action to reduce risks present in the district.
Station 1, Dannels Fire Stations, headquarters for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Photo
credit: The Ember Alliance.
Page 69
10
1.c. Introduction to Wildfire Behavior and TerminologyMany aspects of wildfires are predictable based on known scientific research on the physical processes driving fire. Much of the work in this CWPP is based on scientific research and computer models of wildfire behavior. A basic understanding of fire behavior aids in interpreting the findings and recommendations reported herein. See the Glossary at the end of the CWPP for the definition of key terms.
Fire Behavior Triangle Complex interactions among wildland fuels, weather, and topography determine how wildfires behave and spread. These three factors make up the sides of the fire behavior triangle (Figure 1.c.1), and they are the variables that wildland firefighters pay attention to when assessing potential wildfire behavior during an incident (NWCG, 2019).
Fuels Fuels include live vegetation such as trees, shrubs, and grasses, dead vegetation like pine needles and cured grass, and materials like houses, sheds, fences, trash piles, and combustible chemicals. Grasses and pine needles are known as “flashy” fuels because they easily combust and burn the fastest of all fuel types. Flashy fuels dry out faster than other fuel types when relative humidity drops or when exposed to radiant and convective heat 1. If you think of a campfire, flashy fuels are the kindling that you use to start the fire. Fires in grassy fuel types can spread quickly across large areas, and fire behavior can change rapidly with changes in weather conditions. Dead branches on the surface dry out slower than flashy fuels, release more radiant heat when they burn, and take longer to completely combust. The rate of spread is fast to moderate through shrublands depending on their moisture content, and long flame lengths can preclude direct attack by firefighters. Shrubs and small trees can also act as ladder fuels that carry fire from the ground up into the tree canopy. Dead trees (aka, snags) and large downed logs are called “heavy fuels”, and they take the longest to dry out when relative humidity drops and when exposed to radiant and convective heat. Heavy fuels release tremendous radiant heat when they burn, and they take longer to completely combust, just like a log on a campfire. Fire spread through a forest is slower than in a grassland or shrubland, but forest fires release more heat and can be extremely difficult and unsafe for firefighters to suppress. An abundance of dead trees killed by drought, insects, or disease can exacerbate fire behavior, particularly when dead trees still have dry, red needles (Moriarty et al., 2019; Parsons et al., 2014).
1See the Glossary at the end of the CWPP for definitions of heat transfer methods.
Figure 1.c.1. Interactions between fuels, weather, and
topography dictate fire behavior (source: California
State University).
Page 70
11
Topography Topography (slope and aspect) influences fire intensity, speed, and spread. In the northern hemisphere, north-facing slopes experience less sun exposure during the day, resulting in higher fuel moistures. Tree density is often higher on north-facing slopes due to higher soil moisture. South-facing slopes experience more sun exposure and higher temperatures and are often covered in grasses and shrubs. The hotter and drier conditions on south-facing slopes mean fuels are drier and more susceptible to combustion, and the prevalence of flashy fuels results in fast rates of fire spread. Fires burn more quickly up steep slopes due to radiant and convective heating. Fuels are brought into closer proximity with the progressing fire, causing them to dry out, preheat, and become more receptive to ignition, thereby increasing rates of spread. Steep slopes also increase the risk of burning material rolling and igniting unburnt fuels below (Figure 1.c.2). Narrow canyons can experience increased combustion because radiant heat from fire burning on one side of the canyon can heat fuel on the other side of the canyon. Embers can easily travel from one side of a canyon to the other (Figure 1.c.2). Topography also influences wind behavior and can make fire spread unpredictable. Wildfires burning through steep and rugged topography are harder to control due to reduced access for firefighters and more unpredictable and extreme fire behavior.
Figure 1.c.2. Steep slopes and topographic features such as narrow canyons exacerbate fire behavior
and fire effects.
Weather Weather conditions that impact fire behavior include temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, and wind speed and direction. The National Weather Service uses a designation called a “red flag warning” to indicate local weather conditions that can combine to produce increased risk of fire danger and behavior. Red flag warning days indicate increased risk of extreme fire behavior due to a combination of hot temperatures, very low humidity, dry fuels, strong winds, and the presence of thunderstorms (Table 1.c.1). Direct sunlight and hot temperatures impact how ready fuels are to ignite. Warm air preheats fuels and brings them closer to their ignition point. When relative humidity is low, the dry air can absorb moisture from fuels, especially flashy fuels, making them more susceptible to ignition. Long periods of dry weather can dehydrate heavier fuels, including downed logs, increasing the risk of wildfires in areas with heavy fuel loads.
Page 71
12
Wind influences fire behavior by drying out fuels (think how quickly your lips dry out in windy weather), increasing the amount of oxygen feeding the fuel, preheating vegetation through convective heat, and carrying embers more than a mile ahead of an active fire. Complex topography, such as chutes, saddles, and draws, can funnel winds in unpredictable directions, increasing wind speeds and resulting in erratic fire behavior.
Table 1.c.1. Red flag days are warnings issued by the National Weather Service using criteria specific
to a region.
National Weather Service – Denver/Boulder Forecast Office
Red Flag Warning Criteria
Option 1 Option 2 Relative humidity less than or equal to 15% Widely scattered dry thunderstorms Wind gusts greater than or equal to 25 mph Dry fuels Dry fuels
Strong, gusty wind contributed to rapid growth of the 2020 East Troublesome Fire in Colorado (photo
by Jessy Ellenberger, Associated Press).
Page 72
13
Categories of Fire Behavior Weather, topography, and fuels influence fire behavior, and fire behavior in turn influences the tactical options available for wildland firefighters and the risks posed to lives and property. There are three general categories of fire behavior described throughout this CWPP: surface fire, passive crown fire, and active crown fire (Figure 1.c.3).
•Surface fire – Fire that burns fuels on the ground, which include dead branches, leaves, andlow vegetation. Surface fires can be addressed with direct attack using handcrews whenflame lengths are less than four feet and with equipment when flame lengths are less thaneight feet. Surface fires can emit significant radiant heat, which can ignite nearby vegetationand homes.
•Passive crown fire – Fire that arises when surface fire ignites the crowns of trees or groupsof trees (aka, torching). Torching trees reinforce the rate of spread, but passive crown firestravel along with surface fires. Firefighters can sometimes address passive crown fires withindirect attack, such as dropping water or retardant out of aircraft or digging fireline at a safedistance from the flaming front. The likelihood of passive crown fire increases when treeshave low limbs and when smaller trees and shrubs grow below tall trees and act as ladderfuels. Radiant heat and ember production from passive crown fires can threaten homesduring wildfires.
•Active crown fire – Fire in which a solid flame develops in the crowns of trees and advancesfrom tree crown to tree crown independently of surface fire spread. Crown fires are verydifficult to contain, even with the use of aircraft dropping fire retardant, due to long flamelengths and tremendous release of radiant energy. The likelihood of active crown firesincreases when trees have interlocking canopies. Radiant heat and ember production fromactive crown fires can threaten homes during wildfires.Passive and active crown fires can result in short- and long-range ember production that can create spot fires and ignite homes. Spot fires are particularly concerning because they can form a new flaming front, move in unanticipated directions, trap firefighters between two fires, and require additional firefighting resources to control. Crown fires are generally undesirable in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) because of the risk to lives and property; however, passive and active crown fires are part of the natural fire regime for some forest types and result in habitat for plant and animal species that require recently disturbed conditions (Keane et al., 2008; Pausas and Parr, 2018). Passive and active crown fires historically occurred in some lodgepole pine forests and higher-elevation ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests on north-facing slopes (Addington et al., 2018; Romme, 1982).
Figure 1.c.3. Active
crown fire, passive
crown fire, and
surface fire are
common types of fire
behavior.
Types of Fire
Page 73
14
Wildfire Threats to Homes Every year, wildfires result in billions of dollars in fire suppression costs and destroy thousands of homes across the United States. Some of the most destructive, deadly, and expensive wildfires in the have occurred in the past several years, partly due to expansion of the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and more severe fire weather perpetuated by climate change (Caton et al., 2016). The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) is any area where the built environment meets wildfire-prone areas—places where wildland fire can move between natural vegetation and the built environment and result in negative impacts on the community (Forge, 2018). WUI exist along a continuum of wildland to urban densities (Figure 1.c.4). Over the past 50 years, immigration to the mountains along the Colorado Front Range has increased the number of occupied structures within this historically forested landscape. This population change increased the density and size of the WUI, and the risk of structure loss from wildfire and the likelihood of fire starts.
Figure 1.c.4. The wildland-urban interface exists along a continuum of wildland to urban densities.
(Source: Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire).
Page 74
15
Wildfires can ignite homes through several pathways: radiant heat, convective heat, and direct contact with flames or embers. The ability for radiant heat to ignite a home is based on the properties of the structure (i.e., wood, metal, or brick siding), the temperature of the flame, the ambient air temperature, and distance from the flame (Caton et al., 2016). Ignition from convective heat is more likely for homes built along steep slopes and in ravines and draws. For flames to ignite a structure, they must directly contact the building long enough to cause ignition. Flames from a stack of firewood near a home could cause ignition to the home, but flames that quickly burn through grassy fuels are less likely to ignite the home (although the potential still exists). Fires can also travel between structures along fuel pathways such as a fence or row of shrubs connecting a shed and a home (Maranghides et al., 2022). Some housing materials can burn hotter than the surrounding vegetation, thereby exacerbating wildfire intensity and initiating home-to-home ignition (Mell et al., 2010). Homes can be destroyed during wildfires even if surrounding vegetation has not burned. During many wildland fires, 50 to 90% of homes ignite due to embers rather than radiant heat or direct flame (Babrauskas, 2018; Gropp, 2019). Embers can ignite structures when they land on roofs, enter homes through exposed eaves, or get under wooden decks. Embers can also ignite nearby vegetation and other combustible fuels, which can subsequently ignite a home via radiant heating or direct flame contact. Burning homes can release embers that land on and ignite nearby structures, causing destructive home-to-home ignitions, as evidenced by the destructive 2021 Marshall Fire in Boulder County. Structural characteristics of a home can increase its exposure to embers and risk of combustion, such as wood shingle roofs and unenclosed eaves and vents (Hakes et al., 2017; Syphard and Keeley, 2019). Embers can also penetrate homes if windows are destroyed by radiant or convective heat. See the section on
Home Hardening for specific recommendations to harden your home against wildfires.
Firefighting in the WUI One of the standard firefighter orders is to “fight fires aggressively, having provided for safety first” (NWCG, 2018a). Firefighters are committed to protecting lives and property, but firefighting is particularly perilous in the WUI. The firefighter community is increasingly committed to safety of wildland firefighters, which can require the difficult decision to cease structure protection when conditions become exceedingly dangerous, particularly around homes with inadequate defensible space, safety zones, and egress routes. High-intensity, fast-moving wildfires in the WUI can quickly overwhelm firefighting resources when homes begin igniting each other (Caton and others 2016). Firefighters are often forced to perform structure triage to effectively allocate limited resources during an incident, and more importantly, to protect the lives of firefighters. The Incident Response Pocket Guide (IRPG), which is carried by all firefighters certified under the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, explicitly states, “Do not
Homes built mid-slope and at the top of steep slopes and
within ravines and draws are at greater risk of convective
heat from wildfires. A wildfire could rapidly spread up this
steep slope and threaten the home above. Photo credit:
The Ember Alliance.
Page 75
16
commit to stay and protect a structure unless a safety zone for firefighters and equipment has been identified at the structure during sizeup and triage” (NWCG, 2018a). The IRPG outlines four categories of structure triage: (1) defensible – prep and hold, (2) defensible – stand alone, (3) non-defensible – prep and leave, and (4) non-defensible – rescue drive-by.
Do not count on firefighters staying to defend your home—your home should be able to
survive a wildfire on its own. There are never enough firefighters to stay and defend every
single home during large incidents. Section Mitigate the Home Ignition Zone of this CWPP provides recommendations for how residents can increase the chance of their homes surviving wildfires and enhance the safety of wildland firefighters.
Resources for More Information on Fire Behavior
•Introduction to Fire Behavior from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (9:57 minutevideo)
•The Fire Triangle from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (7:26 minute video)
•Understanding Fire Behavior in the Wildland/Urban Interface from the National FireProtection Association (20:51 minute video)
•Understanding Fire from California State University (website)
•S-190 Introduction to Wildland Fire Behavior Course Materials from the NWCG(PowerPoints, handouts, and videos)
Page 76
17
2.Estes Valley Fire Protection District: Background
2.a. General DescriptionThe EVFPD covers approximately 66 square miles in southwest Larimer County, Colorado (Figure
2.a.1). It lies in the Front Range and is a popular destination for tourists from across the state,country, and internationally. It centers around Estes Park, at the intersection of US Highway 36 fromBoulder and US Highway 34 from Loveland. The west side abuts Rocky Mountain National Park(RMNP), and Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest lands surround it to the north, east, and south,interspersed with rural mountain communities.In the Estes Valley, the average resident age is 62 years, making it one of the oldest communities in the state. 47% of the population is part of the workforce, and many residents are retired (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Approximately 11,500 people live in the valley year-round, and there is a large population of seasonal summer residents and workforce. The Town of Estes Park itself has about 6,000 year-round residents. The district covers 9,000 housing units, and there is a large hospitality industry due to Rocky Mountain National Park. Annual visitation to the park is increasing and hit a record high number of visitors (4.6 million) in 2019. 80% of these visitors come in through Estes Park every year. The EVFPD works with neighboring districts when needed. It is bordered by Glen Haven Volunteer Fire Department to the north, Loveland Fire Rescue Authority to the east, Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District, Volunteer Fire Department of Big Elk, and Lyons Fire Protection District to the southeast, and Allenspark Fire Protection District to the south. Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest manages 15,500 acres of land in the EVFPD, about 37% of its area. Larimer County manages 1,300 acres of land at Hermit Park Open Space. The Town of Estes Park operates 13 public parks within Town limits. The Bureau of Reclamation maintains water resources and power plants at Lake Estes and Mary’s Lake (Figure 2.a.2). All the land management agencies in the district cooperated with RMNP and federal wildfire coordinators during the 2020 fire season to respond to threats from the Cameron Peak Fire and the East Troublesome Fire. The EVFPD encompasses a widespread valley where the Town of Estes Park is seated, and the surrounding hills and valleys. Elevations range from 7,000 to 10,700 feet above sea level. The district is at the headwaters of the Big Thompson Watershed, which is an important source of water for Front Range communities including Fort Collins and Loveland. Most of the district is vegetated with mixed conifer forests and ponderosa pine woodlands. Lodgepole pine stands, montane shrublands, and conifer-hardwood stands make up the rest of the valley. Much of the historic montane meadow land has been developed into downtown Estes Park and housing (Figure 2.a.3; Figure 2.a.4). Black bear, elk, mountain lion, mule deer, and bald eagles are some of the large wildlife commonly found in the EVFPD. The valley is part of the headwaters for the Big Thompson River which provides drinking and irrigation water to residents of the Estes Valley, the Big Thompson Canyon, Loveland, Greeley, and other communities downstream. Fuel loads vary from light to very heavy across the EVFPD (Figure 8.a.2). Some areas have widely spaced trees with few ladder fuels; these areas would most likely experience surface fires with occasional passive crown fires. Other areas are densely forested on steep north-facing slopes or canyons and could experience active crown fires that would be difficult if not impossible for firefighters to contain. Grassy areas are interspersed across the EVFPD and could experience fast-moving surface fires. Homes serve as an additional source of fuel that could produce high-intensity flames, emit embers, and initiate home-to-home ignitions.
Page 77
18
Estes Valley has significant values to protect from wildfire. In addition to private homes and commercial buildings, there are the Estes Park Schools and Eagle Rock School, the community center, many churches, a hospital, two urgent care centers, and a long-term senior care facility. The top of Prospect Mountain houses essential communications towers, critical support infrastructure like power distribution and water treatment for Estes and downstream users exist throughout the valley, and both Lake Estes and Mary’s Lake are home to powerplants (Figure 2.a.5). Rocky Mountain National Park is a world-class tourism destination and the main attraction for Estes Park visitors. “Because Estes Park is a resort town, much of the local revenue is derived from tourism. Sales tax revenue is the primary source of government funding. Large wildfires in the Estes Park WUI and the Estes Valley have the potential to cause a significant and lengthy interruption of tourism which could damage the Town’s ability to provide the current level of municipal services” (Town of Estes Park, 2009).
Page 78
19
Figure 2.a.1. Boundary of Estes Valley Fire Protection District in Larimer County, Colorado. (Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs
and OpenStreetMap).
Page 79
20
Figure 2.a.2. Publicly owned land across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Protected Areas Database of
the United States).
Page 80
21
Figure 2.a.3. Map of vegetation across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. (Source: Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Forest Atlas).
Page 81
22
Figure 2.a.4. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District is primarily covered with mixed conifer stands that are comprised of any of the
following: white fir, subalpine fir, ponderosa pine, bristlecone pine, limber pine, Douglas-fir, Rocky Mountain juniper, Engelmann spruce, and
blue spruce. The species present in conifer-hardwood are bristlecone pine, limber pine, and quaking aspen, with Rocky Mountain Juniper and
Douglas-fir also commonly present. Colors correspond to the symbol legend in Figure 2.a.3. (Source: Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado
Forest Atlas).
Page 82
23
Figure 2.a.5. Non-residential values at risk to wildfire within and around the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. (Sources: CO Department of
Public Health and Environment, CO Division of Oil and Public Safety, Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, and feedback from the CWPP Core Team).
Page 83
24
Figure 2.a.6. Non-residential values at risk to wildfire within and around the EVFPD (focused on downtown Estes Park).
Page 84
25
2.b. Fire History Along the Colorado Front RangeColorado’s Front Range was influenced heavily by fire before the era of fire suppression. This land is the ancestral land of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute First Nations. These indigenous groups utilized fire as a land management tool. Lightning ignited fires were common in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests before European settlement in the 1850’s. Ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests were fire-adapted ecosystems and very resilient to wildfires. Low- to mixed-severity fires occurred every 7 to 50 years and occasional severe, stand-replacing fires (Figure 2.b.1). Frequent fires would kill many tree seedlings and saplings, thereby preventing the accumulation of ladder fuels and reducing the potential for surface fires to transition into crown fires. Fire spread was more rapid through understory grasses but released far less heat, which allowed many larger trees to survive unscathed. Occasionally dense clumps of trees would experience mortality from passive crown fire, further increasing the diversity of habitat in these ecosystems, which included a mosaic of widely spaced trees and small tree clumps interwoven with grasslands and shrublands, particularly on drier south-facing slopes. North-facing slopes often supported denser forest stands (Addington et al., 2018). Ponderosa pine ecosystems with fewer trees support more abundant and species-diverse understories of grasses, forbs, and shrubs and provide habitat for a variety of wildlife that prefer more open forest structure (Kalies et al., 2012; Matonis and Binkley, 2018; Pilliod et al., 2006). As the initial ranching and logging activities of Euro-American settlers subsided in the region and government-mandated fire suppression began in the late 1800’s, trees grew back in a single age class, resulting in many dense forest stands (Figure 2.b.2) (Addington et al., 2018). Although many residents consider dense forest as “natural”, these conditions are vastly different from the wildfire-resilient ecosystems that existed before. Landscapes of continuous, dense forests are more prone to high-severity fires that are difficult to suppress and can result in catastrophic losses to lives and property (Haas et al., 2015). Lodgepole pine forests are part of fire-adapted ecosystems that are resilient after infrequent, stand-replacing wildfires. Research on historical conditions in lodgepole pine forests suggest they experienced high-severity wildfires every couple of centuries in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming (Higuera et al., 2021) (Figure 2.b.1). Lodgepoles grow dense and tall, which leaves little light that reaches the understory. They have relatively high canopy base height because they drop their lower branches as they grow and few ladder fuels exist in the understory, meaning they typically burn with high-severity crown fires. They have serotinous cones that open after the heat of a wildfire, creating a dense seedbed that will grow into a new even-aged stand and replace the burned previous stand. Young stands that are in recovery and regeneration stages after wildfires do not have the resources to regenerate after a second wildfire event, so frequent stand-replacing fires can have detrimental effects on this ecosystem (Dennis et al., 2009; Turner et al., 2019). Fires are becoming more common in high elevation lodgepole pine and wet mixed-conifer forests due to climate change (Higuera et al., 2021).
Page 85
26
Figure 2.b.1. Ponderosa pine forests along the Colorado Front Range historically experienced
frequent fires every 7-50 years and mixed-conifer forests experienced semi-frequent fires every 20 to
>100 years, resulting in less dense forest conditions than we see today. Gambel oak experienced
variable fire regimes, but likely more frequent that what they see today, resulting in more frequent
regrowth. (Source: Colorado Forest Restoration Institute).
Page 86
27
Figure 2.b.2. Tree densities in many ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests are higher today than
they were historically in part due to fire suppression, as demonstrated by these paired photographs
taken nearly 100 years apart on the east side of downtown Estes Park. Credit: Estes Park and Rocky
Mountain National Park: Then & Now; Revised Edition, copyright 2019 Estes Park Museum Friends
Press, courtesy Estes Park Museum.
Photo taken in 1916
Photo taken in 2012
Page 87
28
Along the Front Range of Colorado, a combination of extreme fire weather conditions (extreme heat and high winds), unplanned ignitions, and dry, unmitigated wildland vegetation can create catastrophic wildfire scenarios in the WUI. Climate change is further increasing wildfire risk and lengthening fire seasons (Parks et al., 2016). Many catastrophic wildfires in Colorado’s history have occurred on dry and windy days, resulting in rapid fire spread over short periods of time. On the Front Range, wind can gust over 62 miles/hour, which makes wildfire suppression nearly impossible (Haas et al., 2015). Days with red flag warnings indicate severe fire weather and require extra vigilance by fire departments and residents (see Table 1.c.1 for red flag warning criteria). The occurrence of red flag warnings is highly variable from year to year due to regional weather patterns and weather anomalies such as El Niño and La Niña. The EVFPD experienced between 0 and 25 red flag warnings per year from 2006 to 2020, with 11 red flag warnings in 2019 and 24 red flag warnings in 2020 (Figure 2.b.3). Red flag conditions are most common in March, April, June, and October From 2006-2017, there were 162 fires starts in and around the EVFPD, most commonly occurring in May, June, and July, and 92% of ignitions were contained to less than 1 acre (Figure 2.b.4). In 2000 the Bobcat Fire burned almost 10,000 acres The 2002 Big Elk Fire burned over 4,000 acres and took the lives of three pilots. It was caused by cars parking on dry grasses. The 2010 Cow Creek Fire burned 1,000 acres on the north side of RMNP. The 2012 Fern Lake Fire, started by an illegal campfire, burned 3,500 acres in RMNP and prompted evacuations in Estes Park, and the same year the Woodland Heights Fire burned homes and prompted evacuations on the west side of Estes Park. 2020 was a critical year for residents of the EVFPD. The Cameron Peak Fire loomed over the horizon for months, and the East Troublesome Fire spotted over the continental divide, prompting a valley-wide evacuation and threatening the town. These two fires became the two largest wildfires in state history, and though they never entered the district’s boundaries, they hung heavy on the community for months as they grappled with evacuations, park closures, and additional lost tourism revenue on top of the pandemic. EVFPD responded to both fires for an extended period of time, along with numerous other agencies, to protect the district. The East Troublesome Fire was stopped less than half a mile from the edge of the district boundary. The potential for a large wildfire that exceeds the suppression capacity of local firefighting resources remains high. In 2020, the three largest wildfires in Colorado history, the Cameron Peak Fire, East Troublesome Fire, and Pine Gulch Fire, started and burned over 540,000 acres (Figure 2.b.5).
Take Away Message The Estes Valley Fire Protection District is at high risk for large, high-severity wildfires due to dense forest conditions, dry and hot weather, and strong, gusty winds. Increasing drought and warming temperatures exacerbate wildfire risk in the area. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District and residents in the EVFPD must prepare for large wildfire events. Proactive work is imperative.
Page 88
29
Figure 2.b.3. Top: Red flag days and wildfire ignitions by year from 2006 to 2017. Bottom: Total
number of red flag days in each month from 2006 to 2020. March, April, June, and October and the
most common months for experiencing red flag weather. Data on historical red flag warnings were
available for 2006 to 2020 and data on fire ignitions were available for 2003 to 2017. (Sources: Iowa
State University, Iowa Environmental Mesonet, and Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Forest
Atlas).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Red Flag Days vs Fire Starts
Red Flag Days Fire Starts
0
5
10
15
20
25
To
t
a
l
R
e
d
F
l
a
g
D
a
y
s
,
2
0
0
6
-20
2
0
Red Flag Days by Month
Page 89
30
Figure 2.b.4. Fire starts in and around the Estes Valley Fire Protection District from 2000 to 2017. 92% of ignitions were contained to one
acre or smaller. (Source: Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Forest Atlas).
Page 90
31
Figure 2.b.5. Extent of 2020 wildfires along the Colorado Front Range relative to the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. The East
Troublesome Fire burned within a quarter mile of the EVFPD and prompted valley-wide evacuations in 2020. (Source: National Interagency
Fire Center).
Page 91
32
2.c. Fuel Treatment History in and Around the EVFPDForests have been actively managed in the Estes Valley for decades. Multiple agencies and landowners have engaged in a variety of fuels management strategies to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health (Figure
2.c.1; Figure 2.c.2). Some key programs arehighlighted below.Rocky Mountain National Park has active fuels management and forest health programs. Much of RMNP’s work has been focused on the eastern edge of the park boundary to protect Estes Park from fires leaving the park. Much of this work is focused on burning slash piles in areas where thinning has occurred, but some broadcast burning has been conducted around the Beaver Meadows Visitor Center and the surrounded grasslands and timber. Firefighters benefitted from using these fuel treatments as tactical features during the 2020 East Troublesome Fire, and it is possible these treatments helped prevent wildfire damage in Estes Park (Good, 2020). The United States Forest Service likewise has active fuels and forest management programs in the Estes Valley area. Most USFS land is to the east and northeast of the district, but significant thinning and pile burning has been completed in these areas. Although much of the work to date has involved burning machine piles, ongoing work as of 2022 focuses on the burning of smaller hand piles in the Cedar Park area. Although not a significant landowner in the area, Estes Park Power & Communications (EPP&C) manages infrastructure and right-of-ways with the potential to either contribute to or be impacted by wildfires. EPP&C engages in proactive and reactive fuels management to mitigate hazards fuels and the potential for ignitions. This involves identifying and mitigating trees that could impact electric supply lines, brushing, mowing, and tree-removal around distribution lines, and other activities. Private landowners have worked on their own and with organizations such as CSFS and Larimer Conservation District to implement fuels treatments on private lands. Projects range from less than an acre to hundreds of acres, and while this work cannot be captured on all our maps, it has nonetheless improved the resiliency of the Estes Valley.
Fuel treatments in Rocky Mountain
National Park create opportunities for
firefighters to engage with wildfires along
tactical features like Bear Lake Road.
Photo credits: National Park Service (top)
and Colorado Forest Restoration Institute
(bottom).
Page 92
33
Figure 2.c.1. Locations of forest management treatments conducted by the USFS, RMNP, CSFS, and private landowners in and around the
EVFPD. RMNP has completed extensive fuels treatments inside the park at the eastern border to assist in protecting the town of Estes Park.
Wildfires that occurred in the past 10 years are included: Cameron Peak, East Troublesome, Fern Lake, and Kruger Rock (Source: Colorado
Forest Restoration Institute, data available through 2018; U.S. Forest Service, data available through 2021; National Park Service, data
available through 2018).
Page 93
34
Figure 2.c.2. Acres of forest management treatments from conducted by the USFS, RMNP, and private
landowners within two miles of the EVFPD. (Source: Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, data
available through 2018).
7161
190 608
2130
010002000300040005000600070008000
Thinning Thinning and PrescribedFire Prescribed Fire Wildfire
Ac
r
e
s
Fuels Treatments in the EVFPD
Page 94
35
2.d. Wildland-Urban InterfaceThe Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) is any area where the built environment meets wildfire-prone areas—places where wildland fire can move between natural vegetation and the built environment (Forge, 2018). People that live and work in the WUI must be aware of the effect that ecosystem processes and disturbances, such as wildland fire, have on their lives. WUI exists along a continuum of wildland to urban densities (Figure 1.c.4). Wildland-urban intermix refers to areas where housing and wildland vegetation intermingle, while wildland-urban interface refers to areas where housing is in the vicinity of a large area of dense wildland vegetation (Martinuzzi et al., 2015). All residents of the Estes Valley Fire Protection District live in the WUI (Figure 2.d.1). Over the past 50 years, immigration to the mountains along the Colorado Front Range has increased the number of occupied structures within this historically forested landscape. This population change has increased not only the density and size of the WUI, but also increased the risk of structure loss from wildfire and the likelihood of fire starts. According to the 2020 Wildfire Risk to Communities analysis by the U.S. Forest Service, homes in Estes Park and the surrounding areas have a higher risk of fire than 89% of the communities in the state of Colorado (USFS, 2021a). High fire risk is common to many WUI communities along the Colorado Front Range (Radeloff et al., 2018). Damages from wildfires in the Colorado’s WUI can be extensive, as demonstrated by the 2013 Black Forest Fire that destroyed 511 structures, and the 2020 East Troublesome Fire that destroyed at least 366 structures, and the 2021 Marshall Fire that destroyed over 1,000 structures.
Page 95
36
Figure 2.d.1. Wildland-Urban Interface and Intermix in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District displayed by housing density, proximity to
wildland vegetation, and cover of wildland vegetation, as defined and mapped by the U.S. Forest Service. (Source: Martinuzzi et al., 2015 with
modifications based on local knowledge).
Page 96
37
2.e. Resident Preparedness for WildfireResidents in the EVFPD are generally not adequately prepared for wildfires. This varies from home to home, but most homes surveyed in on-the-ground driving assessments conducted by TEA do not have adequate defensible space and home hardening measures. Residents were prepared enough for emergency evacuations during the 2020 fires and the evacuation went as smoothly and quickly as the fire district and county anticipated. This was under favorable conditions, where there were very few visitors because RMNP was closed, school was not in session that day, and the community had been bracing for a large wildfire for weeks with the Cameron Peak Fire burning to the north. Under different conditions, evacuations could be significantly less smooth and timely. The EVFPD evaluated each of the communities in the district during the process of writing this CWPP and discovered that most neighborhoods have no or inadequate defensible space around homes, that some driveways and roads are too small for a Type 3 fire engine to drive on, that roadways are not adequately cleared to be survivable during a fire, and that many residents are unaware of the risk that they are at (Plan Unit Hazard Assessment; Appendix C. Focus Group and Survey). Increasing resident preparedness is a primary goal of this CWPP, and specific recommendations for residents to take are outlined in the document.
2.f. District CapacityEVFPD was a volunteer fire department from 1907 to 2009. They have had paid staff since 2010 and currently have seven full time staff members: a Fire Chief, Chief of Staff, Division Chief of Operations, Division Chief of Support Services, Training Lieutenant, and two Fire Inspectors. They also employ a part-time Administrative Assistant. There are 35 volunteer firefighters that include two Captains, four Lieutenants, and four squads of firefighters. EVFPD maintains a fleet for structural and wildland firefighting. They have two Type 1 engines, one Ladder Engine, two Type 3 engines, one Type 6 engine, two wildland water tenders, a technical rescue squad, a utility pickup, two command vehicles, and two support vehicles. They operate at stations, primarily out of Station 71 at 901 N Saint Vrain Ave and occasionally out of Station 72, which is shared with Rocky Mountain National Park’s fire fleet at 1600 Mills Drive in Estes Park. They operate a regional training facility at 640 Elm Road with a three-story Class A burn building and other infrastructure to support firefighter training. Staff and volunteers train weekly and advanced trainings are offered regularly. On average, volunteers receive 200 hours of training per year in structural and wildland firefighting. For more details on district capacity, see Description of District Capacity in the appendix. As of 2022, the EVFPD holds an ISO rating of 3/10 for homes within 5 miles of a fire station and 10/10 for homes further than 5 miles away. The ISO rating is given by the Insurance Services Office that assesses a fire department’s capacity to respond to structure fires. A 1/10 is the highest rating and a 10/10 is the lowest rating.
EVFPD Engine 31, a Type 3 wildland firefighting engine.
Photo courtesy of EVFPD.
Page 97
38
2.g. Community Values at RiskHealthy forests provide a variety of ecosystem services such as the provisioning of clean water, flood regulation, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and cultural and spiritual value (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003). These ecosystem services generate revenue for communities in the wildland urban interface, such as Estes Park. Severe wildfire poses a direct threat to a forest’s ability to provide these services and can have detrimental economic impacts on communities such as Estes Park. Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) is one of the most visited National Parks in the country. Due to its proximity to RMNP, tourism is a staple of Estes Park’s economy. 2020 saw a significant decrease in RMNP visitation due to both COVID-19 and the Cameron Peak and East Troublesome wildfires. From 2019 to 2020, there was a drop of over 1.3 million visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park (NPS, 2021). As a result, the local economy of Estes Park suffered. According to Estes Park’s Annual Financial Report for 2020, sales tax collections dropped 7.4% in 2020 compared to 2019 (Town of Estes Park, 2021). Fortunately, the local economy started to bounce back once height of the pandemic’s impact passed. Nevertheless, 2020 can give us insight into more permanent impacts that a severe wildfire would have on the local economy. From a recreation perspective, wildfires can significantly compromise the tourist experience. People from all around the country, and the world, are drawn to RMNP for its lush forests and diverse wildlife. When forests are decimated by severe wildfires, and wildlife habitat destroyed, this decreases the value of the natural area for visiting tourists. According to Lee, wildfires that have occurred throughout the western US resulted in significant decreases in campsite reservations for six years following a wildfire. This decrease was due to the altered aesthetic of the campsites, as well as unsafe conditions in the forest from standing dead trees (Lee, 2020). For a town like Estes Park that relies so heavily on tourism, this decrease in visitation will have serious impacts on the local economy. Similarly, a study by Kim and Jakus looked at wildfire impacts on National Park visitation in Utah and found that local economies lost between $2.7-4.5 million during wildfire season, as well as about 50 jobs (Kim and Jakus, 2019). In addition to tourism, the provisioning of clean water and flood regulation are two critical ecosystem services that are adversely impacted by wildfire. Extreme wildfires can result in soil that is hydrophobic (i.e., the soil is not able to absorb water). This means that, when heavy rains occur following an extreme wildfire, the water will run off the soil’s surface and cause a flash flood. In 2013, Northern Colorado experienced an extreme rainfall event that resulted in flooding of the Big Thompson Canyon that caused millions of dollars in damages and impacted the local economy of Estes Park. The two months following the flooding (September and October 2013) saw a 26.25% decline in sales tax revenue—a combined loss of $462,723 (Mosier, 2020). This figure doesn’t account for the millions of dollars in post-flood recovery costs, such as infrastructure damages. For example, it took a total of five years, and over $300 million for flood damages along Highway 34 to be repaired (Blumhardt, 2021). Wildfire mitigation can prevent future flooding events and should therefore be prioritized in communities such as Estes Park. Another important thing to consider is the adverse health impacts of smoke from wildfires. A study conducted by Gellman et al. (2022) revealed that across 30 National Parks in the western US, smoke affects 1 million visitors annually. This same study showed that wildfire smoke often doesn’t deter tourists from visiting parks with poor air quality, which results in adverse health impacts over time (Gellman et al., 2022). This makes wildfires in towns such as Estes Park not only an economic concern, but a public health concern as well.
Page 98
39
Gatlinburg, Tennessee serves as an example of just how destructive wildfire can be to a tourism economy. Gatlinburg is the gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park—the most visited National Park in the country. Like Estes Park, the economy of Gatlinburg relies on tourism. In 2016, The Chimney Tops 2 Fire devastated the town of Gatlinburg. It burned a total of 18,000 acres (11,000 acres within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park), 2,400 structures, and killed 14 people (Barrett, 2016). In total, the fire resulted in $500 million in damages to the town of Gatlinburg (Barrett, 2016). It has taken years for the town’s economy to recover, and it may never return to the level it was pre-Chimney Tops fire. Gatlinburg serves as a cautionary tale, and emphasizes the importance of wildfire mitigation, especially in towns that rely on tourism. Without doing an extensive quantitative economic assessment, it cannot accurately be predicted the revenue that would be lost as a result of extreme wildfire in Estes Park. However, it is safe to say that the local economy would suffer greatly from a significant decline in sales tax revenue from visiting tourists, and damages to infrastructure and natural resources that would result from such an event. Even though wildfire mitigation efforts can be expensive, they are nothing compared to the detrimental economic losses that occur following extreme wildfires. Wildfires are only expected to increase in severity and frequency in the years ahead. Towns like Estes Park must prioritize wildfire mitigation and preparedness to protect their invaluable natural resources and tourist economy. There are many different approaches to assessing risk, and the analyses used for this assessment are informed by fire behavior modeling and burn probability. These approaches are limited by the spatial unit of analysis for fire behavior simulations (30 m2), industry shortcomings in simulating extreme fire behavior, and ongoing research into contributing factors for structure loss. Nevertheless, risk assessments can help inform planning and decision making as they relate to prevention and mitigation and are thus a useful tool for addressing complex coupled socio-ecological systems like the fire environment. Critical infrastructure is generally minimally exposed, with a few key exceptions (Figure 2.g.1). Communication equipment are at potentially very high risk on Prospect Mountain. This presents a significant risk to responders and emergency communications to the public. Radio equipment has been damaged during other wildfires elsewhere in the country and despite communication equipment construction materials, mitigation efforts should focus within this area. Some energy infrastructure, such as the East Portal and Mary’s Lake Powerplant, are exposed to either elevated flame lengths, burn probability, or both. Energy infrastructure is critically important for long-term recovery within a community and mitigation of these areas could provide significant benefits in the event of a large wildfire. Cultural and historic sites are spatially disparate but highly exposed to wildfires. Although important for economic and cultural reasons, they do not contribute to immediate life safety or stabilization concerns. Mitigation for these values could contribute to longer term economic vitality due to their tourism value; cultural impacts of these values, while less readily quantified, should be considered as well. Various educational, youth, and medical facilities are at risk. The YMCA has significant elements at risk, as does the UNC campus and the Eagle Rock School. While many medical facilities are more centrally located in town and more protected from embers and fire behavior, the Harmony Foundation facility is at risk from both. Ultimately, any wildfire risk assessment should be considered as describing the minimum potential risk. Fire behavior is notoriously difficult to predict and underprediction of flame lengths and rates of spread are common. These limitations ultimately underpredict burn probability as well as derived
Page 99
40
metrics such as ember cast potential. Processes like the FEMA stabilization guide and others are important for prioritizing how to balance the needs of a community with information derived from risk assessments. Structures across the EVFPD could be exposed to radiant heat, short-range ember cast, or long-range ember cast. Radiant heat can ignite homes when extreme fire behavior (flame lengths > 16 feet) occurs within 33 yards (30 meters) of structures. Short-range embers can reach homes within 0.06 miles (100 meters) of active crown fires. Long-range embers can reach homes within 0.3 miles (500 meters) of active crown fires. Embers can ignite structures in advance of the flaming front of a fire. Under extreme fire weather conditions, 24% of homes in the EVFPD are at risk of short-range ember cast and 87% are at risk of long-range ember cast (Figure 2.g.2). Potential exposure to long-range ember cast is ubiquitous across the EVFPD, underscoring the importance of home hardening measures even in the interior of the EVFPD. Recommendations to residents for reducing wildfire risk to their homes are covered in the Individual Recommendations section of this CWPP. The analysis of potential exposure to radiant heat and ember cast is useful for informing estimating potential economic losses during a wildfire. During the 2018 Camp Fire, greater than 90% of structures were in Paradise, CA were destroyed (Knapp et al., 2021). Assuming conservatively that only structures with exposure to radiant heat and short-range and/or long-range ember cast are impacted by a similar scenario and an average home value of $630,000 (Zillow Inc., 2021), assessed structure losses could exceed $1 billion in the EVFPD. This could result in valuation lost to revenue for special Districts, leading to as much as $5,250,000 in lost tax revenue for schools, recreation, the library, and fire districts. See Non-Residential Values At Risk and Values at Risk in the appendix for more information.
Page 100
41
Figure 2.g.1. Values at risk of exposure to embers and radiant heat. Only values that experienced
"high" or "extreme" exposure are labeled. Low exposure = potential exposure to long-range ember
cast. Moderate exposure = potential exposure to long-rang ember cast and short-range ember cast.
High exposure = potential exposure to long-range ember cast or short-range ember cast and radiant
heat. Extreme exposure = potential exposure to long- and short-range ember cast and radiant heat.
Page 101
42
Figure 2.g.2. Percentage of homes potentially exposed to radiant heat and short-and long-range
ember cast under moderate and extreme fire weather conditions in the EVFPD. See Appendix A.3.
Predicted Radiant Heat and Ember Cast Exposure for analysis methodology.
Page 102
43
2.h. Accomplishments Since the Previous CWPP
Estes Valley Fire Protection District
•Estes Valley Fire Protection District became a special district in 2010, following the 2009CWPP which was created when Estes Valley Fire was still a part of the Town of Estes Park.This expanded their response area and funding.
•EVFPD was an all-volunteer organization from 1907 until 2009, and they hired their firstFire Marshall in 2010. They are still primarily volunteer run, but now also have seven fulltime staff members.
•In 2011, EVFPD adopted the International Fire Code. They continue to adopt the updatededitions as they come out and are currently working under the 2018 edition which wasadopted in 2019.
•In 2016, EVFPD hired the first full time Fire Inspector.
•In 2017 EVFPD began planning for large-scale incidents. They hosted a planning workshopin which stakeholders and community leaders gathered to respond to a simulated massivewildfire event. They built evacuation and traffic management plans for large scale incidentsas well. This was all part of an emergency response plan that ended up being the basis fortheir response to the 2020 wildfires and evacuations.
•In 2019 EVFPD hosted a follow-up workshop on fire prevention, response, resiliency, andrecovery that added to their 2017 emergency response plan.
•In 2020 EVFPD won an International Association of Fire Chiefs’ Ready, Set, Go! grant toincrease and improve marketing and education to visitors in Estes Park.
•In 2021 the Town of Estes Park won a Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire grant,and EVFPD added a second full-time Fire Inspector who focuses on Community RiskReduction education.
•EVFPD continues to increase their operational capabilities by certifying their volunteerfirefighters in wildland firefighting and adding a second Type 3 engine and second tacticaltender to their fleet in 2022.
Page 103
44
3.Becoming a Fire Adapted CommunityIt is recommended that that Estes Valley Fire Protection District, HOAs, and residents embrace the concept of Fire Adapted Communities (FAC), which is defined by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group as “a human community consisting of informed and prepared citizens collaboratively planning and taking action to safely coexist with wildland fire”. This concept can guide residents, fire practitioners, and communities through a holistic approach to become more resilient to fire (Figure
3.1). Your community’s CWPP sets the stage for fire adaptation, and the next step is on-the-ground action and an ongoing commitment to risk mitigation at all levels of the community, from individual homeowners to neighborhoods and HOAs to the EVFPD to land managers and other partners. This section of the CWPP includes recommendations and resources for mitigating wildfire risk and enhancing emergency preparedness. The EVFPD and public land managers have an important role to play in implementing the recommendations in this CWPP, and they have made commitments to take on-the-ground action as outlined in Section 4. Implementation Recommendations for Fuel
Treatments. Individual homeowners, neighborhoods, and HOAs have a vital role to play in addressing shared wildfire risk. Action and community-building centered around mitigation have reduced wildfire risk and increased community resilience across the mountain west. Mitigation work by residents can spur mitigation by their neighbors (Brenkert-Smith et al., 2013). The cumulative impact of linked defensible space across private properties can improve the likelihood of home survival and protect firefighters during wildfire events (Jolley, 2018; Knapp et al., 2021).
Figure 3.1. The Fire Adapted Communities graphic provides specific programs and activities that
communities can take to reduce their wildfire risk and increase their resilience (Source: Fire Adapted
Community Learning Network).
Page 104
45
3.a. Individual Recommendations
Mitigate the Home Ignition ZoneDuring catastrophic wildfires, property loss happens mostly due to conditions in the home ignition zone (HIZ). The home ignition zone includes your home and other structures (e.g., sheds and garages) and area within 100 feet of each structure. Firefighter intervention, adequate defensible space, and home hardening measures were common factors for homes that survive major wildfires (IIBHS, 2019; Maranghides et al., 2022). Research following the 2018 Camp Fire showed that homes were more likely to burn down when they were close to other structures that had also burned, when they had vegetation within 100 meters of the home, and when they had combustible materials (firewood or propane tanks) near the home (Knapp et al., 2021).
Defensible space is the area around a building where vegetation, debris, and other types of combustible fuels have been treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the spread of fire and reduce exposure to radiant heat and direct flame. It is encouraged that residents develop defensible space so that during a wildfire their home can stand alone without relying upon limited firefighter resources due to the great reduction in hazards they have undertaken.
Home hardening is the practice of making a home less likely to ignite from the heat or direct contact with flames or embers. It is important to remember that embers can ignite homes even when the flaming front of a wildfire is far away. Home hardening involves reducing this risk by changing building materials, installation techniques, and structural characteristics of a home. Home hardening measures are particularly important for WUI homes; 50 to 90% of homes ignite due to embers rather than radiant heat during wildfires (Babrauskas, 2018; Gropp, 2019).
You can increase the likelihood that your home will survive a wildfire and help protect the safety of firefighters by creating defensible space, replacing, or altering building materials to make your home less susceptible to ignition, and taking steps to increase firefighter access along your driveway.
Defensible space allowed firefighters to protect this home during the 2016 Cold Springs Fire near Nederland, CO (source:
Cold Springs Fire
Success Stories from Wildfire Partners).
Page 105
46
Defensible Space Residents can create defensible space by reducing the amount of vegetation and flammable materials (i.e., pine needles, stacked firewood, patio furniture) within the HIZ. Defensible space creates a buffer between your home and grass, trees, and shrubs that could ignite during a wildland fire. Defensible space can slow the spread of wildfire, prevent direct flame contact, and reduce the chance that embers will ignite material on or near your home (Hakes et al., 2017). Substantially reducing vegetation within the HIZ and removing vegetation that overhangs decks and roofs can reduce structure loss, especially for homes on slopes (Syphard et al., 2014). Defensible space is divided into multiple zones around a home, and recommended practices vary among zones. The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) defines zone one as 0 to 5 feet from the home, zone two as 5 to 30 feet from the home, and zone three as 30 to about 100 feet from the home. Some organizations call zone one the “noncombustible zone” (0 to 5 feet from the home) and zone two the “lean, clean, and green zone” (5 to 30 feet from the home). Residents should establish defensible space around each building on their property, including detached garages, storage buildings, barns, and other structures. A 2021 study from the University of Colorado-Boulder showed that homeowners living in the WUI in Bailey, CO typically underestimated the level of risk their home is at due to wildfire, and tended to overestimate the amount of work they have done to protect their property (Simpkins, 2021). Make sure you are informed about best practices for protecting your home. See Figure 3.a.1, Table 3.a.1, and the CSFS publication The Home Ignition Zone for recommendations. Section 4.b. Stand-Level
Fuel Treatment Recommendations includes specific defensible space recommendations by forest type. It is important for residents to work together as a community to mitigate shared wildfire risk. Structure-to-structure ignition is a major concern in WUI communities and can cause substantial property loss. Under 60th percentile weather, about 2% of homes are at risk of short-range ember cast and 30% are at risk of long-range ember cast. Under 90th percentile weather, 24% of homes are at risk of short-range ember cast and 87% are at risk of long-range ember cast (Figure 2.g.2). Neighbors can increase their homes’ chances of survival during a wildfire if they work together to reduce hazards in their overlapping defensible space.
Do not count on firefighters
staying to defend your
home—your home should be
able to survive a wildfire on
its own. There are never
enough firefighters to stay
and defend every single
home during large incidents. Properties that are not defensible will not often receive firefighter resources due to unsafe conditions and the higher likelihood of home
Page 106
47
Figure 3.a.1. Defensible space zones recommended by the Colorado State Forest Service.
(Source: Colorado State Forest Service, Bonnie Palmatory).
Page 107
48
Top two photos: Tall grass and shrubs, tight crown space, and dense ladder fuels could endanger these
upslope homes due to radiant and convective heating and short-range embers during a wildfire.
Bottom two photos: Trees and shrubs near the homes are thinned, there is a 5-foot noncombustible
zone around the structures, and the grass is mowed, making these homes more defensible and
resistant to fire. Photos credits: The Ember Alliance.
Page 108
49
Table 3.a.1. Defensible space recommendations for homes in the WUI based on the CSFS publication
The Home Ignition Zone. This is not an all-inclusive list of activities. Specific measures will depend on
the placement and condition of your property. Section 4.b. Stand-Level Fuel Treatment
Recommendations includes specific defensible space recommendations by forest type.
Zone 1: 0 to 5 feet from your home – the noncombustible zone.
Goal: Prevent flames from having direct contact with your home.
•Create a noncombustible border 5 feet around your home (aka, hardscaping). Replaceflammable wood chips with alternatives like dirt, stone, or gravel.
•Remove branches that hang over your roof and drop needles onto your roof and remove allfuels within 10 feet of the chimney.
•Remove combustible materials (dry vegetation, wooden picnic tables, juniper shrubs, etc.)from underneath, on top of, or within 5 feet of decks, overhangs, windows, and doors.
•Annually remove dead or dry leaves, pine needles, and dead plants withing 5 feet of yourhome and off your deck, roof, and gutters. Farther than 5 feet from structures, rakingmaterial will not significantly reduce the likelihood of ignition and can negatively affectother trees.
•Move firewood or other combustible materials to Zone 3.
•Do not use space under decks for storage.
Zone 2: 5 to 30 feet from your home – the lean, clean, and green zone.
Goal: Slow the movement of flames approaching your home and lower the fire intensity.
•Irrigate and mow grasses to 4 inches tall or less. If you are unable to irrigate, replace drygrasses with FireWise Plant Materials that are more drought tolerant and less flammable.
•Remove any accumulated surface fuels such as logs, branches, slash and mulch.
•Remove common junipers because they are highly flammable and tend to hold a layer offlammable material beneath them, and replace with plants that have more fire-resistantattributes, like short-statures, deciduous leaves, and higher moisture content. See FireWisePlant Materials from Colorado State University Cooperative Extension for suggestions.
•Remove enough trees to create at least 10 feet* of space between crowns. Measure from theoutermost branch of one tree to the nearest branch on the next tree. Create even morespace between trees if your home is on a slope (Table 3.a.2). See Figure 3.a.2 for how tomeasure crown spacing.
•Small groups of two or three trees may be left in some areas of Zone 2. Spacing of 30 feet*should be maintained between remaining tree groups to ensure fire doesn’t jump from onegroup to another.
•Remove ladder fuels under remaining trees. This is any vegetation that can bring fire fromthe ground up into taller fuels.
•Prune tree branches to a height of 6-10 feet from the ground or a third of the total height ofthe tree, whichever is less. See Figure 3.a.2 for a depiction of how to measure limb height.
•Keep spacing between shrubs at least 2-3 times their height.
•Relocate wood piles and propane tanks to Zone 3.
•Remove stressed, diseased, dead, or dying trees and shrubs. This reduces the amount ofvegetation available to burn and improves forest health.
•Keep shrubs at least 10 feet* away from the edge of tree branches.
Page 109
50
Zone 3: 30 to 100 feet from your home
Goal: Slow movement of flames, move fire to the ground, reduce ember production.
If you live on a slope, this zone may be larger to gain the full benefits of defensible space.
•Store firewood and propane tanks at least 30 feet away and uphill from your home andaway from flammable vegetation. Store even farther away if your home is on a slope.
•Mow or trim grasses to maximum height of 6 inches. Grasses can be taller in zone 3 thanzone 2 because of the greater distance from your home, but shorter grass is always betterfor reducing potential flame lengths and therefore radiant heat exposure.
•Remove enough trees to create at least 10-foot spacing between the outermost branches ofremaining trees. Create even more space between trees if your home is on a slope (Table
4.b.1). See Figure 3.a.2 for a depiction of how to measure crown spacing.
•Remove limbs so branches do not hang below 10 feet above the ground. See Figure 3.a.2for a depiction of how to measure limb height.
•Remove shrubs and saplings that can serve as ladder fuels.
•Remove heavy accumulations of dead trees and branches and piles of fallen leaves, needles,twigs, pinecones, and small branches. Thin trees to increase spacing and remove ladderfuels to reduce the likelihood of torching, crown fires, and ember production.
•Consult with a qualified forester to develop a plan to manage your property to achieve fuelreduction and other goals, such as creating wildlife habitat. Follow principles of ecologicalrestoration as outlined in Stand-Level Fuel Treatment Recommendations.*Horizontal spacing recommendations are minimums and can be increased to reduce potential firebehavior, particularly on slopes. Consult a forestry, fire, or natural resource professional for guidancewith spacing on slopes.
Table 3.a.2. Minimum recommended spacing between tree crowns and shrubs is greater for
properties on steeper slopes due to the exacerbating impact of slope on fire behavior (Dennis, 2003).
Percent slope Minimum spacing between
tree crowns
Minimum spacing between
shrubs / small clumps of shrubs
0 to 10 % 10 feet 2.5 x shrub height
11 to 20% 15 feet 3 x shrub height
21 to 40% 20 feet 4 x shrub height
>40%30 feet 6 x shrub height
Page 110
51
Figure 3.a.2. Spacing between tree crowns is measured from the edge of tree crown to tree crown,
NOT from tree stem to tree stem (left). Height of limbs above the ground is measured from the ground
to the lowest point of the limb, NOT from where the limb attaches to the tree (right).
Some homeowners in the WUI are concerned that removing trees will destroy the forest and reduce the aesthetic and monetary value of their property. In fact, many dense ponderosa pine forests are unhealthy and greatly diverged from historical conditions that were maintained by frequent wildfires (Figure 2.b.1). The reality is that nothing will decrease the aesthetic and monetary value of your home as much as a high-severity wildfire burning all the vegetation in the community, even if your home survives the fire. Forest management can look messy and destructive in the first years following treatment; however, grasses, shrubs, and wildflowers will respond to increased light availability after tree removal and create beautiful ecosystems with lower fire risk (Figure 3.a.3). Some residents enjoy their land even more after conducting effective fuel treatments. Removing trees can open incredible views of mountains, rivers, and rock formations, and wildlife are often attracted to forests with lower tree densities and a greater abundance of understory plants. Many residents feel safer in a forest that is less dark and more open, and they rest easier knowing firefighters would have a greater chance of safely defending their home. It might even be said that the more trees you cut, the more trees you save from wildfire. Reducing fuel loads and increasing the spacing between trees also increases the chance that your home and your neighbors’ homes will survive a wildfire. See Section 4.b. Stand-Level Fuel Treatment Recommendations for more information on treatments that achieve ecological and fuel reduction objectives.
Page 111
52
Figure 3.a.3. A fuels treatment project in the Estes Valley. Grasses, shrubs, and wildflowers quickly
respond to increased light availability after tree removal, resulting in beautiful ecosystems with lower
fire risk and healthy wildlife habitat. The red circle in each set of photos indicates the same tree.
Photos from the Larimer Conservation District.
Page 112
53
Home Hardening At least half of the homes in the EVFPD are at risk of long-range embers from nearby burning vegetation under 60% percentile weather conditions, and many of the homes that are in denser neighborhoods are at risk of short-range embers and radiant heat as well. Buildings cannot be
made fireproof, but the chance of your home surviving wildfires increases when you reduce
structural ignitability through home hardening in tandem with the creation and maintenance
of defensible space. Figure 3.a.4 depicts important home hardening measures. Roofs, vents, windows, exterior siding, decks, and gutters are particularly vulnerable to wildfires. Research on home survival during wildfires demonstrates that enclosed eaves and vent screens can reduce the penetration of wind-born embers into structures (Hakes et al., 2017; Syphard and Keeley, 2019). Multi-pane windows have greater resistance to radiant heat. Windows often fail before a home ignites, providing a direct path for flames and airborne embers to enter a home (CSFS, 2021). It is important to replace wood or shingle roofs with noncombustible materials 2 such as composition, metal, or tile. Ignition-resistant or noncombustible siding and decking further reduce the risk of home ignition, particularly when homes also have a 5-foot noncombustible border of dirt, stone, or gravel. Non-wood siding and decking are often more durable and require less routine maintenance. There are many low-cost actions you can start with to harden your home (see Table 3.a.3). Keep home-hardening practices in mind and use ignition-resistant materials if you replace a hail-damaged roof or remodel your home. Many home hardening practices are required in Larimer County per building construction regulations effective as of February 2019 for homes within the Wildfire Hazard Area. New construction and expansions adding 50% or more area must comply with the new building standards.
2 See the Glossary for the definition of terms used the describe the performance of building materials when exposed to fire (e.g., wildfire-resistant, ignition-resistant, and noncombustible).
Residents can increase their homes’ chance of survival by making it harder for embers to enter and ignite their homes (image from
Healthy Building Science).
Page 113
54
Low-cost actions:
B.Cover chimneys and stovepipe outlets with3/8th to ½ inch corrosion-resistant metalmesh.
C.Minimize debris accumulation under andnext to solar panels.
E.Cover vent openings with 1/16th to 1/8thinch corrosion-resistant metal mesh.Install dryer vents with metal flappers andkeep closed unless in use.
G.Clear debris from roof and guttersregularly.
I.Install metal flashing around and undergarage doors that goes up at least 6 inchesinside and outside the door.
J.Use noncombustible lattice, trellis, or otherdecorative features.
K.Install weather stripping around andunder doors.
L.Remove combustible materials fromunderneath, on top of, or within 5 feet ofdeck.
M.Use noncombustible patio future.
N.Cover all eaves with screened vents.
O.Establish and maintain a 5-footnoncombustible buffer around the home.
Actions to plan and save for:
A.Use noncombustible or ignition resistantsiding and trim (e.g., stucco, fiber cement,fire-retardant treated wood) at least 2 feetup around the base of your home.
C.Use multipaned glass for skylights, notmaterials that can melt (e.g., plexiglass), anduse metal flashing.
D.Install a 6-inch vertical noncombustiblesurface on all gables above roofs.
F.Install multi-pane windows with at least onetempered-glass pane and metal meshscreens. Use noncombustible materials forwindow frames.
G.Install noncombustible gutters, guttercovers, and downspouts.
H.Install ignition-resistant or noncombustibleroofs (composition, metal, or tile).
I.Install 1-hour fire rated garage doors.
K.Install a 1-hour fire rated doors.
L.Use ignition-resistant or noncombustibledecking. Enclose crawl spaces.
N.Use noncombustible eaves.
P.Replace wooden fences withnoncombustible materials and keep at least8 feet away from the home. Keep doublecombustible fences at least 20 feet awayfrom the home.
Figure 3.a.4. A home can never be made fireproof, but home hardening practices decrease the chance
that flames, radiant heat, and embers will ignite your home. Infographic by Community Planning
Assistance for Wildfire with modifications to include information from CALFIRE 2019 and
Maranghides et al. 2022.
Page 114
55
Annual Safety Measures and Home Maintenance in the WUI Reviewing safety protocols, creating defensible space, and hardening your home are not one-time actions, but part of annual home maintenance when living in the WUI. During a wildland fire, homes that have clear defensible space are identified as sites for wildland firefighters to engage in structure protection, and homes that are not safely defensible will not usually receive firefighter resources. The Colorado State Forest Service provides the following recommendations for annual activities to mitigate risks and increase your wildfire preparedness:
Check fire extinguishers to ensure they have not expired and are in good workingcondition.
Review your family’s evacuation plan and practice family fire and evacuation drills.
Verify that your home telephone number, cell phone, and/or email are properlyregistered through NoCoAlert. Visit the NoCoAlert website for more information.
Review the contents of your “go-bag” and make sure it is packed and ready to go. Visitthe Larimer County Emergency Preparedness page to learn about preparing go-bags andevacuation planning. Your go-bag should include supplies to last at least three days,including cash, water, clothing, food, first aid, and prescription medicines for your familyand pets. Keep important documents and possessions in a known and easily accessiblelocation so you can quickly grab them during an evacuation.
Pay attention to red flag-day warnings from the National Weather Service and stayvigilant. Ensure your family is ready to go in case of an emergency.
Walk your property to identify new hazards and ways to maintain and improve currentdefensible space. Take pictures of your defensible space to help you monitor regrowthand determine when additional vegetation treatments are necessary.
Clear roofs, decks, and gutters of pine needles and other debris. Remove all pine needlesand flammable debris from around the foundation of your home and deck. Remove trashand debris accumulations within 30 feet of your home. Repeat throughout the year asnecessary.
Properly thin and prune trees and shrubs that have regrown in your defensible spacezones 1 and 2 (0-5 feet and 5-30 feet from your home). Remove branches that overhangthe roof and chimney. Prune trees and shrubs that are encroaching on the horizontal andvertical clearance of your driveway. Slash can be brought to the Meeker sort yard at 8200Highway 7 in Allenspark.
Mow grass to a height of 4 inches or less within 30 feet of your home. If possible, keepyour lawn irrigated, particularly within 30 feet of your home. Consider replacing drygrasses with FireWise Plant Materials that are more drought tolerant and less flammable.
Check the visibility of your address and remove vegetation that obscures it.
Utilize community slash sites.
Check screens over chimneys, eaves, and vents to make sure they are in place and in good conditions.
Ensure that an outdoor water supply is available for responding firefighters. Put a hoseand nozzle in a visible location. The hose should be long enough to reach all parts of yourhome.
Page 115
56
Mitigation Barriers and Opportunities Homeowners and residents in the WUI share concerns about creating defensible space and maintaining a defensible HIZ. Table 3.a.3 proposes several opportunities to address these challenges (Appendix C. Focus Group and Survey).
Table 3.a.3. Common concerns from residents in the WUI, and potential solutions to encourage
mitigation measures in the home ignition zone.
Concern Potential solutions
I don’t know where to
start with creating
defensible space.
Review Figure 3.a.1, Table 3.a.1, and read the CSFS publication
Protecting your home from wildfire: Creating wildfire-defensible zones for mitigation recommendations. Visit the Colorado State Forest Service for useful information and tips about defensible space creation. Talk to neighbors who have taken steps to mitigate fire risk on their property. Reach out to the Estes Valley Fire Protection District to learn about defensible space and home hardening tactics from their qualified specialists. A Wildland Mitigation Specialist can come provide guidance, see more information here.
I don’t have the
resources to invest in
defensible space.
Creating adequate defensible space can take years and a significant financial investment. Fortunately, there are effective, low-cost
measures that residents can start with:
Annually remove leaves, needles, and other vegetation fromroofs, gutters, decks, and around the base of homes.
Use hand tools like a pole saw to remove tree branches thathang less than 10 feet above the ground.
Remove combustible materials (dry vegetation, woodenpicnic tables, juniper shrubs, etc.) from underneath, on topof, or within 5 feet of decks.
Remove vegetation and combustible materials within 5 feetof windows and doors.
Replace wood mulch within 5 feet of all structures with dirt,stone, or gravel.
Remove downed logs and branches within 30 feet of allstructures.
Utilize community slash sites – the Meeker sort yard inAllenspark is the closest available slash disposal site to theEstes Valley.
Apply for cost-sharing grants with your neighbors tosubsidize the creation of defensible space (see Section 3.g.
Funding Opportunities for Wildfire Hazard Mitigation
and Emergency Preparedness)
Research tax credits that will offset the costs or the work youwant to do. The EVFPD has information on tax credits formitigation on their website.
Page 116
57
I don’t have the
resources to invest in
home hardening.
Retrofitting an existing home to be wildfire-resistant can be expensive, particularly actions like replacing flammable roofs and siding. Some of these costs can be divided and prioritized into smaller projects. If you are building a new home, the cost of using wildfire-resistant materials is roughly the same as using traditional building materials (Quarles and Pohl, 2018). Wildfire-resistant features often come with additional benefits, such as greater durability and reduced maintenance. Many home hardening practices are required in Larimer County per building construction regulations effective as of February 2019 for homes within the Wildfire Hazard Area. New construction and expansions adding 50% or more area must comply with the new building standards. Fortunately, there are effective, low-cost measures that residents can start with to harden their homes:
Install noncombustible metal gutter covers.
Cover vent openings with 1/16th- to 1/8th-inch corrosion-resistant metal mesh.
Cover chimney and stovepipe outlets with 3/8th- to ½-inchcorrosion-resistant metal mesh to prevent embers fromescaping and igniting a fire.
Caulk and plug gaps greater than 1/16th-inch in siding or aroundexposed rafters.
Install weather stripping around and under garage doors toreduce gaps to less than 1/16th-inch.
Remove combustible materials from underneath, on top of, andwithin 5 feet of a deck.
Replace wood mulch within 5 feet of all structures withnoncombustible products like dirt, stone, or gravel.
Store all combustible and flammable liquids away from potentialignition sources.
Keep a fire extinguisher and tools such as a shovel, rake, bucket,and hose available in your garage for fire emergencies.Suggestions from CAL FIRE’s 2020 Low Cost Retrofit List.
I am afraid that
removing trees will
destroy the forest and
reduce the aesthetic and
monetary value of my
property.
The reality is that nothing will decrease the value of your home as much as a high-severity wildfire burning all the vegetation in the community, even if your home survives the fire. Drive around the community and look for homes that have followed the guidelines in Figure 3.a.1 and Table 3.a.1. Some properties in the EVFPD have exemplary defensible space and beautiful landscaping at the same time. Read FireWise Plant Materials from Colorado State University Cooperative Extension and Firescaping from FIRESafe MARIN for suggestions on beautiful, fire-resistant landscaping. As an added benefit, fire-resistant landscape is often more drought tolerant.
Page 117
58
Learn about the ecology of frequent-fire forests along the Colorado Front Range by reading Back to the future: Building resilience in
Colorado Front Range forests using research findings and a new guide
for restoration of ponderosa and dry-mixed conifer landscapes (Miller, 2018). Restored ecosystems can be aesthetically pleasing, benefit wildlife and light-loving wildflowers and grasses, and protect your home from high-severity wildfires.
Evacuation Preparedness 100% of deaths during the 2020 East Troublesome Fire were preventable, but they occurred after residents chose to stay in their homes after an evacuation order was given. Being prepared for evacuations and following guidance from local authorities on when and where to evacuate is of the utmost importance for residents living in the WUI. The best way to get out quickly and safely during an evacuation is to be prepared. Prepare a go-bag and have a family emergency plan before the threat of wildfire is in your area. Talk to children and elderly family members about what they would be expected to do. Visit the Larimer County Emergency Preparedness page to learn about go-bags and evacuation planning, including tips for preparing your pets and livestock for evacuation. Signing up for local emergency notifications can
Fire-resistant landscaping in zone 1 can be aesthetically pleasing and more drought tolerant,
requiring less watering during the summer. Limbed and thinned trees in zone 2 (as seen in the
background of this photo) can create beautiful, open conditions that allow understory
vegetation to flourish under higher light conditions and provide habitat for wildlife. Image from
Washington State University Master Gardener Program.
Page 118
59
also help you leave quickly. Residents should register their cell phones and email addresses on the LETA 911 website.3 Understand the differences between voluntary and mandatory evacuations. The following definitions are provided by the Larimer County Sherriff’s Office:
Voluntary Evacuation Mandatory Evacuation
When to leave: Leave if you are concerned for your safety, you need additional time to exit the area, or you have health conditions that may be aggravated by the incident.
When to leave: Immediately! You are ordered to leave due to an imminent or immediate threat to your safety.
What to do: Gather essential items to add to an Emergency go-bag such as medications and items you may need if away for an extended period. What to do: Grab your go-bag and leave the area immediately.
Other considerations: Create a plan for transporting animals out of the area if needed.
Other considerations: You may not be allowed to return until the emergency is resolved. Some residents have family members or neighbors with physical limitations who might struggle to evacuate in a timely manner. Family members or individuals living alone also need to address the unique needs and vulnerabilities that arise from mobility or hearing impairments during an evacuation. Other residents are concerned about school-aged children who might be home alone during an evacuation. Parents should work with their neighbors to develop a plan for how their children would evacuate if home alone. Residents with livestock trailers or large camper vehicles should plan to leave during voluntary evacuation notices to allow time for their preparations and create more space on the roads for other residents during mandatory evacuation. Having a plan in place ahead of time can ensure prompt evacuations and save lives during wildfires. Families with these concerns should put extra time into having go bags ready and using the earliest evacuation warnings to leave in the event of a wildfire, rather than waiting for mandatory evacuation orders. Visitor preparedness must also be considered for this community which experiences millions of tourists every year mostly during the summer months. There is good consistency between the Estes Valley Fire District and the Estes Park Visitor Center websites on Guest Resources and Evacuation Resources. The Town of Estes Park is recommended to add the same evacuation materials or direct to the Estes Valley Fire District website on their Emergency Information page.
3 NoCo Alert is the official emergency notification system for Larimer County as of the writing of the Estes Valley CWPP in June 2022.
Page 119
60
Traffic came to a near standstill as people evacuated Estes Park during the East Troublesome Fire on
October 22, 2020. Image was taken at 2:15 pm, but the sky is dark as night due to wildfire smoke.
Following orders of the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office during evacuations is critical to keep residents
and first responders safe. Photo credit: Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite.
Follow evacuation etiquette to increase the chance of everyone exiting the
EVFPD in a safe and timely manner during a wildfire incident:
•Register for Larimer County Emergency Alerts to receive evacuation notifications.
•Leave as quickly as possible after receiving an evacuation notice.
•Have a go-bag packed and ready during the wildfire season, especially on days withred flag warnings.
•Leave with as few vehicles as necessary to reduce congestion and evacuation timesacross the community.
•Drive safely and with headlights on. Maintain a safe andsteady pace. Do not stop to take pictures.
•Yield to emergency vehicles.
•Follow directions of law enforcement officers andemergency responders.
Page 120
61
Accessibility and Navigability for Firefighters
Driveways It is important to ensure emergency responders can locate and access your home. Narrow driveways without turnarounds, tree limbs hanging over the road, and lots of dead and down trees by the road may make firefighters choose to not defend your home during a wildfire event (Brown, 1994). Some roads in the EVFPD have accessibility and navigability issues, such as narrow widths, inadequate vertical clearance for engines, and heavy fuel loading on the sides of the road. These unsafe road and driveway conditions could turn firefighters away from attempting to defend homes. Driveways and roads should have a minimum of 20 feet of clearance horizontally and 13.5 feet of clearance vertically to allow engines to safely access the roads (O’Connor, 2021). It is recommended that residents order reflective address numbers from Estes Valley Fire, found here. Where possible, residents should improve roadway access, and where this is not feasible, it is vital that homeowners take measures to harden their home and create defensible space. Some actions to increase access to your home are simple, such as installing reflective address numbers, and others take time and investment, such as widening driveways to accommodate fire engines.
Private Water Resources Water resources to fight fire in the foothills can be scarce, especially during the fire season in late summer and fall. Firefighters are skilled at determining the most beneficial ways to use water to protect structures from an approaching fire. Providing clear access to suitable water resources around your home or neighborhood can help them defend your home. Do not turn sprinklers on around your home as you evacuate. This is counterproductive to protecting your home because continuous use of water before a flame front approaches can drain local wells and cisterns long before the fire reaches your neighborhood. This can leave firefighters with less resources to defend your home, putting their lives and your property at higher risk. Leaving sprinklers out but turned off allows the firefighters to determine whether they will be useful or not. Prepare personal water resources by making them easily accessible and clearly labelling how to access them. Unlock pump house doors and remove vegetation or other obstructions. If you have a generator, leave it in an accessible location in case power is turned off. Notify the EVFPD of community cisterns or tanks before a fire event and ensure they are compatible with their firefighting equipment.
Many driveways within the EVFPD do not meet current access requirements and pose safety issues that are difficult to mitigate. Long, narrow, steep driveways lacking turnarounds, and dense trees on the sides of the road can create challenges for emergency response vehicles during wildfires. Home hardening and fuel mitigation are particularly important to reduce wildfire risk around homes with accessibility issues. Photo credit: The Ember Alliance.
Page 121
62
Most importantly, create defensible space around your home and buildings so that water resources can be used effectively. Water is not a reliable resource in the Colorado foothills and mountains. Maintaining a property that requires less water and resources to defend is more likely to survive a fire. See Table 3.a.1 and Figure 3.a.4 for guides on defensible space and home hardening recommendations.
Steps to enhance firefighter safety and access to your home:
Install reflective address numbers on the street to make it easier for firefighters to navigateto your home under smokey conditions. Make sure the numbers are clearly visible fromboth directions on the roadway. Use noncombustible materials for your address sign andsign supports. Installing reflective address numbers can save lives and is inexpensive
and easy to accomplish. You can order these from Estes Valley Fire here.
Address roadway accessibility for fire engines. Long, narrow, steep, and curving privatedrives and driveways without turnarounds significantly decrease firefighter access to yourproperty, depending on fire behavior.
Fill potholes and eroded surfaces on private drives and driveways.
Increase fire engine access to your home by removing trees along narrow private drivesand driveways so the horizontal clearance is 20 feet wide, and prune low-hangingbranches of remaining trees so the unobstructed vertical clearance is at least 13 feet and6 inches per the National Fire Protection Association (O’Connor, 2021).
Park cars in your driveway or garage, not along narrow roads, to make it easier for fireengines to access your home and your neighbors’ homes.
Clearly mark septic systems with signs or fences. Heavy fire equipment can damage septicsystems.
Clearly mark well houses or water systems. Leave hoses accessible for firefighters to usewhen defending your home, but DO NOT leave the water running. This can reduce waterpressure to hydrants across the community and reduce the ability of firefighters to defendyour home. Read this post by FIRESafe Marin about why it is dangerous to leave waterrunning when you evacuate during a wildfire.
Post the load limit at any private bridges or culverts on your property.
Leave gates unlocked during mandatory evacuations to facilitate firefighter entrance toyour property.
Leave exterior lights on to increase visibility.
If time allows, leave a note on your front door confirming that all parties have evacuatedand providing your contact name and phone number.
Page 122
63
3.b. Neighborhood Recommendations
Linked Defensible SpaceDuring catastrophic wildfires, property loss happens mostly due to conditions in the home ignition zone (HIZ). Homes are most likely to ignite because of embers, and structures that are on fire close to a home can emits significant amounts of embers and endanger the homes and structures near them. Research following the 2018 Camp Fire showed that homes were more likely to burn down when they were close to other structures that had also burned or when they had vegetation within 100 meters of the home (Knapp et al., 2021). Defensible space can slow the spread of wildfire, prevent direct flame contact, and reduce the chance that embers will ignite material on or near your home. Defensible space that is connected from home to home provides additional layers of protection for entire neighborhoods and increases the safety of firefighters. Firefighters and residents attest to the important role defensible space played in allowing homes to survive during previous wildfires in Colorado (Jolley, 2018). Homes in close proximity, homes on steep slopes, and homes surrounded by dense trees will benefit significantly from linked defensible space. According to James White, the Prescribed Fire and Fuels Specialist for the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forests, “Broadcast burning, mechanical thinning, and other treatments are proven to mitigate wildfire risk, but they are even more effective when we work together to integrate treatments across the landscape, across borders and ownerships” (Avitt, 2021). See Defensible Space to learn about recommended practices for creating defensible space, and see
Table 3.b.1 for common concerns about community action from residents in the WUI and potential solutions.
Mosaic Landscapes Varied fuel types are known to slow the spread of fire, and heterogeneous landscapes (landscapes with multiple fuel types and trees of different sizes and ages) are more typical of historical forest conditions (Duncan et al., 2015). Creating a mosaic landscape in neighborhoods can help slow fires spread by changing the fuel types as it moves across a hill or valley. A mosaic landscape can be created many ways, for example a neighborhood could have a few acres of old growth conifer trees next to a couple acres of aspen stands, and a few acres of young regenerating conifer trees by a large grassy meadow. This can be arranged in many ways for aesthetic and tactical purposes, and will resemble a patchwork quilt or mosaic art (Figure 3.b.1). The homes in these patches still need to have adequate defensible space, but this would create a more diverse landscape where fire may move slower as it transitions between forest types and unforested locations like shrublands or meadows. Slower fire movement means firefighters have time to defend more homes in the neighborhood. It also creates a diversity of biomes that both residents and wildlife enjoy.
Figure 3.b.1. Example of a mosaic landscape in a
neighborhood. Each home has defensible space
around it, and the landscape is varied throughout,
providing tactical opportunities for firefighters
working to defend homes.
Page 123
64
Mitigation Barriers and Opportunities Homeowners and residents in the WUI share concerns about creating defensible space and maintaining defensible HIZ across the entire community. Table 3.b.1 proposes several opportunities to address these challenges.
Table 3.b.1 Common concerns from residents in HOAs and neighborhoods in the WUI, and potential
solutions.
Concern Potential Solutions
HOA rules hinder my
ability to establish
defensible space around
my home.
Contact HOA board members to ask questions about regulations. You might perceive barriers to mitigation that do not exist or are easily addressed. Serve on HOA working teams and speak with HOA leadership to support community-wide action around wildfire mitigation. Advocate for HOA regulations that align with home hardening practices and FireWise landscaping. FireWise plants are less flammable and drought tolerant so they require less watering during the summer. Ask the EVFPD for assistance communicating the need for homeowner mitigation in the neighborhood.
My neighbors haven’t
mitigated risk on their
property.
Some residents in the EVFPD are rightfully concerned about high hazards on their neighbors’ properties and surrounding public land. Your home ignition zone might overlap with your neighbor’s property. Given the high fire risk in the area, it is important that residents across the EVFPD create defensible space and harden their homes. Ideas to inspire action by your neighbors include:
•Working with your HOA, and other community groups tohelp educate your community about the benefits ofdefensible space and home hardening.
•Organizing walking tours to visit the property of residentswith exemplary defensible space. Witnessing the type ofwork that can be done, and seeing that a mitigated propertycan still be aesthetically pleasing, can encourage others tofollow suit.
•Inviting your neighbors over for a friendly conversationabout the risk assessment in this CWPP. Review resourcesabout defensible space together, discuss each other’sconcerns and values, and develop joint solutions to addressshared risk.Collective action by residents will magnify the impact of individual defensible space projects, create tactical opportunities for wildland firefighters, and reduce the likelihood that homes will ignite due to embers produced from adjacent, combusting homes. Linked defensible space has greater strategic value, and projects that span ownership boundaries are better candidates for grant funding.
My land borders public
land or large privately
It can be difficult to engage with landowners that you do not know personally. Inviting the landowner or manager for a friendly
Page 124
65
held land, not other
homeowners.
meeting to discuss your shared risk can lead to open conversations about how to mitigate that risk. Public-private partnerships are common and can be successful in producing valuable outcomes for shared visions. Public land managers have been part of the process for creating this CWPP and are aware of the risks on their lands. Starting a dialogue between your community and their agency can open doors to shared mitigation actions that may reduce costs for everyone involved.
Accessibility and Navigability for Firefighters
Shared Driveways and Community Roads Neighborhoods can work together to ensure emergency responders can locate and access everyone’s home. Narrow roads without turnarounds, tree limbs hanging over the road, and lots of dead and down trees by the road may make firefighters choose to not defend your home during a wildfire event (Brown, 1994). Widening shared driveways and private roads can be time-consuming or expensive. Neighbors and HOAs working together to share costs and apply for grants are effective ways to make safer homes for all residents in an area. Some roads in the EVFPD are inaccessible to fire engines. According to the National Fire Protection Association, driveways and roads should have a minimum of 20 feet of clearance horizontally and 13.5 feet of clearance vertically to allow engines to safely access the roads (O’Connor, 2021). Where feasible, HOAs and road associations should improve roadway access. Some actions to increase access to neighborhoods and homes are simple, such as installing reflective address numbers at driveways and road junctions, and others take time and investment, such as widening road networks and creating turnarounds to accommodate fire engines. A cost-effective place to start is removing trees along driveways and pruning low-hanging branches to increase horizontal and vertical clearance. Working together to update signs and road construction can lower costs for everyone involved as well.
Page 125
66
3.c. Priority Plan Unit Recommendations
CWPP Plan UnitsTEA and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District created CWPP Plan Units, which are areas with shared fire risk where residents can organize and support each other to effectively mitigate hazardous fuels (Figure 3.c.1). The planning units each typically have similar buildings and roads, topography and vegetation, and social groupings such as neighborhoods and HOAs. See 8.a CWPP
Plan Units for methodology used to delineate plan units. Residents in the same CWPP plan unit will be able to discuss joint risk and organize efforts to reduce risk and enhance emergency preparedness. The CWPP is a useful planning document, but it will only affect real change if residents, neighbors, HOAs, and the entire community come together to address shared risk and implement strategic projects.
Figure 3.c.1. TEA assessed relative risk among CWPP plan units and made strategic recommendations
to address wildfire risk across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. See 8.a CWPP Plan Units for
methodology used to delineate plan units.
Page 126
67
Relative Hazard Ratings Colorado CWPPs must include a relative rating of hazards within the Fire Protection District to help prioritize action. Plan units with higher relative risk are strong candidates for immediate action to mitigate hazardous conditions; however, plan units with lower relative risk in Estes Valley Fire Protection District still possess conditions that are concerning for the protection of life and property in the case of a wildfire. The Ember Alliance combines on-the-ground observations and summary output from our fire behavior analyses to assess hazards in four categories across CWPP plan units: fire risk, fire suppression challenges, evacuation hazards, and home ignition zone hazards (Figure 3.c.2). See Appendix B.1. Plan Unit Hazard Assessment for a description of hazard rating methodology. The cutoffs for different relative risk categories are tailored to an individual FPD based on the range of conditions observed. Plan unit hazard ratings are specific to the EVFPD and not suitable for comparing hazards among FPDs.
Table 3.c.1 provides priority recommendations for defensible space, home hardening, and road access within each CWPP plan unit based on our plan unit hazard assessment. Recommendations in
Table 3.c.1 focus on the most glaring issues in each plan unit; however, homeowners, HOAs, and other community groups can benefit from all actions outlined in 3.a Individual Recommendations and 3.b Neighborhood Recommendations. Even homes in the interior of the EVFPD have the potential for ignition from long-range ember cast during wildfires. Plan units with extreme relative risk are clustered in the northeast, south east, and western portions of EVFPD (Figure 3.c.2). A strip of plan units in the central portion of the EVFPD have moderate relative risk due to the abundance of urban development; however, as the 2021 Marshall Fire in Boulder County demonstrated, urbanized areas in the WUI can still experience catastrophic losses during wildfires. The highest relative fire risk is found in the southern and eastern plan units. Relative fire risk is lower in the northwestern portion of the EVFPD due to a vegetation transition from dry mixed-conifer to lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine forest have the potential to burn in high-severity wildfires with extreme flame lengths and active crown fire, but only when fuels are very dry and winds are strong, such as during the 2020 East Troublesome Fire. When lodgepole pine forest ignite under these conditions, they are difficult if not impossible for firefighters to contain. Under milder conditions, particularly with lower winds, these forests are harder to burn because of the distance between surface fuels and tree branches and the lack of understory vegetation, resulting in low-intensity, creeping, surface fires (Lotan et al., 1985). Suppression challenges are extreme in the northeastern portion of the EVFPD and in the Little Valley, High Drive, and Riverside plan units due to limited hydrant availability near homes and the prevalence of roads with accessibility issues for emergency vehicles. Extreme evacuation challenges are found in Little Valley and the western part of the EVFDP because the abundance of potentially non-survivable roadways (A.5. Roadway Survivability) and/or limited egress directions coupled with high housing density. Home ignition zone hazards are particularly prevalent in Big Thompson and the northwestern part of the EVFP because of combustible decking and siding, an abundance of ladder and canopy fuels near homes, inadequate defensible space maintenance, and additional hazards near homes, such as wood piles, flammable furniture, and propane tanks.
Keep in mind: The Plan Unit Hazard Assessment describes relative risk among plan units within the Estes Valley Fire Protection District – this is only comparing areas of the valley to other areas of the valley. Plan units with moderate relative risk still possess conditions that are concerning for the protection of life and property in the case of a wildfire. The need to mitigate hazardous conditions is ubiquitous across the EVFPD.
Page 127
68
Figure 3.c.2. Relative risk rating for plan units across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
“Moderate” risk is a relative term – all plan units and communities within the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District are at high risk of loss from wildfires and should take recommended actions from
this CWPP seriously.
Page 128
69
Table 3.c.1 Priority recommendations for defensible space, home hardening, and firefighter accessibility within each CWPP plan unit. This table
focuses on priority actions for each plan unit; however, homeowners, HOAs, and other community groups across the Estes Valley Fire Protection
District can benefit from all actions outlined in 3.a Individual Recommendations and 3.b. Neighborhood Recommendations. Potential fire
behavior is presented for 60th percentile fire weather, with flame lengths and crown fire activity summarized for the plan unit and adjacent
topographic areas that could contribute to fire behavior within the plan unit.
Plan Unit
Name
Relative
Risk Unit Description Priority Mitigation
Suggestions Potential Fire Behavior
Big
Thompson Extreme
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes and numerous topographic features in and around the canyon that make fire behavior unpredictable. Fuels consist of dense, untreated forests on steep slopes, tall grasses, and ladder fuels. There are not adequate hydrants and the river through the canyon is not a reliable water source. Highway 34 is accessible, but almost all the roads and communities branching off the highway are not accessible by engines. Home construction is generally older and poorly fit to be defended with lots of wood siding and flammable hazards within 30 feet of the homes. Defensible space is not adequate, bridges across the river do not have posted weight limits and certifications, and the canyon's topography would make fighting a fire in here dangerous to firefighters.
Set evacuation plans and have go bags for everyone.
Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 78% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 14 feet and can reach up to 123 feet. 19% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 25% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Home hardening, especially for homes existing before the 2013 floods. Defensible space Remove wood outbuildings and hazards near homes. Certify and post bridge weight limits. Widen roads and create turnarounds for engines.
Carriage
Hills Moderate
This unit has some mid-slope homes and no topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Fuels consist of mostly tall grass and ponderosa pines. There is some regeneration, and lots of shrubs and juniper near homes and under decks. There are adequate
Remove firewood, junipers, and wood furniture from on and under decks.
Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 50% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 11 feet and can reach up to 139 feet. Less than 1% of the roads are potentially non-Mow grasses near homes
Page 129
70
hydrants and roads are accessible by engines. Home construction is average with some homes needing to replace siding and remove wood fences near the homes. Defensible space is not adequate, and this unit in particular has a significant amount of homes with firewood, flammable furniture, propane tanks, and junipers within 5 feet of the home.
Home hardening survivable and none of the homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Defensible space
Downtown Extreme
This unit has some mid-slope homes and some topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Business center has relatively few fuels but storefronts have wood and shake siding, Stanley district has good mitigation and newer construction, and the other neighborhoods in and around downtown have older construction, more fuel, and little mitigation. There are adequate hydrants and most roads are accessible by engines, but there are a few neighborhoods where they are not. Home construction is varied, but this unit has the fewest class-A roofs in the valley. Defensible space is not adequate.
Replace roofs with Class A roofs Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 43% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 7 feet and can reach up to 114 feet. 1% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 1% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Home hardening
Defensible space
Linked defensible space
East
Prospect Moderate
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes but no topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation consists of lots of ponderosa pines that are dense with regeneration along the sides of roads. There are lots of shrubs and juniper in this unit. There are adequate hydrants and roads are accessible by engines. Home construction is not good, many homes have flammable siding and fences. Defensible space is not adequate with numerous ladder fuels and unmowed tall grasses.
Remove firewood, junipers, and wood furniture from on and under decks. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 12% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are just over a foot and can reach up to 41 feet. None of the roads are potentially non-survivable and none of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Mow grasses near homes Home hardening Defensible space
Page 130
71
Fall River High
This unit has some mid-slope homes and numerous topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. This river canyon has steep slopes and mixed conifer throughout, with aspen and cottonwood nearer the river. There are adequate hydrants and though many roads are accessible by engines, not all of them are. Most of the bridges across the river do not have posted weight rating or certifications. Home construction is average and there are a number of homes with Class B or C roofs and flammable siding and decks. Defensible space is not adequate. and small lot sizes here will require community coordination for functional defensible space.
Certify and post bridge weight limits. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 48% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 8 feet and can reach up to 114 feet. Less than 1% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 3% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Replace roofs with Class A roofs
Home Hardening
Defensible space Linked defensible space
Fish Creek Moderate
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes but no topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Properties on the east side of Fish Creek Rd have denser fuels, more slopes, and less mitigation. The west side of the road has the golf course as a large break in fuels. There are adequate hydrants and roads are mostly accessible by engines. Home construction is overall very good. Defensible space is not adequate, and there are numerous ladder fuels.
Defensible space Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 40% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 9 feet and can reach up to 119 feet. 7% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 5% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Home hardening
Mow grass near homes
Reduce ladder fuels and litter loads
High Drive High
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes and no topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. The unit is covered with a grassy understory and ponderosa pine. Most homes in the flatter southern side have good tree spacing and limbing and are at lower risk than the homes further north on the
Ensure proper storage of all hazardous materials in the commercial area
Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 36% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 5 feet and can reach up to 114 feet. None of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 1% of homes have high to extreme Widen roads and create turnarounds for engines.
Page 131
72
slope. There are adequate hydrants and southern roads are largely accessible by engines, but the northern end of the unit has inaccessible roads without turnarounds. Home construction is average with lots of flammable siding and wood fences near homes. Defensible space is not adequate. The commercial area in the eastern part of the unit is cause for concern with lots of hazardous fuels and materials and concerns about improper storage of these materials.
Defensible space exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Home hardening
Lake Estes Moderate
This unit has no mid-slope or ridge-top homes, and no topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. This unit has more commercial business than residential and has little vegetation and fuels. Some residential areas appear to have HOA-managed landscaping with little fuels, and other residential areas have older construction, little defensible space, and lots of litter and tall grasses. There are adequate hydrants and an accessible water source with the lake, and roads are accessible by engines. Home construction is average with lots of flammable siding and wood fences near homes. Defensible space is not adequate near the residential areas.
Ensure proper storage of all hazardous materials in the commercial area Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 42% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 8 feet and can reach up to 84 feet. Less than 1% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and none of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Mow grass near homes, reduce ladder fuel and litter loads
Home Hardening
Defensible space
Little Valley Extreme
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes and a few ridge-top homes, and lots of topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. This unit has very dense mixed conifer forests with interlocking canopies and regeneration. There are not adequate hydrants and no other water sources, and some roads further into the unit are not accessible by
Set evacuation plans and have go bags for everyone. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 61% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 16 feet and can reach up to 139 feet. 45% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 67% of homes have high to extreme Defensible space
Roadway treatments
Page 132
73
engines. Home construction is very good, however defensible space is not adequate. The thick vegetation, steep slopes, deep and hidden home locations further into the unit, and the single road in and out of the neighborhood makes for a dangerous place to live and to fight fires.
Linked defensible space exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Landscape-scale mitigation on the southeast side
Lumpy
Ridge Moderate
This unit has no mid-slope or ridge-top homes, and no topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation consists of mixed conifer with a grassy understory, where some locations have been thinned and limbed and others have been left alone and need mitigation. There are adequate hydrants and roads are accessible by engines. Home construction is very good. Defensible space is not adequate with lots of ladder fuels and unmitigated ponderosa pine stands.
Defensible space Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 48% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 8 feet and can reach up to 97 feet. 4% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 14% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Mow grasses near homes
Linked defensible space in high-density neighborhoods
Remove ladder fuels
Mary’s Lake
Road Extreme
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes and some topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation consists of dense forests of ponderosa pine and mixed conifers with interlocking canopies, mostly unmitigated. There are not adequate hydrants or water sources and some roads are not accessible by engines. Home construction is generally poor, with many home having flammable siding and Class B or C roofs and wood fences near the home. Defensible space is not adequate and there are heavy loads of ladder fuels.
Replace roofs with Class A roofs Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 35% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 6 feet and can reach up to 113 feet. 2% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 2% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Defensible space
Home hardening
Widen roads and create turnarounds for engines.
Linked defensible space
Page 133
74
Meadowdale Extreme
This unit has some mid-slope homes and numerous topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation is mostly mixed conifer and grassy meadows with some mitigation work completed. There are not hydrants available but there are some water sources, and not all roads are accessible by engines. Residential home construction is very good. Defensible space is not adequate. This unit is mostly large parcels with few residents, and includes Hermit Park Open Space, which has many cabins for visitors. These wood cabins have propane tanks, fire pits, and large trees within 30 feet of the cabins and slow dirt roads, making for a potentially dangerous situation for unknowing campers.
Hermit Park buildings need defensible space and home hardening to any extent possible. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 67% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 15 feet and can reach up to 119 feet. 32% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 56% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Landscape-scale mitigation
Roadway treatments
North End Extreme
This unit has some mid-slope homes and no topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation is primarily montane meadow with tall grasses and some densely forested hillslopes. There are some hydrants but no additional water sources, and roads are accessible by engines. Home construction is average, with many homes having flammable siding. Defensible space is not adequate.
Mow grass near homes Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 70% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 13 feet and can reach up to 122 feet. 21% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 24% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Conduct landscape-scale mitigation on hillslopes Home hardening
Defensible space
Pole Hill High
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes and a few ridge-top homes, as well as numerous topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation is mostly dense mixed conifer with interlocking canopies and a grassy understory with ladder fuels. There are
Widen roads and create turnarounds for engines. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 68% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 14 feet and can reach up to 123 feet. 13% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 11% Set evacuation plans and have go bags for everyone.
Page 134
75
some hydranted areas and many roads are not accessible by engines. Home construction is average with many homes that have flammable siding. Defensible space is not adequate, there are ladder fuels, shrubs, and other hazards near many homes.
Home hardening of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat. Defensible space
Linked defensible space
Rams Horn High
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes and some ridge-top homes, and a few topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Half of the unit is flat, open meadows with tall grass and well-spaced trees, the other half is forested hillslopes with heavy litter loading. Some stands have been mitigated and some have not. There are not adequate hydrants, but roads are accessible by engines. Home construction is very good, excluding the Cheley Camp buildings. Defensible space is not adequate, and there are lots of ladder fuels.
Defensible space Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 54% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 13 feet and can reach up to 139 feet. 8% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 9% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Mow grass near buildings
Home hardening of Cheley Camp buildings
Riverside High
This unit has some mid-slope homes and some topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation consists of dense ponderosa pines which is well mitigated on the north side of the unit and not mitigated in the south side of the unit. There are not adequate hydrants and roads are not all accessible by engines. Home construction is average with some homes with flammable siding and wood fences by the homes. Excluding the mitigated neighborhoods on the north side, defensible space is not adequate, and may be some of the worst in the district.
Defensible space Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 26% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 4 feet and can reach up to 83 feet. Less than 1% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 5% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Linked defensible space
Home hardening
Reduce ladder fuels and litter loads
Page 135
76
South
Prospect Moderate
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes and some ridge-top homes, and numerous topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation is varied, with some well-mitigated ponderosa pine stands and mowed grasses near homes in some flatter areas and dense, unmitigated regeneration in others. There are not enough hydrants available but roads are generally accessible by engines. Home construction is average. Defensible space is not adequate, and there are lots of ladder fuels.
Defensible space Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 30% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 4 feet and can reach up to 83 feet. Less than 1% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 1% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat. Home hardening
Spur 66 High
This unit has some mid-slope and ridge-top homes, and many topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation is mostly mixed conifers with some mitigation but lots of dense and unmitigated stands with ladder fuels and many shrubs near the homes. There are adequate hydrants but some roads are not accessible by engines. Home construction is average. Defensible space is not adequate, with ladder fuels and vegetation near homes, and there are other hazards near homes such as propane tanks and waste.
Set evacuation plans and have go bags for everyone. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 41% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 8 feet and can reach up to 81 feet. Less than 1% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 19% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Defensible space Home hardening Widen roads and create turnarounds for engines. Reduce ladder fuels and litter loads
Windcliff Extreme
This unit has numerous mid-slope homes and numerous topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. Vegetation is mostly tall grasses with treated forests near the bottom of the hills and denser forests near the top. There are no adequate hydrants or other water sources, but roads are generally accessible by engines. Home construction is generally very good. Defensible space is not adequate, considering the slope
Set evacuation plans and have go bags for everyone. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 55% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 12 feet and can reach up to 113 feet. 31% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 36% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Defensible space
Linked defensible space
Page 136
77
and slow roads to evacuate. Mitigation work has been done lower in the neighborhood, but further up the vegetation gets more dangerous.
YMCA High
This unit has some mid-slope homes and ridge-top homes, and no topographic features that make fire behavior unpredictable. The unit has mostly tall grass, sagebrush and shrubs, and ponderosa pine. The center of the unit is well mitigated but the outer edges, including the southwest corner, are not well mitigated. There are no adequate hydrants or other water sources, but roads are generally accessible by engines. Building construction is very good. Defensible space is not adequate, but is closer than most units, and ladder fuels are less dense here.
Set evacuation plans and directions for visitors in place. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 54% of the unit is susceptible to passive or active crown fires, average flame lengths in the unit are 13 feet and can reach up to 111 feet. 24% of the roads are potentially non-survivable and 40% of homes have high to extreme exposure to embers and radiant heat.
Defensible space
Mow grass near homes
Page 137
78
Table 3.c.2. Resources for suggested mitigation for each CWPP Plan Unit (Figure 3.c.1).
Suggestion Goal Resources Home Hardening Make the home itself less flammable by using non-combustible materials and clearing combustibles away from the home. See: Home Hardening
Defensible Space Clear combustible materials away from near the home, reduce fire activity and severity as it approaches the home See: Defensible Space
Create linked defensible space Overlapping HIZs create more opportunity for homes to ignite. Work with neighbors to reduce fire activity and severity near all the homes to protect them all.
See: Defensible Space; Linked Defensible
Space
Remove flammable material from the HIZ. Clear combustible materials such as firewood, propane tanks, and wooden lawn furniture away from near the home. See: Defensible Space
Mow grass and clear bushes away from the home Clear combustible vegetation such as tall grass, bushes, and all junipers away from near the home. See: Defensible Space
Have evacuation plans and go-bags ready There is significant danger to both life and property in EVFPD. Residents need to be prepared to leave at any time and not rely on the FPD to save them.
See: Evacuation Preparedness
Roadway fuel treatments Clear vegetation from around the road to improve access and decrease the amount of fuels that could burn across a roadway while residents are evacuating.
See: Driveways; Roadway Fuel Treatment
Recommendations
Widen roads and create turnarounds for engines Create a road network that fire engines can safely access and is less likely to trap residents during an evacuation. See:
Accessibility and Navigability for
Firefighters; Roadway Fuel Treatment
Recommendations Certify and post bridge weight limits Have an engineer certify the weight limits of each bridge and post it in a visible location on both entrances to the bridge. See:
Accessibility and Navigability for
Firefighters
Page 138
79
Landscape-scale mitigation Treat forests to prevent intense fire behavior near homes and increase landscape resilience by restoring historical conditions. See: Stand-Level Fuel Treatment
Recommendations Community work to create fuel treatments adjacent to residential areas and along roadways Treat forests to prevent intense fire behavior near homes and increase landscape resilience by restoring historical conditions. See: Stand-Level Fuel Treatment
Recommendations; Roadway Fuel
Treatment Recommendations Ladder fuel treatments Prevent fire from moving from the ground to the tree canopy, which reduces fire intensity and speed. See: Stand-Level Fuel Treatment
Recommendations Maintain and continue stand-level fuel treatments near homes Treat forests to prevent intense fire behavior near homes and increase landscape resilience. Treatments must be maintained to continue to provide defense to homes.
See: Stand-Level Fuel Treatment
Recommendations
Ensure proper storage of all hazardous material Properly store fuels, chemicals, waste, and other flammable materials in bulk according to federal and local See: State of Colorado Hazardous Materials Management
Replace roofs with Class A roof Make the home itself less flammable by using non-combustible roofing materials and clearing combustibles off the roof regularly. See: NFPA Roofing Material Fact Sheet
Page 139
80
3.d. Recommendations to Enhance EVFPD Capacity
District Capacity AssessmentDistrict capacity was evaluated through qualitative and quantitative approaches. Arrival times across the districted were modeled and varied from 15 min to 107 min across the analysis area. Because many areas in the district have limited road access, many areas have significant hike in costs. These result in heterogenous distributions of fire sizes and perimeters based on differing arrival times. Fire sizes were generally constrained closer to roads due to reduced response time, but significant variability exists. This variability shows the degree to which response time is not the entire driver of fire size due to the effects of wind, weather, topography, and fuel (see Appendix A.7 District
Capacity Assessment for methodology and maps). Interviews with local fire program managers provided useful insights on district and local fire capacity. Generally, EVFPD was assessed to have high quality overhead who provide clear size-ups for incoming resources. Because most wildfires require mutual aid, this is essential for helping brief responders and helps in determinations around additional resources. However, interviewees felt that the department is challenged by variability in response numbers from volunteers. This is compounded by the challenges of many local cooperator agencies that are also volunteer supported, which can create variability in response numbers. Volunteers also can vary in their wildland firefighter training and skills due to differing experience relative to full-time firefighters. This creates an additional layer of uncertainty for fire managers while managing incidents. Subject matter experts highlighted the lack of local handcrews and dedicated air resources. Many air resources are on seasonal contracts despite fire no longer being seasonally constrained (e.g., the Marshall Fire occurring on 30 December 2021). These resources are particularly important for rapidly growing emerging incidents. During rapidly emerging wildfire incidents, particularly in the wildland-urban interface, any fire district would face challenges. Estes Valley has multiple areas throughout the district where wildfires could grow rapidly and exceed local capacity for response. This analysis highlighted some key areas where this challenge is most acute due to accessibility, terrain, fuels, and local weather conditions. Many of these areas are only accessible by air or handcrew resources, which are limited in both availability and operational capacity. Mutual aid and resource ordering between departments and agencies helps buttress suppression capabilities. Significant numbers of engine resources are available from local agencies. Although engine operations are important for structure protection, many areas require handcrews for initial or extended attack. There is a shortage of available handcrews locally, with many crews dedicated to extended attack. Reconfiguring engine crews into ersatz handcrews is less efficient than utilizing dedicated handcrews for many reasons. Aerial resources are similarly limited and limiting. While useful when available, air resources are often unable to be used during high wind events, which often drive large fires in the area. The local helitack crew is at times deployed on national assignments, limiting their availability further. Availability and training level of resources is a challenge. For emerging incidents, overhead must be flexible and capable, and firefighting resources must be well-trained and adaptable. Volunteer firefighters, who provide much of the immediate response capacity for Estes Valley, may face significant challenges in these environments, especially due to limited availability to be exposed to the wide variety of fire behavior that full-time firefighters may encounter.
Page 140
81
Ultimately, the areas where fires are likely to grow the largest coincide with areas where the most limited firefighting resources are necessary for effective response. This creates additional complexity by requiring resources that are either unavailable locally or must be built from other resources.
Recommendations
•Invest in professional development and training opportunities to increase the availability andredundancy of overhead resources. This will initially require squadboss and single resourceboss-level training opportunities (e.g., crewboss academies, engine academies) to expand thepipeline of potential midlevel leadership transitioning to overhead. This will requirecoordination between agencies to implement a multi-stakeholder regional wildland firetraining strategy.
•Expand cross-training of local engine resources as handcrew resources to improvesuppression skills when creating ad hoc handcrews. Integrating local resources oninteragency handcrews like Mid-Plains and Shadow Canyon that have explicit capacitybuilding and training goals would support this outcome.
•Hire dedicated full-time firefighters for EVFPD that can pursue higher-level wildlandfirefighter qualifications.
•Together with other stakeholders, create a local slash collection/disposal location that is freeand accessible to all residents of the valley. Air curtain burners can efficiently dispose of allyard waste and slash year-round with very few burning restrictions.
•Support the creation and funding of standing handcrew resources.
•Support commitment for local air resources.
•Support the creation of an internal Fuels Mitigation crew with paid personnel.
•Adopt the International Wildland Urban Interface Code to support defensible space. Consideramending the code recommendations to match current research recommendations(Maranghides et al., 2022):
o Home and structure setbacks should be structure-centric, not parcel-centric. Cross-boundary structure separation should always be a consideration.
o Existing high-density housing areas should prioritize home hardening beforedefensible space.
o New high-density developments should have complete defensible space andbuildings that are extremely resistant to ignition. They should have HOAs or otherforms of financial and regulatory collaboration set up to maintain community wildfireprotection.
o Combustible fences should not be double-wide or placed less than 3 feet apart inparallel.
o Defensible space analyses should evaluate fuel pathways between structures andvegetation and other combustible material in the HIZ.
Page 141
82
3.e. Community-Wide Emergency Preparedness
Evacuation Planning and CapacityThere is a high likelihood of evacuation congestion and long evacuation times during a wildfire. Evacuation times for individual residents could exceed 5 hours in some parts of the EVFPD due to the high density of homes and limited number of egress routes. Reliable technology to provide warnings and information about evacuations can help residents feel confident in their ability to evacuate during a wildfire. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) uses NoCoAlert, also known as reverse 911, to communicate evacuation orders to residents. HOAs, and residents should actively extend awareness about NoCoAlert to neighbors that are unaware of the program. NoCoAlert also uses Wireless Emergency Alerts to push notifications to cell phones near certain cell towers, and the Emergency Alert System to push information through radio and TV channels. Neither of these alerts require opt-in. The following steps for residents, HOAs, community groups, Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and the Larimer County Sherriff’s Office are recommended to address evacuation concerns in the EVFPD:
•Conduct tree removal, cut low limbs, and mow grass along roadways to increase thelikelihood of survivable conditions during a wildfire. Prioritize the roads with the most trafficand congestion and work out to the less congested roads. (See Section 4.c).
•Coordinate with LETA to increase participation in NoCoAlert across the EVFPD. Regularly testthe system to ensure timely and accurate communication could occur during an evacuation.
•Continue encouragement for tourists to opt in to the two-week NoCoAlert system.
•Educate residents about warning systems, protocols for evacuation orders, and evacuationetiquette prior to the need to evacuate the community. Communicate the importance offollowing evacuation orders; failing to leave the community in a timely manner during a
wildfire emergency can put first responders at risk.
•Push out consistent guidance for tourists at every tourist interaction point like visitor centers,businesses, rentals, hotels, and gas stations.
•Encourage residents to leave with only one vehicle per household to reduce congestion.
•Encourage all households to develop family evacuation plans and to pack go-bags that are atthe ready. Residents should work with their neighbors to develop a plan for helping eachother with evacuation if a resident is not at home, school-aged children or pets might be homealone, or residents have mobility impairments and need special assistance. Visit the LarimerCounty Emergency Preparedness page or the Estes Valley Fire District Evacuation Resourcespage to learn about preparing go-bags and evacuation planning.
•Encourage residents to evacuate whenever they feel unsafe, even before receiving mandatoryevacuation orders. All residents should leave promptly when they receive a mandatoryevacuation order. This means having a family emergency plan already in place and having go- bags prepacked.
•Make sure warnings and alerts can be understood by all residents, including those withEnglish as a second language and with hearing impairments.
NoCoAlert is the reverse 911 system used by Larimer County to contact residents during emergencies, including during wildfire evacuations. Residents can sign up online to choose how and where they want to receive alerts, they can opt-in to specific alert categories via text, they can receive notifications in over 100 languages through the Reachwell app. Residential landlines are automatically registered unless their phone uses VoIP (voice-over internet protocol). Residents can register their cell phones and email addresses on the NoCoAlert website.
Page 142
83
3.f. Outreach and EducationThe Estes Valley Fire Protection District should continue to engage with community members using a variety of methods, including community organizations, social media, and education materials for visitors of short-term rentals. The following priority recommendations may fall to different entities or partners within and around Estes Valley. As your community makes progress on the top-priority actions outlined below, refer to the fire adapted communities’ “wheel” (Figure 3.1) and seek additional ideas and resources from the Fire Adapted Community Learning Network and Fire Adapted Colorado (FACO). Visit their websites for more information on their programs and upcoming events.
Community Ambassador Program This CWPP can only result in on-the-ground change if residents and community groups work with forestry professionals such as the Colorado State Forest Service and Larimer Conservation District to address shared risk. Developing a Community Ambassador Program could help residents better understand wildfire risks and spark coordinated action that effects positive change in the EVFPD. This program can be connected to and supported by Larimer Connects, a county-wide community-based support and engagement network. The neighborhood ambassador approach requires engaged volunteer ambassadors and a dedicated lead coordinator. See Table 3.f.1 from the guide Fire adapted
communities neighborhood ambassador approach: Increasing preparedness through volunteers for effective activities that neighborhood ambassadors can undertake (Wildfire Adapted Partnership, 2018).
Table 3.f.1. Potential activities for the neighborhood ambassador program. Table adapted from
(Wildfire Adapted Partnership, 2018).
Example activity Ambassador responsibility Coordinator responsibility
Educational
programs about
defensible space and
home hardening
Gauge interest of neighbors and select topics. Find meeting location. Encourage neighbors to attend.
Arrange for specialists to make presentations. Advertise program through HOA newsletters, social media, etc.
Emergency planning Organize an event for people to ask firefighters and law enforcement personnel about emergency planning and evacuation. Encourage residents to work with their neighbors to develop a plan for evacuation if a resident is not at home, school-aged children or pets might be home alone, or residents have mobility impairments and need special assistance.
Provide information to residents about emergency planning and go-bags. Arrange for specialists to make presentations. Advertise program through HOA newsletters, social media, etc.
Community chipping
day
Secure HOA buy-in and request financial support. Select a date and organize event logistics.
Secure fuels module availability and grants or other financial support.
Page 143
84
Encourage neighbors to attend. Address liability and safety concerns. Advertise program through HOA newsletters, social media, etc.
Defensible-space
walking tour
Identify homeowners with exemplary defensible space. Select a date and organize event logistics. Encourage neighbors to attend.
Arrange for fuel treatment specialists to attend and make presentations. Provide handouts and other educational material about defensible space. Advertise program through HOA newsletters, social media, etc.
Defensible space
projects
Work with neighbors to identify high-priority project locations using insights from the CWPP (see priority locations in Priority Plan
Unit Recommendations and
Priority Treatment Locations. Suggestions for Ecological Restoration and Stand-level Fuel Treatments). Secure HOA buy-in and request financial support. Select contractors and solicit bids. Oversee project completion.
Work with a certified forester for insights about effective treatment location and prescriptions, following guidelines in Stand-
Level Fuel Treatment
Recommendations. Identify potential contractors. Write scope of work for contract. Inspect project upon completion. Celebrate success through social media posts and newspaper articles.
Roadway fuel
treatment projects
Work with neighbors to identify roads and driveways with potentially non-survivable conditions using insights from the CWPP (see Priority Locations). Secure HOA buy-in and request financial support. Select contractors and solicit bids. Oversee project completion.
Work with a certified forester for insights about effective treatment location and prescriptions, following guidelines in Roadway
Fuel Treatment Recommendations. Identify potential contractors. Write scope of work for contract. Inspect project upon completion. Celebrate success through social media posts and newspaper articles.
Page 144
85
Social Media Social media is a powerful tool when used properly to connect with audiences. FEMA has a Wildfire and Outdoor Fire Safety Social Media Toolkit that is a great starting place for districts to begin gaining an audience with their constituents and sharing important fire safety information. Put Fire to Work highlights programs and organizations that are successfully engaging audiences around wildland and prescribed fire work. CalFire’s Ready for Wildfire campaign is active and collaboratively created to engage and encourage people to take action on wildfire preparedness. All engaged stakeholders in this region should take part in a unified message on social media, sharing the same content.
Visitor Outreach Estes Park is a travel destination and tourism-based economy, so working with visitors and visitor-facing entities is vital to preparing them for wildfire. Sharing information on wildfire preparedness before and when they enter the Valley is the best time. The EVFPD and their partners should work with agencies like Visit Estes Park, the YMCA, and RMNP to coordinate wildfire communication both during the traditional fire season and during the rest of the year. Working with partners can engage the visitors where they are planning to be – campers in RMNP can receive information about fire safety when they make reservations, local lodging owners can automatically register visitor’s phone numbers to the temporary emergency alert line for the duration of their stay, and the visitor center can host information on general fire safety, evacuation planning, and local fire information.
Short-Term Rental Licensing Short-term rentals are home or apartment rentals that are leased for 30 days or less at a time. These are frequently called vacation rentals, Airbnb’s, or VRBOs. Local governments have struggled to regulate short-term rentals, and a study published in 2018 found that 20% of short-term rentals in the US did not have smoke detectors and 58% didn’t have fire extinguishers. Many of these short-term rentals offer escapes from city life to rural, mountainous areas of the EVFPD with dense trees and unmaintained road networks. Visitors are often unaware of the risks that come with their vacation location. Short term rentals without defensible space, clearly defined escape routes, or basic fire safety measures put visitors and neighbors at high risk in the event of a wildfire. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District has operational permits following Short Term Rental Inspections in place, the Town of Estes Park has Vacation Home Licensing, and Larimer County has Short Term Rental requirements. TEA suggests that local districts and governments implement more rigorous and unified short-term rental guidelines to protect the life safety of visitors as well as the properties of the homeowners in their district.
Page 145
86
Table 3.f.2 and Figure 3.f.2 contain recommendations that were adapted from Boulder County’s Wildfire Partners program.
Application Homeowner applies for the program in order to qualify for a Short Term Rental License.
Initial Assessment
A mitigation specialist joins the homeowner to inspect the home and property and recommends actions to meet their criteria. This is also provided in a written report to the homeowner.
Mitigation Homeowner performs the necessary mitigation work on the report to meet the criteria.
Final Inspection
The mitigation specialist returns to the home and inspects the work completed. They confirm that all their recommended actions have been completed.
Certification Homeowner recieves a certificate and authorization to run their short-term rental.
Figure 3.f.1. Proposed short-term rental licensing process. Homes that are currently
operating as short-term rentals could be giving a grace period to complete the mitigation to
maintain their business as they complete required mitigation. Process adapted from Wildfire
Partners.
Page 146
87
Table 3.f.2. Recommended mitigation goals for obtaining Short Term Rental Licenses in the Estes
Valley Fire Protection District. Goals are adapted from FireWise USA.
Mitigation
Measure Goals
Home Ignition
Zones
Create defensible space around homes and outbuildings according to the CSFS Guidelines. See Figure 3.a.1 and Table 3.a.1 for specific recommendations.
Landscaping Maintain Zone 1 (0-5 feet from the home) to clean, unburnable conditions with litter and duff removed regularly.
Roofing and Vents Install and maintain a Class-A roof with mesh covers on vents.
Decks and
Porches
Keep decks free of flammable materials such as propane tanks or firewood piles. Use non-combustible deck materials when possible.
Siding and
Windows
Clean and maintain windows and siding. Use fire-resistant siding and tempered multi-paned windows when building or remodeling.
Emergency
Responder Access
Maintain a 20-foot-wide driveway with 13.5 feet of overhead clearance for emergency vehicles. Ensure that street and house numbers are clearly marked from the road, and there is enough turnaround space for fire trucks in front of your house.
Informed Renters Provide evacuation maps to renters with multiple ways out of the neighborhood. Require renters to sign up for NoCoAlert emergency alerts for the duration of their stay. Share current fire ban information with renters before they visit, and close off outdoor fire pits when they are not allowed to be used. Provide content from the Estes Valley Fire District website about evacuation.
Collaboration Collaboration with stakeholders, landowners, local governments, business owners, and community members is the best way to ensure good outcomes from this plan. Stakeholders (see 1.b Partners
and Stakeholder Engagement) were engaged in the development of this CWPP and offered input on the recommendations set forth in this CWPP. It is recommended that the EVFPD continue meetings with major stakeholders in the district to provide accountability on projects, continue to participate in cross-boundary mitigation programs such as the Northern Colorado Fireshed Collaborative (NCFC), and support the community ambassador program’s growth and maintenance. Stakeholders in and around the Estes Valley must work to move mitigation projects from paper to on the ground action, keep lines of communications open and messaging consistent, and to support each other’s work in the community. Where some organizations may be able to offer incentives to homeowners, others may be able to provide structure and requirements that must be met to keep life safety for residents and firefighters a priority. This multi-faceted approach is only possible through compromise, mutual respect, and collaboration on shared goals.
Page 147
88
3.g. Funding Opportunities for Wildfire Hazard Mitigation and
Emergency PreparednessThere are many funding opportunities from federal, state, and local agencies as well as non-profits to assist in forest health and wildfire mitigation projects. These funds can increase capacity but cannot cover all the costs of fire mitigation needed within the valley. Local residents and stakeholders must put forth funds and time to complete this work.
Opportunities from Local and State Agencies in Colorado
•The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) Forest Restoration and Wildfire Risk Mitigation
(FRWRM) is a competitive grant program designed to assist with funding community-levelactions across the entire state to: reduce the risk to people, property and infrastructure fromwildfire in the wildland-urban interface (WUI); promote forest health and the utilization ofwoody material including for traditional forest products and biomass energy; and encourageforest restoration projects.
•CSFS administers programs for landowner and community assistance, including the
Colorado Forest Ag Program and Colorado Tree Farm Program.
•CSFS regularly updates their Natural Resources Grants & Assistance Database to helpresidents, agencies, and other partners find funding for natural resource projects.
•The Colorado Department of Revenue provides a Wildfire Mitigation Measures
Subtraction whereby individuals, estates, and trusts may claim a subtraction on theirColorado income tax return for certain costs incurred in performing wildfire mitigationmeasures on property in the WUI.
•The Larimer Conservation District helps landowners navigate forestry projects to promoteforest health and complete wildfire mitigation projects.
•The Larimer County Office of Emergency Management offers community mitigationgrants to increase a community’s long-term resilience to natural hazards.
Funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
•Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program supportsstates, local communities, Tribes, and territories as they undertake large-sale projects toreduce or eliminate risk and damage from future natural hazards. Homeowners, businessoperators, and non-profit organizations cannot apply directly to FEMA, but they can beincluded in sub-applications submitted by an eligible sub-applicant (local governments,Tribal governments, and state agencies).
•Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants Program (HMGP) provides funding to state, local,Tribal, and territorial governments so they can rebuild in a way that reduces, or mitigates,future disaster losses in their communities. This grant funding is available after apresidentially declared disaster.
•Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) help firefighters and other first responders obtaincritical resources necessary for protecting the public and emergency personnel from fire andrelated hazards.
•Fire Prevention & Safety (FP&S) Grants support projects that enhance the safety of thepublic and firefighters from fire and related hazards.
•Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants directly fund firedepartments and volunteer firefighter organizations to help increase their capacity.
Page 148
89
Opportunities from Non-Governmental Organizations
•Coalitions and Collaboratives, Inc. manages the Action, Implementation, and Mitigation
Program (AIM) to increase local capacity and support wildfire risk reduction activities inhigh-risk communities. AIM provides direct support to place-based wildfire mitigationorganization with pass-through grant funding, on-site engagement, technical expertise,mentoring, and training on mitigation practices to help high-risk communities achieve theirwildfire adaptation goals.
•Fire Adapted Colorado (FACO) manages the FACO Opportunity Fund, which is a matchingmini-grant program to support projects, build capacity, and address local needs with fundingfrom the National Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network.
Supporting the Fire Protection District The Estes Valley Fire Protection District strives to be supportive of forestry projects that improve forest health and wildfire safety. Creating, managing, and implementing fuels mitigation projects takes time and effort that is often unfunded to the district. Education and outreach are incredibly important to the district – connecting with their constituents is a vital part of building relationships and providing the highest quality services. This work requires time and resources that the FPDs do not always have to spare.
•The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants can help fundstaff capacity for fire departments.
•The Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) can provide critical response resources forfirefighters and emergency responders.
•Community support is also vital to the success of the fire district:
o EVFPD is supported by volunteer firefighters who respond to fires, medicalemergencies, and rescues every day of the year. Learn more about how you canvolunteer by contacting the fire department.
o Support for local ballot measures that provide tax revenue for the FPD is vital to theirsuccess in responding to residents in their time of need. EVFPD has a diverse mix offunding from both sales tax and property tax, allowing them to maintain a relativelylow mill levy for residents in the valley.
o Support local code changes that the district advocates for. Stronger WUI codes meanthat future developments will be more fire-resistant and the land they are on will bemore resilient, which can reduce the work and cost for the EVFPD to protect residents in the long run.
o Attend events hosted by the EVFPD. Seeking out information to protect your homefrom fire danger can also help protect your local firefighters. Sharing this informationwithin your community can build community resilience and can help lowerimplementation costs for individual homeowners for many projects.
Page 149
90
4. Implementation Recommendations for Fuel
Treatments
4.a. General Objectives and Implementation of Fuel
Treatments Fuel treatments are a land management tool for reducing wildfire hazard by decreasing the amount and altering the distribution of wildland fuels. Fuel treatment methods include tree thinning, pruning, pile burning, broadcast prescribed burning, and fuel mastication (Hunter et al., 2007). Strategic fuel treatments, in tandem with work by individual residents to mitigate hazards in their home ignition zone (see
Mitigate the Home Ignition Zone), can help protect life and property. Many residents, HOAs, and local agencies that manage land within and around the EVFPD are actively reducing wildland fuels. Additional strategic work is required to mitigate wildfire risks across the EVFPD (see Priority Plan Unit Recommendations and Priority Treatment Locations). Many fuel treatments focus on reducing the risk of active or passive crown fires and reducing the intensity of the fire. This is primarily achieved by treatments that decrease the tree density, increase crown spacing, and decrease ladder and surface fuels. However, it should be noted that removing trees can increase the growth of grasses, forbs, and shrubs and dry out these fuels by increasing their exposure to sun and wind. Fires burning through abundant, dry grasses have rapid rates of spread; however, the fundamental goal of many fuel treatments is not to reduce the rate of fire spread but to reduce burn severity or increase opportunities for suppressing wildfires (Reinhardt et al., 2008). Strategically located, high-quality fuel treatments can create tactical options for fire suppression (Jolley, 2018; Plucinski, 2019; Reinhardt et al., 2008). Fuel treatments are most effective when used in conjunction with suppression actions. Reduced fire intensity within treated areas allows firefighters opportunities to use direct or indirect suppression techniques. Firefighters benefitted from using fuel treatments west of Estes Park as tactical features during the 2020 East Troublesome Fire, and it is possible these treatments helped prevent wildfire damage in the town (Good, 2020). All fuel treatments are not created equal, and there is no ‘‘one size fits all’’ fuel treatment design (Reinhardt et al., 2008). Specific fuel treatment recommendations are dependent on forest type, tree density, fuel loads, terrain, land use, and management objectives. The location and purpose of treatments also matter. Treatments in defensible space zone three are typically more intensive than treatments outside of the defensible space zones because of the importance of substantially reducing fuels closer to homes. Treatments along roadways often require removal of many trees to create safe and survivable conditions, whereas treatments in large, forested areas can achieve fuel objectives by following principles of ecological restoration in frequent-fire forests and principles of fire mimicry and mosaic landscapes in infrequent-fire forests. Local knowledge and professional expertise are needed to design effective, site-specific fuel treatments. Science of fuels treatments continues to evolve, so it is recommended to always work with local practitioners to apply the best available science to any new fuels treatment. Homeowners
“Given the right conditions, wildlands will inevitably burn. It is a misconception to think that treating fuels can ‘fire-proof’ important areas... Fuel treatments in wildlands should focus on creating conditions in which fire can occur without devastating consequences, rather than on creating conditions conducive to fire suppression” (Reinhardt et al. 2008).
Page 150
91
are responsible for fuel mitigation on their own lands – you as a landowner must initiate and follow through on this work, but that does not mean you must do it alone. For assistance in planning and implementing a new fuels treatment, contact the Larimer Conservation District, Colorado State Forest Service, or other wildfire mitigation specialists.
Treatment Categories
Home Ignition Zone mitigation: HIZ mitigation is intended to make the protection of structures such as homes less susceptible to ignition. This includes hardening the home, which involves making it more difficult for embers or radiant heat to light the structure on fire, and creating defensible space, which involves treating the vegetation and other fuels in the area surrounding the home to decrease the intensity of fire activity as it nears the home. The recommendations for this work are standardized and outlined in this document as well as in publications from the Colorado State Forest Service. HIZ mitigation recommendations are designed for individual homeowners and HOAs and neighborhoods to work on with the assistance of the local Property Assessment program.
Stand-level fuel treatments: Stand-level fuel treatments are designed to reduce surface fuels, reduce tree density, and increase the distance between surface and canopy fuels within forest stands (Agee and Skinner, 2005). These treatments are designed to reduce the likelihood of high-severity, active crown fires. Ideally stand-level fuel treatments follow the principles of ecological restoration and achieve both ecological and fuel reduction objectives. However, stand-level fuel treatments and ecological restoration are not synonymous; some ecosystem restoration treatments reduce fuel hazards, but not all fuel treatments restore ecosystems (Reinhardt et al., 2008). A forest with widely, evenly spaced trees could serve as an effective fuel treatment, but this configuration would not achieve ecological objectives in most forest types. Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been damaged, degraded, or destroyed (SER, 2004). In ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests along the Colorado Front Range, ecological restoration usually achieves fuel reduction objectives (Ziegler et al., 2017). Treatments involve converting dense forests into a mosaic of single trees, clumps of trees, and meadows similar to historical forests that were maintained by wildfires and very resilient to them (Addington et al., 2018). Stand-level fuel treatments are designed for large landowners, public land managers, and collaborating neighborhoods to implement.
Roadway fuel treatments: Roadway treatments are buffers along roadways with reduced fuel loads to improve fire control opportunities and reduce the chance that non-survivable conditions develop along roadways during a wildfire. Tree removal along narrow roadways can also increase access for fire engines and provide safer egress for firefighters. Fuel treatments along trails, ridgelines, and other features can be utilized by firefighters to contain fire spread. This work can be done by all collaborators in the district. Individuals can implement these recommendations along their driveways, Coordinate with your HOA, Larimer County Road & Bridge, and the Colorado Department of Transportation to learn about regulations and opportunities to mitigate hazards along roadways in your community.
Treatment Costs The cost of fuel treatment depends on management objectives, treatment specifications, slope, accessibility, and treatment method (e.g., mechanical thinning, hand thinning, or prescribed burning). Costs of $2,500 to $10,000 per acre are not uncommon along the Colorado Front Range where there is little biomass or timber industry to provide financial return (Gannon et al., 2019). Costs for follow-up treatments are generally lower than the initial entry and help maintain the original investment in fuel treatments. The cost of fuel treatments underscores the importance of
Page 151
92
conducting strategic, well-designed, landscape-scale treatments to increase the likelihood that fuel treatments moderate fire behavior. Fuel treatments can save lives and ecosystems and provide economic returns. Fuel treatments can reduce property damages by making wildfires less damaging and easier to control; this is especially true for prescribed burning which is often cheaper and more effective at altering forest fuel loads than mechanical thinning alone (Fulé et al., 2012; Loomis et al., 2019; Prichard et al., 2020). Fuel treatments can reduce the cost of rehabilitating water sources when wildfires are followed by large storm events that result in massive erosion (Jones et al., 2017). In some instances, fuel treatments can reduce suppression costs due to the increased efficiency of firefighting (Loomis et al., 2019). Fuel treatments do not always have positive financial returns on investment. Some treatments are never encountered by wildfires, fuel treatments can be ineffective at altering fire behavior during severe fire weather conditions, and suppression expenditures are often driven by values at risk, fire size, and landownership rather than fuel characteristics (Reinhardt et al., 2008). However, when fuel treatments follow the principles of ecological restoration, they result in positive ecological benefits regardless of economic costs.
4.b. Stand-Level Fuel Treatment Recommendations
Effective Treatment DesignRestoration-style treatments can meet both ecological and fuel reduction objectives in ponderosa pine and dry-mixed conifer forests along the Front Range of Colorado (Addington et al., 2018; Fulé et al., 2012). Fuels reduction treatments that create heterogeneous landscapes and decrease the density of trees while increasing diversity in age, size, and species in lodgepole and wet mixed conifer forests can be effective at altering the intensity of fire (Dennis et al., 2009). Most of the forested area within and around the EVFPD are mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine forest types (Figure
2.a.4), and many of these forests had far fewer trees prior to Euro-American settlement due to ahigher frequency of wildfires (Figure 2.b.1) (Addington et al., 2018). The Larimer ConservationDistrict and other land management agencies encourage an approach to forest management thattransforms dense ponderosa forests into a strong and healthy woodland with single trees, clumps oftrees, and meadows similar to historical forests that were maintained by wildfires and very resilientto them. They work to create fire-resilient mosaic landscapes in lodgepole and wet mixed coniferforests, and to maintain healthy aspen and other hardwood forests.A holistic approach to forest restoration reduces crown-fire hazard, increases the abundance and diversity of grasses, shrubs, and wildflowers, and improves habitat for many wildlife species, including deer and elk. This approach is backed by decades of forest, wildlife, and fire ecology research, which is summarized in Principles and practices for the restoration of ponderosa pine and
dry mixed-conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range published by the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (Addington et al., 2018). It is suggested that foresters, other land managers, and landowners reference this document when preparing and implementing forest treatments in and around the EVFPD. Another useful tool for designing restoration treatments is
Visualization of heterogenous forest structures following treatments in the Southern Rocky
Mountains—a document with pictures, graphs, and simulations of different pre- and post-treatment forest structures (Tinkham et al., 2017).
Page 152
93
Table 4.b.1. Minimum recommended spacing between tree crowns is greater for properties on steeper
slopes due to the exacerbating impact of slope on fire behavior (Dennis, 2003). When treatments are
designed to achieve ecological restoration objectives, it is important to avoid evenly spacing trees.
Retaining small clumps of trees with interlocking crowns is acceptable so long as they are adequately
spaced from adjacent individual trees and tree clumps.
Percent slope Minimum spacing between
tree crowns
0 to 10 % 10 feet
11 to 20% 15 feet
21 to 40% 20 feet
>40%30 feet
Treatment Methods Trees can be removed manually or mechanically, providing for considerations of safety, slope, road access, cost, and potential damage to soil. Use of mechanical equipment is often infeasible on slopes greater than 35% (Hunter et al., 2007). Handcrews with chainsaws can operate on steeper slopes, but handcrews usually cover less ground each day than mechanical thinning. Sometimes the only option for tree removal on steep, inaccessible slopes is expensive helicopter logging. Tree cutting with a chainsaw and other forestry equipment should be done by experienced and certified individuals. The Colorado State Forest Service provides guidance for how to select a contractor to conduct forest management treatments on your property. Broadcast prescribed burning can be an extremely effective method to reduce hazardous fuels and restore ecological conditions across a variety of grassland, shrubland, and forest ecosystems (Paysen et al., 2000; Stephens et al., 2009). Prescribed burning is challenging in the WUI due to diverse fuel types, proximity to homes, risk of visibility impairments on roads from smoke, health impacts of smoke, and political and social concerns. However, with proper planning and implementation, qualified firefighters can safely conduct prescribed fires, even in the WUI (Hunter et al., 2007). Prescribed burning is generally cheaper to implement than mechanical treatments across large landscapes (Hartsough et al., 2008; Hunter et al., 2007), and fire has unique impacts on vegetation and soils that cannot be replicated by mechanical treatments alone (McIver et al., 2013). Thinning and burning treatments tend to achieve fuel reduction objectives and modify fire behavior to a greater extent than thinning alone (Fulé et al., 2012; Prichard et al., 2020). Thinning operations often increase surface fuel loads and can fail to achieve fire mitigation objectives if fuels created by the harvest activities (also known as slash) are not addressed (Agee and Skinner, 2005). See Section 4.d. Slash Management for options to mitigate surface fuel loads created by fuel management.
Page 153
94
Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed Conifer Ponderosa pine forests are called woodlands because they grow in open stands with many understory species and room between the trees. Dry mixed conifer forests are usually found are warm, dry south-facing slopes in this area and contain ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and Rocky Mountain juniper, with occasional blue spruce.
Treatments for Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa pine stand treatments are centered around ecological restoration, or restoring the site to historic conditions. Thinning to create wide spacing between trees with a focus on preserving the largest and oldest trees is common and results in healthier forests post-treatment. Ponderosas and most dry mixed conifer forests respond well to selective thinning and regular maintenance that keeps regeneration levels low and keeps just the healthiest trees. Broadcast burning is also a highly effective treatment for ponderosa and dry mixed conifer forests. The more mature trees can withstand the fire while the understory is cleared out. Ponderosa pine forests had regular fire intervals of 7-50 years before colonial settlement and restoring that fire regime is ideal. When planning treatments for ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer sites, the following is recommended:
•Follow the principles of ecological restoration as outlined in Addington et al., 2018 to helpachieve fuel reduction and ecosystem restoration objectives. Restoration treatments inPonderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests will result in mosaic patterns of single trees,clumps of trees, and interspersed meadows.
•Increase the spacing between tree crowns to decrease the risk of active crown fire. If the goalis only to reduce fuel loads, remove trees to create at least 15-foot crown spacing. Widerspacing is required on steeper ground due to the exacerbating impact of slopes on firebehavior (Table 4.b.1). If treatment objectives also include ecological restoration, it isimportant to avoid evenly spacing trees. Retaining small clumps of trees with interlockingcrowns is acceptable so long as they are adequately spaced from adjacent individual treesand tree clumps.
•Determine appropriate post-treatment tree density depending on ecological and fueltreatment objectives, forest type, and aspect. As a general principle, the more trees removed,the more effective the fuel treatment and the closer the treatment recreates historical, fire-resilient forest structure. Along the Colorado Front Range at lower montane elevations (5,500to 8,530 feet), tree densities in ponderosa pine forests average 4.5 times higher today thanthey were in the mid-1800s, and basal areas average 2.8 times higher. Many ponderosa pineforests had less than 100 trees per acre and basal areas less than 40 feet2/acre in the mid-1800s (Battaglia et al., 2018). Forests on north-facing slopes historically had higher treedensities, but it might be necessary to substantially reduce tree densities on some north-facing slopes to protect homes and other values at risk from potential fire effects.
•Reduce ladder fuels to decrease the risk of torching. Remove a substantial portion of seedling,saplings, and shrubs, especially those near overstory trees. Pruning branches that hang lessthan 10 feet above the ground can further reduce the risk of torching, but it can be expensiveand inefficient in areas outside defensible space zones 1 and 2. The pruning height requiredto effectively reduce the risk of torching is influenced by the moisture content of needles andbranches, wind speed, slope, and surface fuel loads. The necessary pruning height can beexorbitant; for example, tree limbs hanging below 20 feet must be removed to prevent drycanopy fuels from igniting when exposed to radiant heat from 8-foot flames (Agee, 1996a).
•Reduce surface fuels to decrease fire intensity and flame lengths. Thinning operationsproduce significant amounts of slash, and rearranging fuels from tree crowns to the surface
Page 154
95
without reducing the overall fuel load will rarely achieve fuel reduction objectives. Slash decomposes very slowly in Colorado and proper disposal is essential. See Section 4.d. Slash
Management for guidance on slash management.
•Strategically place treatments to facilitate firefighter access, help firefighters establishcontrol lines, and reduce the intensity of wildfires as they spread towards homes and othervalues at risk.
•Mitigate impacts of tree removal on soil compaction and erosion when treatments occur nearstreams and riparian ecosystems. The Colorado State Forest Service recommends streamsidemanagement zones of at least 50 feet (CSFS, 2010).
•Commit to monitoring and maintenance of fuel treatments. Benefits of fuel treatments aretransient and decrease overtime, with treatment “lifespan” depending on forest type,topography, rates of seedling regeneration (which is often influenced by precipitation), andthe number of trees removed during treatments. Many forests require more than onetreatment to reduce fuels and restore ecosystem structure. Some areas might requiremechanical tree removal followed by prescribed burning, and then a maintenance treatmentwith tree removal and/or prescribed burning 10 to 20 years later. With a single pulse of treeregeneration, the risk of torching returns to near pre-treatment levels within 10 to 35 yearsin ponderosa pine forests in Colorado. As the number of regenerating seedlings increases,treatment longevity decreases by about 5 years per 550 seedlings (Tinkham et al., 2016).
•Monitor treatments for invasive, weedy plant species that might require control after foresttreatments.
•Take pictures of the treatment before and after to help evaluate effectiveness and monitorchanges over time (see Figure 3.a.3 for an example of repeat photographs pre- and post-treatment).
Ponderosa Pine in Defensible Space Ponderosas are well adapted to living in spaced out woodlands and are easily thinned to create beautiful and effective defensible space. Homeowners often enjoy the more open forest around their home because it lets in more light which encourages more understory grasses and shrubs to grow and, in turn, can increase wildlife sightings near their home. Clear all ponderosa pines from sone 1, and thin and limb all ponderosas in zones 2 and 3 to create a minimum of 15-foot crown spacing and at least 6 feet of vertical clearance to the lowest hanging branches.
Lodgepole Pine and Wet Mixed Conifer Lodgepole pine and wet mixed conifer are common across the EVFPD. They typically grow in dense, even-age stands and very few species grow under the canopy or within the stands. Wet mixed conifer is typically found on north-facing slopes with cooler and moister weather and soil. They consist of any of the following species: lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, limber pine, bristlecone pine. Lodgepoles are a fire-adapted species and rely on fire to move it through its life cycles. Lodgepole pines are relatively thin and tall trees, competing for light in the dense stands. Because of the competition, continuous regeneration is not normal for lodgepole and wet mixed conifer, and they are adapted to stand-replacing fires every 75-300 years (CFRI, 2021). Lodgepole cones are serotinous, meaning they are coated in resin that only opens under high heat, such as during a wildfire. Most of these species are not resistant to fire and will burn easily. The cones will open and leave a dense seedbed in the ground after a fire, which will grow into a new stand in the old stand’s place.
Page 155
96
Treatments for Lodgepole Pine Goals for lodgepole pine, wet mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forest treatments involve lowering the density of trees and fuel loads (this must be done in a way that protects the remaining trees from windthrow), and increasing the diversity of tree ages, sized, and species, where possible. Treatments should also be conscious of mountain pine beetle activity in the area and plan treatments accordingly (Dennis et al., 2009). Thinning and broadcast burns that focus on surface and passive crown fire is not feasible in lodgepole stands. The trees density protects them against wind and thinning frequently results in widespread blow-down in the years after thinning is completed, so it is not recommended. Lodgepole pines are susceptible to active crown fire that is not easily managed in prescribed burning scenarios and is not typically used either. Forest health treatments that focus on fire prevention and restoring historic conditions to lodgepole pines focus on patch cuts and creating mosaic landscapes. Patch cuts remove every overstory tree in a certain area, leaving areas open for regeneration of aspen and understory plants. This mimics a stand-replacing fire event without the risk of active crown fire in the forest that could escape and damage property. The drawback to thinning is that the nutrients that the trees have absorbed over the centuries of grown do not return to the soil as they would have following a fire. Read the Lodgepole Pine Management Guidelines for Land Managers in the Wildland-Urban Interface publication from Colorado State Forest Service for more information. When planning treatments for lodgepole pine and wet mixed conifer sites, the following is recommended, adapted from recommendations by (Dennis et al.) 2009:
•Thin existing mature stands to achieve density levels required for wildfire hazard mitigationand MPB resistance. This is difficult to accomplish in one entry due to windthrow and stembreakage, so plan on multiple entries. Remove no more than 25 percent of the stand’s basalarea during each cut, and carefully monitor stands to ensure proper timing of the necessaryre-entries.
•Generally, maintain average stem diameters of < 8 inches and stand densities of < 80 squarefeet of basal area per acre for higher resistance to mountain pine beetle. This requires morefrequent use of silvicultural actions designed to regenerate lodgepole. To do so, incorporatesmall clearcuts or patch cuts when possible. This will achieve age and size diversity.
•In stands of mixed species, retain species other than lodgepole pine. Use caution duringtreatments to avoid damaging the desired residual trees.
•Avoid developing multi-storied stands. If this situation begins to develop: a. Remove theemerging understory to reduce ladder fuels, or b. Remove the overstory early enough to avoiddamaging the developing understory, or c. Combine a and b in different areas to achievegreater diversity across the landscape.
•If an entire stand is infected with dwarf mistletoe, remove the most severely infected treesduring each thinning entry. Retain alternate coniferous species and aspen. Create smallopenings and begin planting alternate species within the openings. If only portions of thestand are infected with dwarf mistletoe, clearcut or patch cut infected areas.
•Maintain aspen and encourage its development by removing conifers from within aspenstands removing conifers from around the edge of aspen pockets, particularly on the southand west sides.
•Remove trees that have been severely damaged by lightning, windthrow, and insect anddisease infestations as soon as possible. Retain other snags for habitat.
•Remove larger woody material from the forest and use proper slash-disposal techniques suchas piling and burning, chipping, or low-depth, discontinuous lop and scatter.
Page 156
97
Lodgepole Pine in Defensible Space Lodgepole pines around the home should be managed carefully, and under the direction of a forestry expert. CSFS recommends avoiding selective thinning where possible, but if you choose to thin near your home, leave the taller and more mature trees and thin the younger and smaller ones. Thinning trees while they are young is healthier than thinning older trees. CSFS also recommends leaving small stands, or clumps, of trees. Leaving a clump of 30-50 trees protects those trees from windthrow, but can open more space around your home to help protect it from radiant heat and short-range embers. Patch cutting lodgepole and wet mixed conifer around a home to create 100 feet of defensible space is an adequate mitigation goal, and homeowners can encourage aspens stands or other windthrow-resistant trees with 15 foot crown spacing in zones 2 and 3. When thinning and removing woody material from around the home, follow the CSFS defensible space guidelines outlined in Section 3.a. Defensible Space. More information can be found in the Lodgepole Pine Management Guidelines for Land Managers in the Wildland-Urban Interface publication from Colorado State Forest Service.
Other Vegetation Types For the most accurate information regarding the trees and vegetation on your land, consult a forestry professional who can write a forest management plan or prescribe the best treatments for you.
Aspen and Other Riparian Hardwood Species Aspen groves are important food and habitat for mountain fauna. They are fire resistant and do not respond well to fuel treatments. Aspen groves should be left alone and not thinned or managed for fire, unless they are right next to or hanging over a structure. Aspen is a resilient, early-succession species that will grow in quickly after fuels treatments in other forest types, such as lodgepole patch cuts. Cottonwood and willow trees are excellent at stabilizing river banks and wetland habitat. They grow quickly and provide habitat and forage for many species. These trees should generally be left alone unless they are very close to or hanging over a structure. More information can be found in the Cottonwood Management publication from the Colorado State Forest Service.
Shrublands Shrubs should be managed as a ladder fuel in the HIZ. They should be kept away from defensible space zone 1 and cleared from under trees in zones 2 and 3. Dense shrubs and dry shrubs like sagebrush should be thinned and cleared around a structure, especially on hillslopes below a home.
Priority Treatment Locations This CWPP process located and prioritized potential locations for ecological restoration and/or stand-level fuel treatments within and around the EVFPD (Figure 4.b.1; Table 4.b.2). The Core Team met with the Northern Colorado Fireshed Collaborative twice in April and June 2022 to plan and prioritize implementation projects. These treatment areas cross ownership boundaries and will
require collaboration between private landowners, public land managers, and forestry
professionals to create successful outcomes. Our prioritization scheme was based on predicted fire behavior, the abundance of threatened structures, the likelihood of fires passing through a treatment unit and entering residential areas, presence of non-survivable roadway conditions, and operability based on slope. The boundaries of the proposed treatment units follow topographic features and major roadways. See Appendix B.2.
Fuel Treatment Prioritization Methodology for a full description of our prioritization methods.
Page 157
98
32 first-priority treatment units were identified that are fully or partially within the Estes Valley Fire Protection District for a total of about 9,400 acres and 7 first-priority treatment units adjacent to the district for a total of 1,350 acres (Figure 4.b.1). First-priority treatment units fall in the western half of the EVFPD due to the high potential for wildfires to impact residential and non-residential values at risk. There are numerous second and third priority units within and surrounding the EVFPD in which treatments could reduce the risk of high-severity wildfires, protect lives, and enhance safety within the EVFPD (Figure 4.b.1; Table 4.b.2). See Section 4.e. Implementation Plan for details about fuel treatments ready for implementation immediately (1-2 years), in the short-term (3-5 years), or in the mid-term (6-10 years). This document focuses on high-priority treatment recommendations, but this does not discourage ecological restoration and fuel mitigation in other areas. Prior to treatment, forestry professionals should visit these locations to assess current conditions and delineate unit boundaries. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District, HOAs, residents, and land managers should re-evaluate fire risks and re-prioritize treatment units as conditions change over time. Many areas not identified as priority locations in Figure 4.b.1 could benefit from treatments to reduce fire risks and protect homes and other values at risk. If multiple neighbors work together to mitigate fire risk across ownership boundaries, it could attract funding and increase the priority and effectiveness of treating those areas. Altering potential wildfire behavior and restoring ecological conditions requires a landscape-scale approach to treatments (Addington et al., 2018). Most of the priority treatment units fall on privately-owned land and span multiple ownerships, which can create a challenge for designing and implementing treatments. Community-wide commitment and coordination are required to implementing strategic treatments that decrease shared fire risk.
Table 4.b.2. Total area and number of first, second, and third priority treatment units within and
around the EVFPD.
Treatment
priority
First priority Second priority Third priority
Total area 10,738 acres 8,333 acres 17,665 acres
Number of
treatment units
39 44 127
Page 158
99
Figure 4.b.1. Potential priority locations for ecological restoration and/or stand-level fuel treatments based on predicted fire behavior, the
abundance of threatened structures, the likelihood of fires passing through a treatment unit and entering residential areas, presence of non-
survivable roadway conditions, and operability based on slopes. See Appendix B.2. Fuel Treatment Prioritization Methodology for a
description of hillslopes and a full description of our prioritization method.
Page 159
100
4.c. Roadway Fuel Treatment Recommendations
Effective Treatment DesignThe primary objective within roadway treatments is to dramatically reduce fuels to create potentially survivable conditions along roadways during wildfires to allow for safer evacuation. Treatments can follow principles of ecological restoration, but guidelines for shaded fuelbreaks (Dennis, 2005) or even complete removal of trees is sometimes the most appropriate approach, especially in evacuation pinch points. General guidelines for creating and maintaining roadway treatments are provided below. Table 4.c.1 includes pictures of roadways from EVFPD with suggestions for improvement.
•Coordinate with your HOA, Larimer County Road & Bridge, Town of Estes Park StreetDivision, and the Colorado Department of Transportation to learn about regulations andopportunities to mitigate hazards along roadways in your community.
•The width of an effective roadway fuel treatment (distance to the left and right of a road) isdependent on slope, forest type, stand density, and the amount and arrangement of fuels.CSFS recommends that treatments extend 150 to 240 feet off the downhill side of the roadand 100 to 150 feet off the uphill side (Figure 4.c.1). Wider treatments are necessary on thedownhill side on steeper slopes due to the exacerbating effect of slope on fire intensity whenfires travel uphill (Table 4.c.2) (Dennis, 2005).
•Eliminate ladder fuels by removing seedlings, sapling, and tall shrubs to reduce the risk oftorching. Prune branches on remaining trees to at least 10 feet.
•Facilitate fire engine access by removing trees along narrow driveways so the horizontalclearance is at least 20 feet. Prune low-hanging branches of remaining trees so theunobstructed vertical clearance is at least 13 feet and 6 inches.
•Increase the spacing between tree crowns to decrease the risk of active crown fire. Removetrees to create at least 15-foot crown spacing on flat ground. Wider spacing is required onsteeper ground due to the exacerbating impact of slopes on fire behavior (Table 4.b.1).
•Remove trees that are leaning over roads and all dead trees near roads that could fall andblock access during a wildfire.
•Reduce surface fuels to decrease fire intensity and flame lengths. Thinning operationsproduce significant amounts of slash, and rearranging fuels from tree crowns to the surfacewithout reducing the overall fuel load will rarely achieve fuel reduction objectives. Slashdecomposes very slowly in Colorado and proper disposal is essential. See Section 4.d, Slash
Management for guidance on slash management.
•Reduce the height of flashy fuels every year by burning or mowing grasses that are close tothe road.
•Strategically place treatments to provide tactical opportunities for firefighters, increase thechance of survivable conditions along high-use roadways, and facilitate greater firefighteraccess to properties.
•Mitigate potential impacts of tree removal on soil compaction and erosion when treatmentsoccur near streams and riparian ecosystems. The Colorado State Forest Service recommendsstreamside management zones of at least 50 feet (CSFS, 2010).
•Commit to monitoring and maintenance of fuel treatments. Benefits of fuel treatments aretransient and decrease overtime, with treatment “lifespan” depending on forest type,topography, rates of seedling regeneration (which is often influenced by precipitation), andthe number of trees removed during treatments.
•Monitor treatments for invasive, weedy plant species that might require control after foresttreatments.
Page 160
101
•Take pictures of the treatment before and after to help evaluate effectiveness and monitorchanges over time (see Figure 3.a.3 for an example of repeat photographs pre- and post-treatment).Thinning operations often increase surface fuel loads and can fail to achieve fire mitigation objectives if fuels created by the harvest activities (also known as slash) are not addressed (Agee and Skinner, 2005). See Section 4.d. Slash Management for options to mitigate surface fuel loads created by fuel management.
Table 4.c.1. Examples of conditions occurring along roadways in the EVFPD and suggestions for
improvement.
Roadway example Suggestions for
improvement
•Clear treesaway fromroadway ondownhill side
•Remove anyuphill trees thatcould fall andtrap residentsduring anevacuation
•Create space forturnaroundsand pullouts
•Grade roadregularly
•Clear trees andtall shrubsaway from theroadway
•Widen roads inthis area wherepossible
•Grade roadregularly
•Create regularpullouts andturnaroundlocations forengines
•Install mirrorson switchbacks
Page 161
102
Roadway example Suggestions for
improvement
•Clear trees fromnear road onboth sides.
•Thin areassurrounding theroads
•Post clear,reflective roadsigns andaddress signsthroughout
•Createturnarounds forengines
Page 162
103
Roadway example Suggestions for
improvement
•No worknecessary, roadin goodcondition
•Maintainmowed grassesnear road
•No mitigationnecessary; thisroad isaccessible andnot lined byburnablevegetation
Page 163
104
Table 4.c.2. Minimum fuel treatment width uphill and downhill from roads depend on the slope along
the roadway1. Recommendations from the Colorado State Forest Service (Dennis, 2005).
Percent slope (%) Downhill distance
(feet)
Uphill distance
(feet)
Total fuel treatment
width (feet)
0 150 150 300
10 165 140 305
20 180 130 310
30 195 120 315
40 210 110 320
50 225 100 325
60 240 100 340 1Measurements are from the toe of the fill for downhill distances and above the road cut for uphill distances. Distances are measured parallel to flat ground, not along the slope. See Figure 4.c.1 for a visual representation of measurements for roadway fuel treatments.
Figure 4.c.1. Fuel treatment width must be greater on the downhill side of the road due to the
exacerbating impact of slope on fire intensity when fires travel uphill. Figure modified from Bennett et
al., (2010).
Page 164
105
Priority Locations Proactive work to reduce fuel loads along roadways can increase the chance of survival for residents in the horrible instance that they become stranded in their vehicles during a wildfire. Clearing vegetation along narrow roads can also increase access for fire engines and create safer egress for firefighters. In this process, TEA located and prioritized potential locations for fuel treatments along roads, private drives, and driveways within and around the EVFPD (Figure 4.c.2). TEA prioritized treatments along roadway corridors based on predicted roadway survivability under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions and potential evacuation congestion. It is important to reduce fuels along roadways where evacuation could proceed slowly due to congestion. See Appendix B.2. Fuel
Treatment Prioritization Methodology for a full description of our prioritization methods. In total 11 miles of first-priority and 11 miles of second-priority roadways were identified for fuel treatments to protect lives and property (Table 4.c.3). Emergency personnel and forestry professionals should visit these priority locations to assess current conditions and determine specific locations for fuel treatments. Our fire behavior analyses occurred at the scale of 0.2 acres (30 x 30 meters), so locations of priority treatments are approximate. See Section 4.e. Implementation Plan for details about fuel treatments ready for implementation immediately (1-2 years), in the short-term (3-5 years), or in the mid-term (6-10 years).
Table 4.c.3. Total length of first, second, and third priority roads, private drives, and driveways for
roadside fuel treatments within the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and the names of several
roads in each category with longer priority segments.
Treatment
priority
First priority Second priority Third priority
Total length of
road segments
11 miles 11 miles 62 miles
Road names Highway 36 Highway 34 Little Valley Road Highway 66/Tunnel Road Windcliff Drive Eaglecliff Drive Wind River Road
Highway 66 Windcliff Drive Highway 7/St Vrain Avenue Fish Creek Road Pole Hill Road Devils Gulch/Macgregor Avenue
Covers portions of most roads on the outer edges of the district
Page 165
106
Figure 4.c.2. Priority locations for fuel treatments along roadways and driveways in the EVFPD based on potential fire behavior and
evacuation congestion. Our fire behavior analyses occurred at the scale of 0.2 acres (30 x 30 meters), so locations of priority treatments are
approximate. See Appendix B.2. Fuel Treatment Prioritization Methodology for a full description of our prioritization methods.
Page 166
107
4.d. Slash ManagementThinning, harvesting, or other forest management operations often increase surface fuel loads and can fail to achieve fire mitigation objectives if fuels created by the harvest activities (also known as slash) are not addressed (Agee and Skinner, 2005). Slash can include small trees, limbs, bark, and treetops. Slash management is a critical step in the forest management process, and it is unwise, ineffective, and even dangerous to conduct poor-quality fuels treatments that fail to reduce canopy fuels, result in increased surface fuel loads, and do not receive maintenance treatments. Such treatments can lead to a false sense of security among residents and fire suppression personnel (Dennis, 2005), and they divert limited funds away from more effective, strategic projects. Leaving untreated slash within roadway treatments is particularly counterproductive. The risk of active crown fire might be lower after a thinning operation, but untreated slash in fuel treatments can burn at high intensities and endanger the lives of residents stuck on roadways during a wildfire. Slash is easier and cheaper to manage along roadways due to access, and roads can serve as highly effective holding features for controlled burning of grass in the spring and fall and pile burning in the winter. Slash removal in this part of Colorado is quite difficult due to limited biomass and timber industries. Methods for managing slash come with different benefits and challenges (Table 4.d.1). Lop-and-scatter and mastication are common methods; however, these approaches do not remove surface fuels from the site, they only rearrange them. It can take a decade or more for slash to decompose to a point where it no longer poses a significant fire hazard. Broadcast prescribed burning and pile burning are more effective at removing surface fuels.
Broadcast Prescribed Burning Broadcast prescribed burning is the most effective method to manage biomass, generate healthy forest conditions, and reduce wildfire risk. Prescribed burning mimics naturally occurring wildfire, can treat hundreds of acres at a time, consumes much of the surface fuel, and is relatively cost-effective (Fulé et al., 2012; Prichard et al., 2020). Prescribed burning can be conducted safely by highly qualified individuals operating under a carefully constructed burn plan. It is extremely uncommon for prescribed burns to escape containment lines (Weir et al., 2019) and when they do, the wildland fire community soberly reviews those escapes to produce lessons learned and make improvements (Dether, 2005). Agencies have frequently and successfully conducted prescribed burns in WUI areas (Hunter et al., 2007). Where appropriate, it does still need to be a tool to reduce wildfire risks at a landscape scale due to areas of inaccessibility, cost per acre, and the benefits to fire-adapted ecosystems including wildlife habitat (McIver et al., 2013). Prescribed burns can reduce
Prescribed burning can remove surface fuels and
ladder fuels and return ecological processes to
frequent-fire ecosystems. Firefighters who plan and
implement burns must hold rigorous certifications as
set by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group
(photo credit: Daniel Godwin, The Ember Alliance).
Page 167
108
property damage during wildfires because they are so effective at altering forest fuel loads (Loomis et al., 2019). Broadcast burning is carefully regulated in Colorado by the Division of Fire Prevention and Control (DFPC), the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, local sheriff’s offices, and fire departments as outlined in the Colorado Prescribed Burning Act of 2013 and 2019 Colorado Prescribed
Fire Planning and Implementation Policy Guide. Firefighters who plan and conduct prescribed burns are highly qualified under national standards set forth by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group.
Pile Burning Pile burning is different from broadcast burning; the overall complexity of pile burn operations is lower because fire activity is limited to discrete piles, and piles can be burned when snow covers the ground. Burning piles can produce embers, but the risk of these embers igniting spot fires or structures is low. Piles are typically burned on days with snowpack, high fuel moistures, and low to moderate wind speeds. Embers from burn piles travel shorter distances than embers from passive and active crown fires because the burning material is closer to the ground (Evans and Wright, 2017). In the rare occurrence that a wildfire encounters unburned piles, unintended ignition of the pile can exacerbate fire behavior, as was observed during the 2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire in Colorado (Evans and Wright, 2017). It is critical to properly construct piles either by hand or with machines and to burn them as soon as conditions allow (see the 2015 Colorado pile construction guide from the DFPC and CSFS for guidance). Burning older piles is less effective and does not consume as much material because piles become compact and lose fine fuels over time (Wright et al., 2019). Mitigation measures, such as raking the burnt soil and seeding with native plants, are sometimes warranted after pile burning if the soil was completely sterilized by extreme heat or if invasive species are prevalent in the area (Miller, 2015). Individuals must apply for smoke permits from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to burn piles and apply for open burn permits from the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment. In Larimer County, pile burning above 6,000 feet in elevation can only occur between October 1st and May 1st, when winds are less than 10 mph, and there are at least 3 inches of snow on the ground. DFPC administers a certified burner program that provides civil liability protection to individuals planning and leading burns if smoke or flames cause damage. The burn must have been properly planned, approved, and executed to receive liability protection. The rigorous certification program requires individuals to complete 32-hours of training, pass an exam, lead at least three pile burns, complete a task book, and comply with all legal requirements for pile burning in Colorado.
Pile burning can be a safe and effective method to
consume slash created by thinning operations
(photo credit: The Ember Alliance).
Page 168
109
Table 4.d.1. Several methods are available to remove slash created by forest thinning, each with their own benefits and challenges.
Method Description Benefits Challenges
Broadcast
prescribed
burning
Broadcast prescribed burning is generally the most effective method to manage slash. Prescribed burning mimics naturally occurring wildfire, can treat hundreds of acres at a time, consumes much of the surface fuel, and is relatively cost-effective (Fulé et al., 2012; Prichard et al., 2020). Broadcast burning is carefully regulated in Colorado by the Division of Fire Prevention and Control, Department of Public Health and Environment, local sheriff’s offices, and fire departments as outlined in the 2019 Colorado
Prescribed Fire Planning and
Implementation Policy Guide.
Extremely effective at reducing surface, ladder, and canopy fuel loads (Fulé et al., 2012; Prichard et al., 2020). Can restore ecosystem function in frequent-fire forests (Addington et al., 2018; McIver et al., 2013). Generally cheaper than mechanical treatments (Prichard et al., 2020). Can be safely and successfully conducted with proper planning and implementation by qualified firefighters. Can reduce property damage during wildfires by effectively reducing fuel loads (Loomis et al., 2019).
Requires careful planning and tactical decisions to prevent smoke from impacting sensitive populations and roadways. Public concerns about risk from flames, embers, and smoke. Limited opportunities to conduct burns under appropriate fire weather conditions. Limited resource availability to conduct burns during the wildfire season.
Pile
burning
Pile burning involves placing, laying, heaping, or stacking slash into piles that are then ignited to consume the material. Piles can be constructed by hand or with mechanical equipment. See the 2015 Colorado pile
construction guide for guidance on planning, constructing, and burning piles. See regulations for pile burning on the burn permit website for the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment.
Reduces surface fuel loads. Generally cheaper than removing material from the site. Lower complexity than broadcast prescribed burning because fire activity is limited to discrete piles and burns can be conducted when snow covers the ground.
Requires careful planning and tactical decisions to prevent smoke from impacting sensitive populations and roadways. Public concerns about risk from flames, embers, and smoke. Limited opportunities to conduct burns because of requirements for snowpack and wind ventilation.
Page 169
110
Method Description Benefits Challenges
Pile
burning
(cont.)
Can be safe and successful with proper planning and implementation by qualified firefighters. Old and improperly constructed piles can be difficult to ignite and experience poor consumption. Unburnt slash piles can become a hazard during wildfires, especially if loose logs catch fire and roll down slopes. Intense heat can sterilize soils and result in slow recovery of plants (Miller, 2015).
Air curtain
burner
Air curtain burners are machines that burn woody material cleanly in contained space. They typically consist of a box or trench into which slash is loaded and ignited. A strong fan blows a curtain of air down and over the burning material in a way that keeps oxygen flowing through the fire and keeps smoke from escaping out the top. Carbon from the smoke is filtered out of the air and kept inside the box.
Air curtain burners can be used under a much wider range of conditions and locations than pile burning or broadcast burning and can be contained and extinguished quickly and easily. They produce significantly less smoke than open burns and can be placed in accessible locations in the WUI. Air curtain burners can burn more kinds of slash than pile burning, including green wood, lumber, and general yard waste. They can be an acceptable form of burning slash where there is not social license for pile or broadcast burning. Ash from the burner can be redistributed and return nutrients to the ground.
Air curtain burners are expensive to obtain and require professionals to operate them. Slash material needs to be transported from locations throughout the community to where the burner is located. If the ash is not distributed, it won’t return the nutrients to the ground.
Page 170
111
Method Description Benefits Challenges
Community
slash piles
Residents take slash from their property to a designated location that is managed by the community. The community manages the slash for the residents via pile burning or chipping.
Residents are not responsible for burning or chipping their own material. It immediately reduces the fuel loading on their properties. If the material is chipped or burned, it can be redistributed to the community as mulch or ash to return the nutrients to the ground.
The success of this is dependent on the managers of the community slash piles to properly burn the piles. The community piles must have a plan to be burned. If they are left in the community, they can pose a fire risk. If the material is not distributed, it won’t return the nutrients to the ground.
Lop-and-
scatter
Lopping involves cutting limbs, branches, treetops, smaller-diameter trees, or other woody plant residue into shorter lengths, and scattering involves spreading lopped slash so it lies evenly and close to the ground. This method is better suited to areas with low slash accumulations. Lop-
and-scatter should not be used in
defensible space zones 1 or 2 or
along roadways.
Reduces the height of slash relative to untreated slash, therefore increasing the distance between surface and canopy fuels (but not as effectively as broadcast prescribed burning or pile burning). Breaks slash up into smaller pieces and distributes it closer to the forest floor, which can encourage faster decomposition.
Does not remove surface fuels from the site, it just restructures the way fuels are arranged. Can contribute to more intense fire behavior by not addressing increased surface fuel loads created by thinning (Agee and Skinner, 2005; Hunter et al., 2007).
Mastication
or chipping
Mastication involves using specialized machines like a hydro-ax to grind up standing saplings and shrubs and cut slash into medium-sized chips. Chipping involves processing slash through a mechanical chipper to break slash into small chips or shreds.
Mastication can increase the distance between canopy fuels by grinding up standing saplings and shrubs. Can reduce fire intensity and slow rates of spread, enhancing suppression efficacy (Kreye et al., 2014). Breaks slash up into smaller pieces and distributes it closer to the forest floor, which can encourage faster decomposition.
Smoldering fires in masticated and chipped fuels can be difficult to suppress, produce abundant smoke, kill tree roots, and lead to spot fires if high winds reignite masticated fuels and blow them across containment lines (Kreye et al., 2014). Does not remove surface fuels from the site, it just restructures the way fuels are arranged.
Page 171
112
Method Description Benefits Challenges
Mastication
or chipping
(cont.)
Deep layers of masticated and chipped fuels can result in longer periods of smoldering when burned and have detrimental impacts on plant regeneration (Jain et al., 2018; Kreye et al., 2014).
Reduces the height of slash relative to untreated slash, therefore increasing the distance between surface and canopy fuels (but not as effectively as broadcast prescribed burning or pile burning). Can produce landscape mulch to be used offsite.
Masticated and chipped fuels are unlike natural surface fuels in terms of their shape, depth, and highly compact nature (Kreye et al., 2014). Masticated and chipped fuels can impede plant regeneration, particularly when the depth of masticated and chipped fuels exceeds 4 inches (Jain et al., 2018).
Utilizing
material for
firewood
Wood leftover from thinning operations can be used as firewood for home fireplaces or outdoor fire pits. Firewood needs to be “seasoned” before use, which involves splitting the wood into usable logs and drying it for 6-18 months so it burns cleanly and doesn’t produce much smoke.
Firewood that is aging or ready for
use should not be stored in
defensible space zones 1 or 2.
Can be an inexpensive way to reduce fuel loading on the property. Locally sourced firewood reduces the chances of introducing non-native insects and diseases to the ecosystem that cause outbreaks and damage forest health. Homeowners can often manage preparing firewood themselves.
Improperly stored firewood can create hazardous conditions near structures during a wildfire event. While firewood is being stored, it does not reduce the fuel load of the land. Firewood does not use all the woody material from felled trees. Needles, bark, and small branches need to be dealt with separately.
Hauling
material
away
Hauling material away involves loading the thinned fuels on trucks and removing them completely from the site. The materials can be taken to mills to be turned into boards, taken to yard waste disposal sites where it is composted and turned into garden soil or mulch, or taken to a landfill. Wherever it is taken, the material is completely removed from the site.
This is an extremely effective way to reduce fuel loading. The fuel is completely removed, not just rearranged. The fuel load decrease is immediate. There is no waiting period for ground fuels to decompose or become unburnable.
Not feasible in areas far from roads. Can spread insects like mountain pine beetles and emerald ash borer to other locations. This can be expensive and difficult depending on the size and location of the project.
Page 172
113
Method Description Benefits Challenges
Mowing /
grazing
Mowing involves using equipment or grazing animals to trim the height of grasses and forbs. Some equipment can mow down shrubs and small saplings. Mowing is primarily used to reduce flashy fuels in defensible space zones 1 and 2 and along roadways.
Can decrease flame length by reducing the height and volume of fine flashy fuels (Harper, 2011). Can stimulate the regeneration and growth of some native plants.
Does not address woody surface fuels. Labor intensive and cannot be implemented across large areas or in areas with poor access. Requires annual maintenance. Can spread invasive plant species, decrease the regeneration of some native plants, and cause soil compaction (Kerns et al., 2011).
Page 173
114
4.e. Implementation PlanThe following implementation plan was developed by the Core Team and project partners based on the CWPP treatment prioritization, ongoing fuel treatment work in and around the EVFPD, potential funding sources, and other considerations that influence the feasibility of treatment implementation. The relative importance and feasibility of treatments is reflected in their timeline—partners aim to conduct treatments for immediate action in the next 1-2 years, short-term treatments are targeted for the next 3-4 years, and mid-term projects for the for the next 5-10 years. Mid-term projects will require more coordination, funding, and other enabling conditions before implementation can begin.
Figure 4.e.1. Map of all the priority project areas in the EVFPD. Individual project areas are detailed
in the following pages.
Page 174
115
Stand-Level Fuel Treatments
Prospect Mountain Project Area
Description: 1,042 acres of top-priority treatment in the center of the district. This area contains at least one one-way-in/one-way-out neighborhood, and is directly south of downtown Estes Park. This unit is primarily dense mixed conifer forests on northern aspects and ponderosa pine woodland on southern aspects. There are significant amounts of juniper throughout.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create healthy forest conditions that are more resistant and resilient to fire. The second goal is to protect the communication towers on Prospect Mountain, Estes Park Hospital, Crags Lodge, and Clatworthy Place.
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and pile burning. Off-site removal of junipers and other shrubs across the unit is important. Linked defensible space between landowners is necessary.
Priority: Immediate action, work starting within 1-2 years
Lead and support
organizations:
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition, Town of Estes Park, Estes Valley Fire
Protection District, Estes Park Health
Page 175
116
Little Valley Project Area
Description: 5,364 acres of first-priority treatment units in a fire-prone, one-way-in/one-way-out neighborhood on the west side of the district. This area covers part of one of the most concerning parts of the district. Vegetation is dense and access is limited with a one-lane exit road for all residents. The Kruger Rock fire of 2021 burned within the unit (see the boundary on the map) and forced evacuations for all residents in the area. This unit is primarily mixed conifer, getting denser as you move south. There are lots of lodgepole in the southern side of the unit.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create healthy forest conditions that are more resistant and resilient to fire.
Treatment type: Forest thinning in ponderosa and mixed conifer habitat, patch cuts in lodgepole-dominated habitat.
Priority: Immediate action, work starting withing 1-2 years
Lead and support
organizations:
US Forest Service, Larimer Conservation District, Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Page 176
117
Gianttrack Project Area
Description: 1,278 acres in a fire-prone are with one-way-in/one-way-out neighborhoods on the west side of the district. This project covers part of one of the most concerning parts of the district. Both the Fern Lake and East Troublesome fires threatened to leave the boundary of RMNP and enter the district in this area, and it has a one-lane exit road with lots of visitor lodging along the route. This unit is primarily mixed conifer, with lodgepole pine on the northern aspects and ponderosa pine in the flatter areas. There is some aspen in the southeast corner and montane shrublands throughout.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create healthy forest conditions that are more resistant and resilient to fire. The second goal is to protect the original site of the Dunraven Inn, a locally significant historic site.
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and pile burning
Priority: Short-term, work starting in 3-4 years
Lead and support
organizations:
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition, Rocky Mountain National Park, US Forest Service
Page 177
118
Windcliff Project Area
Description: 3,760 acres covering at least two fire-prone, one-way-in/one-way-out neighborhoods on the southwest side of the district. This area covers part of one of the most concerning parts of the district. Both the Fern Lake and East Troublesome fires threatened to enter the district in this area, and it has a one-lane exit road with visitor lodging. This unit is primarily mixed conifer and aspen. Canopy density varies greatly and some thinning projects have already been completed.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create healthy forest conditions that are more resistant and resilient to fire. The second goal is to protect the electrical substation at East Portal, the Town’s water treatment plant, and YMCA historical resources. The third goal is to connect fuels treatments on the southeast side of RMNP that protect residents and create tactical firefighting opportunities.
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and pile burning in denser mixed conifer forests, broadcast burns where appropriate, continue follow up treatments
Priority: Short-term, work starting in 3-4 years
Lead and support
organizations:
Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Valley Fire Protection District, US Forest Service, YMCA of the Rockies, Town of Estes Park
Page 178
119
North Estes Project Area
Description: 2,091 acres of flashy, potentially fast-moving fuels in a south-facing area on the northwest side of the district. This area covers a popular residential area in the North End and part of downtown. This unit is primarily mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and montane shrublands and grasslands. It is relatively flat and has fine, flashy fuels that could create fast-moving fires across the area.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create healthy forest conditions that are more resistant and resilient to fire. The second goal is to protect the downtown area, the Good Samaritan facility, the Lifelong Learning childcare center, the Stanley Historic District, and Wind Ridge historic site. The third goal is to create tactical firefighting operations for fires threatening to enter Estes Park from Black Canyon
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and pile burning in forested areas, and broadcast burning in grasslands and ponderosa pine woodlands
Priority: Mid-term, begin work in 5-10 years
Lead and support
organizations:
Larimer Conservation District, MacGregor Ranch, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
Page 179
120
Rams Horn Project Area
Description: 650 acres in a fire-prone on the west side of the district. Some USFS land and at least one one-way-in/one-way-out neighborhood. This area covers a northeast facing hillslope with homes at the bottom of the slope and dangerous fuels to the west of them. This unit is primarily mixed conifer, with aspen stands at the west end.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create healthy forest conditions that are more resistant and resilient to fire.
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and pile burning in mixed conifer stands
Priority: Mid-term, begin work in 5-10 years
Lead and support
organizations:
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition, US Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation
Page 180
121
Roadside Fuel Treatments
Spur 66 and WIldcliff Road Project Area
Description: 2 miles of first- and second-priority roadway along southern Spur 66/Tunnel Road. 2 miles of first-priority roads in Windcliff, about 0.5 miles of first priority roads in YMCA properties. These roads occur in one of the most concerning parts of the district. Both the Fern Lake and East Troublesome fires threatened to leave the boundary of RMNP and enter the district in this area, and it has a one-lane exit road with lots of visitor lodging along the route.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create survivable road conditions for residents evacuating. The second goal is to create a holding feature that can potentially be used in tactical operations.
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and slash removal
Page 181
122
Little Valley Road Project Area
Description: 1.5 miles of first-priority roadway along Little Valley Drive. Little Valley is a community with extreme relative fire risk and only one road for ingress and egress.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create survivable road conditions for residents evacuating and responder ingress at the same time.
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and slash removal
Page 182
123
Highway 36 Road Project Area
Description: 2 miles of first-priority roadway from the edge of town and southeast, 2.5 miles further southeast to the edge of the EVFPD along a primary evacuation route, Highway 36. This project can be pursued in coordination with other road work where the highway may be closed to traffic and work can safely be completed.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create survivable road conditions for residents evacuating. The second goal is to create a holding feature that can potentially be used in tactical operations.
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and slash removal
Page 183
124
Highway 34 Road Project Area
Description: 1 mile of first-priority roadway at the mouth of the Thompson Valley within along Highway 34, a primary evacuation route. This work would be more difficult to complete than work along Highway 36 due to the steep, narrow canyon and constant traffic. This project can be pursued in coordination with other road work where the highway may be closed to traffic and work can safely be completed.
Treatment
objectives:
The first goal is to create survivable road conditions for residents evacuating.
Treatment type: Mechanical thinning and slash removal
Page 184
125
4.f. The Future of the CWPP and Implementation PlanThe CSFS requires CWPPs to be updated on a regular basis. It is recommended to update them every five years, at minimum. CWPPs greater than 10 years old are outdated and can exclude communities from successfully applying for competitive funding opportunities. The update to this plan can either be a preface to this document or a new document that integrates with this one. The update to this plan must include:
•A description of progress made since the CWPP was created
•A description of demographic changes in the community and other important infrastructurechanges.
•Identification of new risks in the community.
o Updated risk analysis if major changes have happened between revisions.
•Updated and prioritized projects for the community with maps and descriptionsThe suggested review process by CSFS involves: •Reviewing the existing CWPP•Engaging stakeholders that have a vested interest in the plan•Hosting collaborative meetings•Documenting completed projects and demographic and landscape changes•Developing updated wildfire risk reduction priorities•Updating maps• Distributing updated drafts to key stakeholders for review and input prior to final approval•Finalizing with core team signatures and submit to CSFS State Office
Page 185
126
5.Glossary
20-foot wind speed: The rate of sustained wind over a 10-minute period at 20 feet above thedominant vegetation. The wind adjustment factor to convert surface winds to 20-foot wind speedsdepends on the type and density of surface fuels slowing down windspeeds closer to the ground(NWCG, 2021a).
Active crown fire: Fire in which a solid flame develops in the crowns of trees and advances from tree crown to tree crown independently of surface fire spread (NWCG, 2018b).
ArcCASPER: An intelligent capacity-aware evacuation routing algorithm used in the geospatial information system mapping program ArcMap to model evacuation times and congestion based on roadway capacity, road speed, number of cars evacuating per address, and the relationship between roadways congestion and reduction in travel speed (Shahabi and Wilson, 2014).
Basal area: Cross sectional area of a tree measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground). Used as a method of measuring the density of a forest stand in units such as ft2/acre (USFS, 2021b).
Broadcast prescribed burning (aka, prescribed burn, controlled burn): A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and regulations to meet specific objectives (NWCG, 2018b).
Canopy base height (CBH): The average height from the ground to a forest stand's canopy bottom. CBH is the lowest height in a stand at which there is sufficient forest canopy fuel to propagate fire vertically into the canopy. Ladder fuels such as lichen, dead branches, and small trees are incorporated into measurements of CBH. Forests with lower canopy base heights have a higher risk of torching (NWCG, 2019).
Canopy fuels: The stratum of fuels containing the crowns of the tallest vegetation (living or dead), usually above 20 feet (NWCG, 2018b).
Canopy: The more or less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by adjacent tree crowns (USFS, 2021b).
Canyon: A long, deep, very steep-sided topographic feature primarily cut into bedrock and often with a perennial stream at the bottom (NRCS, 2017).
Chain: Chains are commonly used in forestry and fire management as a measure of distance. 1 chain is equivalent to 66 feet. Chains were used for measurements in the initial public land survey of the U.S. in the mid-1800s.
Chute: A steep V-shaped drainage that is not as deep as a canyon but is steeper than a draw. Normal upslope air flow is funneled through a chute and increases in speed, causing upslope preheating from convective heat, thereby exacerbating fire behavior (NWCG, 2008).
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP): A plan developed in the collaborative framework established by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council and agreed to by state, Tribal, and local governments, local fire departments, other stakeholders, and federal land management agencies in the vicinity of the planning area. CWPPs identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments, recommend the types and methods of treatment on Federal and non-Federal land that will protect one or more at-risk communities and essential infrastructure, and recommend measures to reduce structural ignitability throughout the at-risk community. A CWPP may address issues such as wildfire response, hazard mitigation, community preparedness, and structure protection (NWCG, 2018b).
Page 186
127
Conduction: A type of heat transfer that occurs when objects of different temperatures contact each other directly and heat conducts from the warmer object to the cooler one until their temperatures equalize. During wildfires, flames in contact with a metal structure rapidly conduct heat into the rest of the structure. Wood is a poor conductor of heat, as illustrated by the fact that a wooden handle on a hot frying pan remains cool enough to be held by bare hands. Conduction has a limited effect on the spread of fires in wildland fuels.
Convection: A type of heat transfer that occurs when a fluid, such as air or a liquid, is heated and travels away from the source, carrying heat along with it. Air around and above a wildfire expands as it is heated, causing it to become less dense and rise into a hot convection column. Cooler air flows in to replace the rising gases, and in some cases, this inflow of air creates local winds that further fan the flames. Hot convective gases move up slope and dry out fuels ahead of the flaming front, lowering their ignition temperature and increasing their susceptibility to ignition and fire spread. Homes located at the top of a slope can become preheated by convective heat transfer. Convection columns from wildfires carry sparks and embers aloft.
Crown (aka, tree crown): Upper part of a tree, including the branches and foliage (USFS, 2021b).
Defensible space: The area around a building where vegetation, debris, and other types of combustible fuels have been treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the spread of fire and reduce exposure to radiant heat and direct flame. It is encouraged that residents develop defensible space so that during a wildfire their home can stand alone without relying upon limited firefighter resources due to the great reduction in hazards they have undertaken. The Colorado State Forest Service defines three zones of defensible space: zone 1 (0 to 30 feet from a home), zone 2 (30 to 100 feet from a home), and zone 3 (greater than 100 feet from a home). Some organizations further divide zone 1 into zone 1a (0 to 5 feet from a home) (CSFS, 2021).
Direct attack: Any treatment applied directly to burning fuel such as wetting, smothering, or chemically quenching the fire or by physically separating the burning from unburned fuel (NWCG, 2018b).
Draws: Topographic features created by a small, natural watercourse cutting into unconsolidated materials. Draws generally have a broader floor and more gently sloping sides than a ravine or gulch (NRCS, 2017).
Ecological restoration: The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been damaged, degraded, or destroyed (SER, 2004). In ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range, ecological restoration involves transforming dense forests into a mosaic of single trees, clumps of trees, and meadows similar to historic forests that were maintained by wildfires and very resilient to them (Addington et al., 2018).
Ember: Small, hot, and carbonaceous particles. The term “firebrand” is also used to connote a small, hot, and carbonaceous particle that is airborne and carried for some distance in an airstream (Babrauskas, 2018).
Ember cast: The process of embers/firebrands/flaming sparks being transported downwind beyond the main fire and starting new spot fires and/or igniting structures. Short-range ember cast is when embers are carried by surface winds and long-range ember cast is when embers are carried high into the convection column and fall out downwind beyond the main fire. The number of embers reaching an area decreases exponentially with distance traveled, and the likelihood of structure ignition increases with the number of embers landing on receptive fuels (Caton et al., 2016). The distance used to differentiate short-range and long-range ember cast varies among sources. NWCG (2018b) classifies short-range ember cast as embers that travel less than 0.25 miles and long-range ember
Page 187
128
cast as embers that travel more than 0.25 miles, whereas Beverly et al., (2010) use a threshold of 0.06 miles. We use the Beverly et al., (2010) definition in this CWPP.
Extended attack: Actions taken on a wildfire that has exceeded the initial response (NWCG, 2018b).
Fire behavior: The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography. Characteristics of fire behavior include rate of spread, fire intensity, fire severity, and fire behavior category (NWCG, 2018b).
Fire history: A general term referring to the historic fire occurrence in a specific geographic area (NWCG, 2018b).
Fire intensity (aka, fireline intensity): (1) The product of the available heat of combustion per unit of ground and the rate of spread of the fire, interpreted as the heat released per unit of time for each unit length of fire edge, or (2) the rate of heat release per unit time per unit length of fire front (NWCG, 2018b).
Fire regime: Description of the patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, and severity in a specific geographic area or ecosystem. A fire regime is a generalization based on fire histories at individual sites. Fire regimes can often be described as cycles because some parts of the histories usually get repeated, and the repetitions can be counted and measured, such as fire return interval (NWCG, 2018b).
Fire severity. Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; loosely, a product of fire intensity and residence time (NWCG, 2018b). Fire severity is determined by visually inspecting or measuring the effects that wildfire has on soil, plants, fuel, and watersheds. Fire severity is often classified as low-severity (less than 20% of overstory trees killed) and high severity (more than 70% of overstory trees kills). Moderate-severity or intermediate fire severity falls between these two extremes (Agee, 1996b). Specific cutoffs for fire severity classifications differ among researchers. For example, Sherriff et al. (2014) define high-severity fires as those killing more than 80% of overstory trees.
Fire weather conditions: Weather conditions that influence fire ignition, behavior, and suppression, for example, wind speed, wind direction, temperature, relative humidity, and fuel moisture (NWCG, 2018b).
Firebreak: A natural or constructed barrier where all vegetation and organic matter have been removed down to bare mineral soil. Firebreaks are used to stop or slow wildfires or to provide a control line from which to work (Bennett et al., 2010; NWCG, 2018b).
FireFamilyPlus: A software application that provides summaries of fire weather, fire danger, and climatology for one or more weather stations extracted from the National Interagency Fire Management Integrated Database (NWCG, 2018b).
Fireline: (1) The part of a containment or control line that is scraped or dug to mineral soil, or (2) the area within or adjacent to the perimeter of an uncontrolled wildfire of any size in which action is being taken to control fire (NWCG, 2018b).
Flame length: The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base of the flame (generally the ground surface). Flame length is measured on an angle when the flames are tilted due to effects of wind and slope. Flame length is an indicator of fire intensity (NWCG, 2018b).
FlamMap: A fire analysis desktop application that can simulate potential fire behavior and spread under constant environmental conditions (weather and fuel moisture) (Finney, 2006). FlamMap is one of the most common models used by land managers to assist with fuel treatment prioritization, and it is often used by fire behavior analysts during wildfire incidents.
Page 188
129
Fuel model: A stylized set of fuel bed characteristics used as input for a variety of wildfire modeling applications to predict fire behavior (Scott and Burgan, 2005).
Fuel reduction: Manipulation, combustion, or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage from wildfires and resistance to control (NWCG, 2018b).
Fuelbreak: A natural or manmade change in fuel characteristics which affects fire behavior so that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled. Fuelbreaks differ from firebreaks due to the continued presence of vegetation and organic soil. Trees in shaded fuelbreaks are thinned and pruned to reduce the fire potential but enough trees are retained to make a less favorable microclimate for surface fires (NWCG, 2018b).
Fuels mitigation / management: The act or practice of controlling flammability and reducing resistance to control of wildland fuels through mechanical, chemical, biological, or manual means, or by fire, in support of land management objectives (NWCG, 2018b).
Fuels: Any combustible material, most notably vegetation in the context of wildfires, but also including petroleum-based products, homes, and other man-made materials that might combust during a wildfire in the wildland-urban interface. Wildland fuels are described as 1-, 10-, 100-, and 1000-hour fuels. One-hour fuels are dead vegetation less than 0.25 inch in diameter (e.g., dead grass), ten-hour fuels are dead vegetation 0.25 inch to 1 inch in diameter (e.g., leaf litter and pine needles), one hundred-hour fuels are dead vegetation 1 inch to 3 inches in diameter (e.g., fine branches), and one thousand-hour fuels are dead vegetation 3 inches to 8 inches in diameter (e.g., large branches). Fuels with larger diameters have a smaller surface area to volume ratio and take more time to dry out or become wetter as relative humidity in the air changes (NWCG, 2018b).
Handcrews: A number of individuals that have been organized and trained and are supervised principally for operational assignments on an incident (NWCG, 2018b).
Handline: Fireline constructed with hand tools (NWCG, 2018b).
Hazards: Any real or potential condition that can cause injury, illness, or death of personnel, or damage to, or loss of equipment or property (NWCG, 2018b).
Home hardening: Steps taken to improve the chance of a home and other structures withstanding ignition by radiant and convective heat and direct contact with flames or embers. Home hardening involves reducing structure ignitability by changing building materials, installation techniques, and structural characteristics of a home (California Fire Safe Council, 2020). A home can never be made fireproof, but home hardening practices in conjunction with creating defensible space increases the chance that a home will survive a wildfire.
Home ignition zone (HIZ): The characteristics of a home and its immediate surroundings within 100 feet of structures. Conditions in the HIZ principally determine home ignition potential from radiant heat, convective heat, and embercast (NWCG, 2018b).
Ignition-resistant building materials: Materials that resist ignition or sustained flaming combustion. Materials designated ignition-resistant have passed a standard test that evaluates flame spread on the material (Quarles, 2019; Quarles and Pohl, 2018).
Incident Response Pocket Guide (IRPG): Document that establishes standards for wildland fire incident response. The guide provides critical information on operational engagement, risk management, all hazard response, and aviation management. It provides a collection of best practices that have evolved over time within the wildland fire service (NWCG, 2018a).
Indirect attack: A method of suppression in which the control line is located some considerable distance away from the fire's active edge. Generally done in the case of a fast-spreading or high-
Page 189
130
intensity fire and to utilize natural or constructed firebreaks or fuelbreaks and favorable breaks in the topography. The intervening fuel is usually backfired; but occasionally the main fire is allowed to burn to the line, depending on conditions (NWCG, 2018b).
Initial attack: An aggressive action to put the fire out by the first resources to arrive, consistent with firefighter and public safety and values to be protected (NWCG, 2018b).
Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating: ISO ratings are provided to fire departments and insurance companies to reflect how prepared a community is for fires in terms of local fire department capacity, water supply, and other factors (see more information online at https://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/fsrs/).
Ladder fuels: Fuels that provide vertical continuity between strata, thereby allowing fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns of trees with relative ease. Ladder fuels help initiate torching and crowning and assure the continuation of crowning. Ladder fuels can include small trees, brush, and lower limbs of large trees (NWCG, 2018b).
LANDFIRE: A national program spearheaded by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide spatial products characterizing vegetation, fuels, fire regimes, and disturbances across the entire United States. LANDFIRE products serve as standardized inputs for fire behavior modeling. More information about the program is available online at https://www.landfire.gov/.
Lop-and-scatter: Cutting (lopping) branches, tops, and unwanted boles into shorter lengths and spreading that debris evenly over the ground such that resultant logging debris will lie close to the ground (NWCG, 2018b).
Mastication: A slash management technique that involves using a machine to grind, chop, or shred vegetation into small pieces that then become surface fuel (Jain et al., 2018).
Mitigation actions: Actions that are implemented to reduce or eliminate (mitigate) risks to persons, property, or natural resources. These actions can be undertaken before and during a wildfire. Actions before a fire include fuel treatments, vegetation modification in the home ignition zone, and structural changes to increase the chance a structure will survive a wildfire (aka, home hardening). Mitigation actions during a wildfire include mechanical and physical tasks, specific fire applications, and limited suppression actions, such as constructing firelines and creating "black lines" through the use of controlled burnouts to limit fire spread and behavior (NWCG, 2018b).
Mosaic landscape: A heterogeneous area composed of different communities or a cluster of different ecosystems that are similar in function and origin in the landscape. It consists of ‘patches’ arranged in a ‘matrix’, where the patches are the different ecosystems and the matrix is how they are arranged over the land (Hansson et al., 1995).
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG): An operational group established in 1976 through a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior to coordinate programs of the participating agencies to avoid wasteful duplication and to provide a means of constructively working together. NWCG provides a formalized system and agreed upon standards of training, equipment, aircraft, suppression priorities, and other operational areas. More information about NWCG is available online at https://www.nwcg.gov/.
Noncombustible building materials: Material of which no part will ignite or burn when subjected to fire or heat, even after exposure to moisture or the effects of age. Materials designated noncombustible have passed a standard test (Quarles, 2019; Quarles and Pohl, 2018).
Page 190
131
Non-survivable road: Portions of roads adjacent to areas with predicted flame lengths greater than 8 feet under severe fire weather conditions. Potentially non-survivable flame lengths start at 8 feet according to the Haul Chart, which is a standard tool used by firefighters to relate flame lengths to tactical decisions (NWCG, 2019). Drivers stopped or trapped on these roadways would have a low chance of surviving radiant heat from fires of this intensity. Non-survivable conditions are more common along roads that are lined with thick forests, particularly with trees that have limbs all the way to the ground and/or abundant saplings and seedlings.
Overstory: Layer of foliage in a forest canopy, particularly tall mature trees that rise above the shorter immature understory trees (USFS, 2021b).
Passive crown fire: Fire that arises when surface fire ignites the crowns of trees or groups of trees (aka, torching). Torching trees reinforce the rate of spread, but passive crown fires travel along with surface fires (NWCG, 2018b).
Pile burning: Piling slash resulting from logging or fuel management activities into manageable piles that are subsequently burned during safe and approved burning conditions (NWCG, 2018b).
Radiation: A method of heat transfer by short-wavelength energy through air (aka, infrared radiation). Surfaces that absorb radiant heat warm up and radiate additional short-wavelength energy themselves. Radiant heat is what you feel when sitting in front of a fireplace. Radiant heat preheats and dries fuels adjacent to the fire, which initiates combustion by lowering the fuel’s ignition temperature. The amount of radiant heat received by fuels increases as the fire front approaches. Radiant heat is a major concern for the safety of wildland firefighters and can ignite homes without direct flame contact.
Rate of spread: The relative activity of a fire in extending its horizontal dimensions. It is expressed as rate of increase of the total perimeter of the fire, as rate of forward spread of the fire front, or as rate of increase in area, depending on the intended use of the information. Rate of spread is usually expressed in chains or acres per hour for a specific period in the fire's history (NWCG, 2018b).
Ravine: Topographic features created by streams cutting into unconsolidated materials and that are narrow, steep-sided, and commonly V-shaped. Ravines are steeper than draws (NRCS, 2017).
Red card (aka, incident qualifications card): A card issued to persons showing their incident management and trainee qualifications to fill specified fire management positions in an incident management organization (NWCG, 2018b).
Remote Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS): A weather station that transmits weather observations via satellite to the Wildland Fire Management Information system (NWCG, 2018b).
Risk: (1) The chance of fires starting as determined by the presence and activity of causative agents (e.g., lightning), (2) a chance of suffering harm or loss, or (3) a causative agent (NWCG, 2018b).
Roadway fuel treatment: A natural or manmade change in fuel characteristics along a roadway which affects fire behavior so that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled, survivable conditions with shorter flame lengths are more likely during a wildfire, and firefighter access is enhanced (NWCG, 2018b).
Saddle: A low point on a ridge or interfluve, generally a divide or pass between the heads of streams flowing in opposite directions. The presence of a saddle funnels airflow and increases windspeed, thereby exacerbating fire behavior (NRCS, 2017).
Safety zones: An area cleared of flammable materials used by firefighters for escape in the event the line is outflanked or spot fires outside the control line render the line unsafe. In firing operations, crews progress so as to maintain a safety zone close at hand, allowing the fuels inside the control line
Page 191
132
to be consumed before going ahead. Safety zones may also be constructed as integral parts of fuelbreaks; they are greatly enlarged areas which can be used with relative safety by firefighters without the use of a fire shelter (NWCG, 2018b).
Shaded fuelbreak: Fuel treatments in timbered areas where the trees on the break are thinned and pruned to reduce fire potential yet enough trees are retained to make a less favorable microclimate for surface fires (NWCG, 2018b).
Slash: Debris resulting from natural events such as wind, fire, or snow breakage or from human activities such as road construction, logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting. Slash includes logs, bark, branches, stumps, treetops, and broken understory trees or brush (NWCG, 2018b).
Smoldering combustion: The combined processes of dehydration, pyrolysis, solid oxidation, and scattered flaming combustion and glowing combustion, which occur after the flaming combustion phase of a fire; often characterized by large amounts of smoke consisting mainly of tars (NWCG, 2018b).
Spot fire: Fire ignited outside the perimeter of the main fire by an ember (NWCG, 2018b). Spot fires are particularly concerning because they can form a new flaming front, move in unanticipated directions, trap firefighters between two fires, and require additional firefighting resources to control.
Spotting: Behavior of a fire producing sparks or embers that are carried by the wind and start new fires beyond the zone of direct ignition by the main fire (NWCG, 2018b).
Stand: An area of forest that possesses sufficient uniformity in species composition, age, size, structural configuration, and spatial arrangement to be distinguishable from adjacent areas (USFS, 2021b).
Structure protection: The protection of homes or other structures from an active wildland fire (NWCG, 2018b).
Structure triage: The process of inspecting and classifying structures according to their defensibility or non-defensibility, based on fire behavior, location, construction, and adjacent fuels. Structure triage involves a rapid assessment of a dwelling and its immediate surroundings to determine its potential to escape damage by an approaching wildland fire. Triage factors include the fuels and vegetation in the yard and adjacent to the structure, roof environment, decking and siding materials, prevailing winds, topography, etc. (NWCG, 2018b). There are four categories used during structure triage: (1) defensible – prep and hold, (2) defensible – stand alone, (3) non-defensible – prep and leave, and (4) non-defensible – rescue drive-by. The most important feature differentiating defensible and non-defensible structures is the presence of an adequate safety zone for firefighters (NWCG 2018a). Firefighters conduct structure triage and identify defensible homes during wildfire incidents. Categorization of homes are not pre-determined; triage decisions depend on fire behavior and wind speed due to their influence on the size of safety zones needed to keep firefighters safe.
Suppression: The work and activity used to extinguish or limit wildland fire spread (NWCG, 2018b).
Surface fire: Fire that burns fuels on the ground, which include dead branches, leaves, and low vegetation (NWCG, 2018b).
Surface fuels: Fuels lying on or near the ground, consisting of leaf and needle litter, dead branch material, downed logs, bark, tree cones, and low stature living plants (NWCG, 2018b).
Task book: A document listing the performance requirements (competencies and behaviors) for a position in a format that allows for the evaluation of individual (trainee) performance to determine if an individual is qualified in the position. Successful performance of tasks, as observed and recorded
Page 192
133
by a qualified evaluator, will result in a recommendation to the trainee's home unit that the individual be certified in the position (NWCG, 2018b).
Torching: The burning of the foliage of a single tree or a small group of trees from the bottom up. Torching is the type of fire behavior that occurs during passive crown fires and can initiate active crown fires if tree canopies are close to each other (NWCG, 2018b).
Values at risk: Aspects of a community or natural area considered valuable by an individual or community that could be negatively impacted by a wildfire or wildfire operations. These values can vary by community and include diverse characteristics such as homes, specific structures, water supply, power grids, natural and cultural resources, community infrastructure, and other economic, environmental, and social values (NWCG, 2018b).
Watershed (aka, drainage basin or catchment): An area of land where all precipitation falling in that area drains to the same location in a creek, stream, or river. Smaller watersheds come together to create basins that drain into bays and oceans (NOAA, 2021).
Wildfire-resistant building materials: A general term used to describe a material and design feature that can reduce the vulnerability of a building to ignition from wind-blown embers or other wildfire exposures (Quarles, 2019; Quarles and Pohl, 2018).
Wildland-urban interface (WUI): Any area where the built environment meets wildfire-prone areas—places where wildland fire can move between natural vegetation and the built environment and result in negative impacts on the community (Forge, 2018).
Page 193
134
6. Index of Figures
Figure 1.a.1. Elements of a holistic and actionable CWPP. ................................................................................... 7
Figure 1.c.1. Interactions between fuels, weather, and topography dictate fire behavior (source: California State University). .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 1.c.2. Steep slopes and topographic features such as narrow canyons exacerbate fire behavior and fire effects. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 1.c.3. Active crown fire, passive crown fire, and surface fire are common types of fire behavior. .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 1.c.4. The wildland-urban interface exists along a continuum of wildland to urban densities. (Source: Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire). ....................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.a.1. Boundary of Estes Valley Fire Protection District in Larimer County, Colorado. (Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs and OpenStreetMap)............................................................................... 19
Figure 2.a.2. Publicly owned land across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Protected Areas Database of the United States). ............................................................... 20
Figure 2.a.3. Map of vegetation across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. (Source: Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Forest Atlas). ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 2.a.4. The Estes Valley Fire Protection District is primarily covered with mixed conifer stands that are comprised of any of the following: white fir, subalpine fir, ponderosa pine, bristlecone pine, limber pine, Douglas-fir, Rocky Mountain juniper, Engelmann spruce, and blue spruce. The species present in conifer-hardwood are bristlecone pine, limber pine, and quaking aspen, with Rocky Mountain Juniper and Douglas-fir also commonly present. Colors correspond to the symbol legend in
Figure 2.a.3. (Source: Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Forest Atlas). ........................................... 22
Figure 2.a.5. Non-residential values at risk to wildfire within and around the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. (Sources: CO Department of Public Health and Environment, CO Division of Oil and Public Safety, Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, and feedback from the CWPP Core Team). ................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 2.a.6. Non-residential values at risk to wildfire within and around the EVFPD (focused on downtown Estes Park). ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 2.b.1. Ponderosa pine forests along the Colorado Front Range historically experienced frequent fires every 7-50 years and mixed-conifer forests experienced semi-frequent fires every 20 to >100 years, resulting in less dense forest conditions than we see today. Gambel oak experienced variable fire regimes, but likely more frequent that what they see today, resulting in more frequent regrowth. (Source: Colorado Forest Restoration Institute). ................................................................................ 26
Figure 2.b.2. Tree densities in many ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests are higher today than they were historically in part due to fire suppression, as demonstrated by these paired photographs taken nearly 100 years apart on the east side of downtown Estes Park. Credit: Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park: Then & Now; Revised Edition, copyright 2019 Estes Park Museum Friends Press, courtesy Estes Park Museum. ............................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 2.b.3. Top: Red flag days and wildfire ignitions by year from 2006 to 2017. Bottom: Total number of red flag days in each month from 2006 to 2020. March, April, June, and October and the most common months for experiencing red flag weather. Data on historical red flag warnings were available for 2006 to 2020 and data on fire ignitions were available for 2003 to 2017. (Sources: Iowa State University, Iowa Environmental Mesonet, and Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Forest Atlas). .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2.b.4. Fire starts in and around the Estes Valley Fire Protection District from 2000 to 2017. 92% of ignitions were contained to one acre or smaller. (Source: Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Forest Atlas). ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
Page 194
135
Figure 2.b.5. Extent of 2020 wildfires along the Colorado Front Range relative to the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. The East Troublesome Fire burned within a quarter mile of the EVFPD and prompted valley-wide evacuations in 2020. (Source: National Interagency Fire Center). .................... 31
Figure 2.c.1. Locations of forest management treatments conducted by the USFS, RMNP, CSFS, and private landowners in and around the EVFPD. RMNP has completed extensive fuels treatments inside the park at the eastern border to assist in protecting the town of Estes Park. Wildfires that occurred in the past 10 years are included: Cameron Peak, East Troublesome, Fern Lake, and Kruger Rock (Source: Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, data available through 2018; U.S. Forest Service, data available through 2021; National Park Service, data available through 2018). .......................................... 33
Figure 2.c.2. Acres of forest management treatments from conducted by the USFS, RMNP, and private landowners within two miles of the EVFPD. (Source: Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, data available through 2018). .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 2.d.1. Wildland-Urban Interface and Intermix in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District displayed by housing density, proximity to wildland vegetation, and cover of wildland vegetation, as defined and mapped by the U.S. Forest Service. (Source: Martinuzzi et al., 2015 with modifications based on local knowledge). ............................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 2.g.1. Values at risk of exposure to embers and radiant heat. Only values that experienced "high" or "extreme" exposure are labeled. Low exposure = potential exposure to long-range ember cast. Moderate exposure = potential exposure to long-rang ember cast and short-range ember cast. High exposure = potential exposure to long-range ember cast or short-range ember cast and radiant heat. Extreme exposure = potential exposure to long- and short-range ember cast and radiant heat. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 2.g.2. Percentage of homes potentially exposed to radiant heat and short-and long-range ember cast under moderate and extreme fire weather conditions in the EVFPD. See Appendix A.3.
Predicted Radiant Heat and Ember Cast Exposure for analysis methodology. .................................... 42
Figure 3.a.1. Defensible space zones recommended by the Colorado State Forest Service. (Source: Colorado State Forest Service, Bonnie Palmatory). .............................................................................. 47
Figure 3.a.2. Spacing between tree crowns is measured from the edge of tree crown to tree crown, NOT from tree stem to tree stem (left). Height of limbs above the ground is measured from the ground to the lowest point of the limb, NOT from where the limb attaches to the tree (right). .......................... 51
Figure 3.a.3. A fuels treatment project in the Estes Valley. Grasses, shrubs, and wildflowers quickly respond to increased light availability after tree removal, resulting in beautiful ecosystems with lower fire risk and healthy wildlife habitat. The red circle in each set of photos indicates the same tree. Photos from the Larimer Conservation District. ............................................................................................ 52
Figure 3.a.4. A home can never be made fireproof, but home hardening practices decrease the chance that flames, radiant heat, and embers will ignite your home. Infographic by Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire with modifications to include information from CALFIRE 2019 and Maranghides et al. 2022. ..................................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 3.b.1. Example of a mosaic landscape in a neighborhood. Each home has defensible space around it, and the landscape is varied throughout, providing tactical opportunities for firefighters working to defend homes. ................................................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 3.c.1. TEA assessed relative risk among CWPP plan units and made strategic recommendations to address wildfire risk across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. See 8.a
CWPP Plan Units for methodology used to delineate plan units. .................................................................... 66
Figure 3.c.2. Relative risk rating for plan units across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. “Moderate” risk is a relative term – all plan units and communities within the Estes Valley Fire Protection District are at high risk of loss from wildfires and should take recommended actions from this CWPP seriously. ............................................................................................................................................................. 68
Page 195
136
Figure 3.f.1. Proposed short-term rental licensing process. Homes that are currently operating as short-term rentals could be giving a grace period to complete the mitigation to maintain their business as they complete required mitigation. Process adapted from Wildfire Partners. ................... 86
Figure 4.b.1. Potential priority locations for ecological restoration and/or stand-level fuel treatments based on predicted fire behavior, the abundance of threatened structures, the likelihood of fires passing through a treatment unit and entering residential areas, presence of non-survivable roadway conditions, and operability based on slopes. See Appendix B.2. Fuel Treatment
Prioritization Methodology for a description of hillslopes and a full description of our prioritization method. ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 4.c.1. Fuel treatment width must be greater on the downhill side of the road due to the exacerbating impact of slope on fire intensity when fires travel uphill. Figure modified from Bennett et al., (2010). ......................................................................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 4.c.2. Priority locations for fuel treatments along roadways and driveways in the EVFPD based on potential fire behavior and evacuation congestion. Our fire behavior analyses occurred at the scale of 0.2 acres (30 x 30 meters), so locations of priority treatments are approximate. See
Appendix B.2. Fuel Treatment Prioritization Methodology for a full description of our prioritization methods. .................................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 4.e.1. Map of all the priority project areas in the EVFPD. Individual project areas are detailed in the following pages. ...................................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 8.a.1. FlamMap requires a variety of information about topography and fuels. Image from Finney (2006). ..................................................................................................................................................................... 150
Figure 8.a.2. Nearly half of the Estes Valley Fire Protection District has very high load dry climate timber-shrub fuels, more heavily concentrated in the eastern side of the district. The rest of the district is primarily low to moderate load grass, shrub, timber, and litter fuels. Fire behavior fuel models are an important input for making fire behavior predictions. See Scott and Burgan (2005) for a description of each fuel model. (Source: Source: LANDFIRE with modifications by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute) ......................................................................................................................................... 152
Figure 8.a.3. Flame lengths in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions, categorized by the Haul Chart (Table 8.a.3). ................................. 155
Figure 8.a.4. Crown fire activity under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. ...................................................................................................................................... 158
Figure 8.a.5. Conditional burn probability under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions with winds blowing out of the west. Wildfire spread was simulated for 4-hours without suppression activities from 10,000 random ignition locations across an area 13 times larger than and centered on the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. .................................................................................................................. 161
Figure 8.a.6. Simulated fire perimeters after 4-hours of fire growth without suppression activities originating from 10 of the 10,000 randomly generated ignition locations across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. We modeled fire growth using FlamMap’s minimum travel time algorithm and 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions under prevailing winds out of the west and the east. Each fire perimeter is a unique run from an ignition, ad multiple fire perimeters are shown to demonstrate the variety of sizes, shapes, and travel paths that can happen around the EVFPD. .... 163
Figure 8.a.7. Research by Beverly et al. (2010) suggest that homes are exposed to radiant heat, short-range embers, and long-range embers depending on their distance from the flaming front. ............ 164
Figure 8.a.8. Predicted exposure to short-and long-range ember cast and radiant heat under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. ............................. 166
Figure 8.a.9. Most homes could be exposed to short-range ember cast from at least one neighboring home, with the average home in EVFPD potentially exposed to short-range ember cast from 16 other homes. Homes within 100-meters of other homes are at greater risk of home-to-home ignitions from short-range ember cast (Syphard et al., 2012). ...................................................................................................... 168
Page 196
137
Figure 8.a.10. Roads that could experience extreme congestion during a wildfire evacuation for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Staff from EVFPD and LCSO that manage evacuation planning and were part of the evacuation in 2020 identified locations that could experience the most extreme congestion. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 170
Figure 8.a.11. Some roads in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District have been well mitigated by removing tall trees and saplings, removing limbs on the remaining trees, and keeping grass mowed (left images). Other roads could experience potentially non-survivable conditions because they are lined by thick forests that have an abundance of ladder fuels (right images). Photo credits: The Ember Alliance. .................................................................................................................................................................................. 172
Figure 8.a.12. Under 60th percentile fire weather conditions, 11% of roads and driveways in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District could potentially experience non-survivable conditions during wildfires. This rises to 32% under 90th percentile conditions. ........................................................................ 173
Figure 8.a.13. Potential future weather conditions in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District modelled with the Climate Toolbox Future Climate Scatter (Hegewisch et al., 2021). The top graph is modelled under the RCP 4.5 scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions stabilize before the year 2100, peaking around 2040. The bottom graph is modelled under the RCP 8.5 scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed by 2100. ........................................................................................ 176
Figure 8.a.14. Potential future conditions that impact fire behavior and suppression activities in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District modelled with the Climate Toolbox Future Climate Scatter (Hegewisch et al., 2021). The top graph is modelled under the RCP 4.5 scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions stabilize before the year 2100, peaking around 2040. The bottom graph is modelled under the RCP 8.5 scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed by 2100. ................. 177
Figure 8.a.15. Response time estimates across the fire district. Hard breaks are present at the edge of the modeling area due to spatial estimates in the network analyst geoprocessing tool. ................ 179
Figure 8.a.16. Estimated fire size at arrival time under 90th percentile weather conditions. ......... 180
Figure 8.a.17. Bivariate plot of estimated pixel-level fire size relative to response time. This shows variability in fire size is related to but not entirely dependent on response time. ................................. 180
Figure 8.a.18. Mean fire size at arrival time aggregated at the fireshed level. ........................................ 182
Figure 8.a.19. Mean fire perimeter in chains at arrival time aggregated at the fireshed level. ........ 183 Figure 8.a.20. Minimum resource requirements estimated by fireshed. .................................................... 184 Figure 8.a.21. Water resources in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District .............................................. 185
Figure 8.a.22. Quantitative risk assessment for values at risk in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District separated into FEMA community lifeline categories. Risk is assessed in terms of probability (relative burn probability) and intensity (flame length) under 90th percentile weather conditions. Values above 25 ft. flame lengths were not plotted. ............................................................................................ 194
Figure 8.a.23. Quantitative risk assessment for values at risk within the “Safety and Security” community lifeline category in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Risk is assessed in terms of probability (relative burn probability) and intensity (flame length) under 90th percentile weather conditions. Values above 25 ft. flame length were not plotted. EOC = Emergency Operations Center. .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 195
Figure 8.a.24. We used simulated fire perimeters to determine locations more likely to experience wildfires that impact homes, with values closer to 1 indicating areas with a higher likelihood of fires that impact homes AND a higher number of homes that could be impacted. ........................................... 201
Figure 8.b.1. Depiction of small watersheds and their subdivided hillslopes. ........................................ 205
Figure 8.c.1. Participant-identified values at risk and general value categories. Colored dots were part of the prioritization activity for the focus group. ........................................................................................ 209
Figure 8.c.2. Relative importance of local values at risk. Participants ranked these categories as first, second, or third priority, and these rankings were weighted (one point for each third priority, two points for each second priority, and three points for each first priority). Weighted rankings were
Page 197
138
divided by the total votes to assign a percentage of votes to each category. No one voted for “air quality” as a category. ....................................................................................................................................................... 210
Figure 8.c.3. Percent of participants that have completed different categories of home hardening and defensible space around their home. ......................................................................................................................... 211
Figure 8.c.4. Relative percent of participants that indicated what initiated their mitigation work on their property in the Estes Valley. Many events have been the catalyst for residents in Estes Park to begin wildfire mitigation on their home and property. Building off these events may help encourage others to begin the process. ........................................................................................................................................... 212
Figure 8.c.5. Relative percent of responses that identified these barriers to mitigation. ................... 213
Figure 8.c.6. Relative percent of responses that identified resident needs to enable further mitigation action. *Note that the fire district does not own any electric wiring within their district. .................. 214
Figure 8.c.7. Percent of participants that received information about active wildfires from each category. ................................................................................................................................................................................. 215
Figure 8.c.8. Percent of participants that received information about fire safety and wildfire mitigation from each organization. ............................................................................................................................. 216
Page 198
139
7.ReferencesAddington, R.N., Aplet, G.H., Battaglia, M.A., Briggs, J.S., Brown, P.M., 2018. Principles and practices for the restoration of ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range (General Technical Report No. RMRS-GTR-373). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Agee, J.K., 1996a. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior, in: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference. Presented at the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference; 16-18 January 1996; Redding, CA, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Berkely, CA, pp. 52–68. Agee, J.K., 1996b. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests, 2nd ed. Island Press, Washington, DC. Agee, J.K., Skinner, C.N., 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 83–96. Andrews, P.L., 2018. The Rothermel surface fire spread model and associated developments: A comprehensive explanation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-371. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 121 p. 371. Andrews, P.L., 2012. Modeling wind adjustment factor and midflame wind speed for Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-266. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 39 p. 266. Aven, T., Ben-Haim, Y., Boje Andersen, H., Cox, T., Droguett, E.L., Greenberg, M., Guikema, S., Kröger, W., Renn, O., Thompson, K.M., Zio, E., 2018. Society for Risk Analysis glossary. Society for Risk Analysis, Herndon, VA. Avitt, A., 2021. Cameron Peak: Fighting fire together. U.S. Forest Service Feature Stories. Babrauskas, V., 2018. Firebrands and embers, in: Manzello, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Wildfires and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fires. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51727-8_3-1.Barrett, K., 2016. Tennessee wildfires: Now is the time to plan [WWW Document]. Headwaters Economics. URL https://headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/homes-risk/wildfires-now-is-the-time-to-plan/ (accessed 11.18.21). Battaglia, M.A., Gannon, B., Brown, P.M., Fornwalt, P.J., Cheng, A.S., Huckaby, L.S., 2018. Changes in forest structure since 1860 in ponderosa pine dominated forests in the Colorado and Wyoming Front Range, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 422, 147–160. Bennett, M., Fitzgerald, S., Parker, B., Main, M., Perleberg, A., Schnepf, C., Mahoney, R., 2010. Reducing fire risk on your forest property (Pacific Northwest Extension Publication No. PNW 618). Oregon State University, University of Idaho, and Washington State University. Beverly, J.L., Bothwell, P., Conner, J., Herd, E., 2010. Assessing the exposure of the built environment to potential ignition sources generated from vegetative fuel. International journal of wildland fire 19, 299–313. Blumhardt, M., 2021. Rare September 2013 flood was one of Colorado’s worst natural disasters. The Coloradoan.
Page 199
140
Brenkert-Smith, H., Champ, P.A., Telligman, A.L., 2013. Understanding change: Wildfire in Larimer County, Colorado (Research Note No. RMRS-RN-58). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Brown, K., 1994. Structure triage during wildland/urban interface/intermix fires: Strategic analysis of fire department operations. U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Academy, Executive Fire Officer Program, Emmitsburg, MD. Broyles, G., 2011. Fireline production rates. US Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. CAL FIRE, 2019. Hardening your home [WWW Document]. California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. URL https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-ready/hardening-your-home/ California Fire Safe Council, 2020. Fire safety information for residents [WWW Document]. California Fire Safe Council. URL https://cafiresafecouncil.org/resources/fire-safety-information-for-residents/. Caton, S.E., Hakes, R.S.P., Gorham, D.J., Zhou, A., Gollner, M.J., 2016. Review of pathways for building fire spread in the wildland urban interface part I: Exposure conditions. Fire Technology 54, 429–473. CFRI, 2021. Fires behavior differently in different forest types [WWW Document]. Colorado State University, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute. URL https://cfri.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2021/01/FireEd-Infographic-Web_Print-1.pdf CSFS, 2021. The home ignition zone: A guide to preparing your home for wildfire and creating defensible space. Colorado State University, Colorado State Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. CSFS, 2010. Forestry best management practices to protect water quality in Colorado. Colorado State University, Colorado State Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Dennis, F.C., 2005. Fuelbreak guidelines for forested subdivisions and communities. Colorado State University, Colorado State Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Dennis, F.C., 2003. Creating wildfire-defensible zones (Natural Resources Series No. 6.302). Colorado State University, Cooperative Extension, Fort Collins, CO. Dennis, F.C., Burke, J., Duda, J., Green, C., Hessel, D., Kaufmann, M., Lange, D., Lee, B., Rinke, H., Sheppard, W., Sturtevant, B., Thinnes, J., Underhill, J., Woodmansee, B., 2009. Lodgepole pine management guidelines for land managers in the wildland-urban interface. Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Dether, D.M., 2005. Prescribed fire lessons learned: Escaped prescribed fire reviews and near miss incidents (Report for the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center). Duncan, B.W., Schmalzer, P.A., Breininger, D.R., Stolen, E.D., 2015. Comparing fuels reduction and patch mosaic fire regimes for reducing fire spread potential: A spatial modeling approach. Ecological Modelling 314, 90–99. Evans, A.M., Wright, C.S., 2017. Unplanned wildfire in areas with slash piles (Unpublished report for the Joint Fire Science Program No. 11-1-8–4). FEMA, 2019. FEMA incident stabilization guide (Operational Draft). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Page 200
141
Finney, M.A., 2006. An overview of FlamMap fire modeling capabilities, in: In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Butler, Bret W., Comps. 2006. Fuels Management-How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: US Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 213-220.Finney, M.A., 2005. The challenge of quantitative risk analysis for wildland fire. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 97–108. Forge, P., 2018. Basics of wildland fire behavior & the wildland-urban interface (CPAW Planner Training Materials). Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire, Bozeman and Helena, MT. Fulé, P.Z., Crouse, J.E., Rouccaforte, J.P., Kalies, E.L., 2012. Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior? Forest Ecology and Management 269, 68–81. Gannon, B.M., Wei, Y., MacDonald, L.H., Kampf, S.K., Jones, K.W., Cannon, J.B., Wolk, B.H., Cheng, A.S., Addington, R.N., Thompson, M.P., 2019. Prioritising fuels reduction for water supply protection. International Journal of Wildland Fire 28, 785–803. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF18182_CO Gellman, J., Walls, M., Wibbenmeyer, M., 2022. Wildfire, smoke, and outdoor recreation in the western United States. Forest Policy and Economics 134, 102619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102619 Good, S., 2020. Fuel treatments west of Estes Park help save town from destructive East Troublesome Fire. Parks to People Water Fund. URL https://peakstopeople.org/blog/2020/11/02/fuel-treatments-west-of-estes-park-help-save-town-from-destructive-east-troublesome-fire/ Gropp, C., 2019. Embers cause up to 90% of home & business ignitions during wildfire events (News Release No. 12 March 2019). Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, Richburg, SC. Haas, J.R., Calkin, D.E., Thompson, M.P., 2015. Wildfire risk transmission in the Colorado Front Range, USA. Risk Analysis 35, 226–240. Hakes, R.S., Caton, S.E., Gorham, D.J., Gollner, M.J., 2017. A review of pathways for building fire spread in the wildland urban interface part II: response of components and systems and mitigation strategies in the United States. Fire technology 53, 475–515. Hansson, L., Fahrig, L., Merriam, G. (Eds.), 1995. Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Harper, J.M., 2011. Benefits of grazing and wildfire risk [WWW Document]. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. URLhttps://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=5463 Hartsough, B.R., Abrams, S., Barbour, R.J., Drews, E.S., McIver, J.D., 2008. The economics of alternative fuel reduction treatments in western United States dry forests: Financial and policy implications from the National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study. Forest Policy & Economics 10, 344–354. Hegewisch, K.C., Abatzoglou, J.T., Gross, J., 2021. Future Climate Analogs Web Tool, Climate Toolbox. Heinsch, F.A., Andrews, P.L., 2010. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 5.0: design and features. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-249. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 111 p. 249.
Page 201
142
Higuera, P.E., Shuman, B.N., Wolf, K.D., 2021. Rocky Mountain subalpine forests now burning more than any time in recent millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2103135118. Hudson, T.R., Bray, R.B., Blunck, D.L., Page, W., Butler, B., 2020. Effects of fuel morphology on ember generation characteristics at the tree scale. International Journal of Wildland Fire 29, 1042–1051. Hunter, M.E., Shepperd, W.D., Lentile, L.B., Lundquist, J.E., Andreu, M.G., Butler, J.L., Smith, F.W., 2007. A comprehensive guide to fuel treatment practices for ponderosa pine in the Black Hills, Colorado Front Range, and Southwest (General Technical Report No. RMRS-GTR-198). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. IIBHS, 2019. California Wildfires of 2017 and 2018 [WWW Document]. Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety. URL https://ibhs.org/wildfire/ibhs-post-event-investigation-california-wildfires-of-2017-2018/ Jain, T., Sikkink, P., Keffe, R., Byrne, J., 2018. To masticate or not: Useful tips for treating forest, woodland, and shrubland vegetation (General Technical Report No. RMRS-GTR-381). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Jolley, A., 2018. Is investing in defensible space worth it? Six examples point to yes! [WWW Document]. Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network. URL https://fireadaptednetwork.org/is-investing-in-defensible-space-worth-it-six-examples-point-to-yes/ Jones, K.W., Cannon, J.B., Saavedra, F.A., Kampf, S.K., Addington, R.N., 2017. Return on investment form fuel treatments to reduce severe wildfire and erosion in a watershed investment program in Colorado. Journal of Environmental Management 198, 66–77. Kalies, E.L., Dickson, B.G., Chambers, C.L., Covington, W.W., 2012. Small mammal community occupancy responses to restoration treatments in ponderosa pine forests, northern Arizona, USA. Ecological Applications 22, 204–217. Keane, R.E., Agee, J., Fulé, P., Keeley, J.E., Key, C., Kitchen, S.G., Miller, R., Schulte, L.A., 2008. Ecological effects of large fires in the United States: Benefit or catastrophe? International Journal of Wildland Fire 17, 696–712. Kerns, B.K., Buonopane, M., Thies, W.G., Niwa, C., 2011. Reintroducing fire into a ponderosa pine forest with and without cattle grazing: Understory vegetation response. Ecosphere 2, 1–23. Kim, M.-K., Jakus, P.M., 2019. Wildfire, national park visitation, and changes in regional economic activity. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 26, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.03.007 Knapp, E.E., Valachovic, Y.S., Quarles, S.L., Johnson, N.G., 2021. Housing arrangement and vegetation factors associated with single-family home survival in the 2018 Camp Fire, California. Fire Ecology 17, 1–19. Kreye, J.K., Brewer, N.W., Morgan, P., Varner, J.M., Smith, A.M.S., Hoffman, C.M., Ottmar, R.D., 2014. Fire behavior in masticated fuels: A review. Forest Ecology and Management 314, 193–207. Lee, M., 2020. Burn scars and burnt s’mores: the impact of wildfire on camping demand in the years after a fire occurs (Text). Colorado State University. Loomis, J., Sánchez, J.J., González-Cabán, A., Rideout, D., Reich, R., 2019. Do fuel treatments reduce wildfire suppression costs and property damages? Analysis of suppression costs and property
Page 202
143
damages in U.S. National Forests, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Ecosystem Services and Wildfires. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-261. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, pp. 70–84. Lotan, J.E., Brown, J.K., Neuenschwander, L.F., 1985. Role of fire in lodgepole pine forests, in: Baumgartner, D. (Ed.), Lodgepole Pine: The Species and Its Management Symposium Proceedings. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, pp. 133–152. Martinuzzi, S., Stewart, S.I., Helmers, D.P., Mockrin, M.H., Hammer, R.B., Radeloff, V.C., 2015. The 2010 wildland-urban interface of the conterminous United States (Research Map No. NRS-RM-8). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. Matonis, M.S., Binkley, D., 2018. Not just about the trees: Key role of mosaic-meadows in restoration of ponderosa pine ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 411, 120–131. McIver, J.D., Stephens, S.L., Agee, J.K., Barbour, J., Boerner, R.E.J., Edminster, C.B., Erickson, K.L., Farris, K.L., Fettig, C.J., Fiedler, C.E., Haase, S., Hart, S.C., Keeley, J.E., Knapp, E.E., Lehmkuhl, J.F., Moghaddas,J.J., Otrosina, W., Outcalt, K.W., Schwilk, D.W., Skinner, C.N., Waldrop, T.A., Weatherspoon, C.P., Yaussy,D.A., Youngblood, A., Zack, S., 2013. Ecological effects of alternative fuel-reduction treatments:highlights of the National Fire and Fire Surrogate study (FFS). International Journal of Wildland Fire22, 63–82.Mell, W.E., Manzello, S.L., Maranghides, A., Butry, D., Rehm, R.G., 2010. The wildland–urban interface fire problem – current approaches and research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19, 238–251. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Miller, S., 2018. Back to the future: Building resilience in Colorado Front Range forests using research findings and a new guide for restoration of ponderosa and dry-mixed conifer landscapes (Science You Can Use Bulletin No. Issue 28). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Miller, S., 2015. Slash from the past: Rehabilitating pile burn scars (Science You Can Use Bulletin No. Issue 15). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Moriarty, K., Cheng, A.S., Hoffman, C.M., Cottrell, S.P., Alexander, M.E., 2019. Firefighter observations of “surprising” fire behavior in mountain pine beetle-attacked lodgepole pine forests. Fire 2, 34. Mosier, T., 2020. Economic impact of Coronavirus could have lasting implications for Estes Park. Estes Park Trail-Gazette. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018. Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/24935 NOAA, 2021. What is a watershed? [WWW Document]. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atomspheric Administration, National Ocean Service. URL https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/watershed.html NPS, 2021. Stats report viewer for Rocky Mountain NP [WWW Document]. National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics. URL
Page 203
144
https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=ROMO (accessed 9.3.21). NRCS, 2017. Glossary of landforms and geologic terms, in: National Soil Survey Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, p. Part 629. NWCG, 2022. NWCG position catalog [WWW Document]. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. URL https://www.nwcg.gov/positions NWCG, 2021a. Midflame windspeed. Section 8.2 [WWW Document]. Firefighter Math, National Wildfire Coordinating Group. URL https://www.nwcg.gov/course/ffm/fire-behavior/82-midflame-windspeed NWCG, 2021b. NWCG standards for wildland fire resource typing (No. PMS 200). National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Boise, ID. NWCG, 2019. Fire behavior field reference guide. NWCG, 2018a. Incident Response Pocket Guide (No. PMS 461 / NFES 001077). National Wildfire Coordinating Group. NWCG, 2018b. NWCG glossary of wildland fire. NWCG, 2008. S-190: Introduction to wildland fire behavior. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Training Development Program, Boise, ID. O’Connor, B., 2021. Fire apparatus access roads [WWW Document]. National Fire Protection Association. URL https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/Blogs-Landing-Page/NFPA-Today/Blog-Posts/2021/01/08/Fire-Apparatus-Access-Roads Parks, S.A., Miller, C., Abatzoglou, J.T., Holsinger, L.M., Parisien, M.A., Dobrowski, S.Z., 2016. How will climate change affect wildland fire severity in the western US? Environmental Research Letters 11, 035002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/03500. Parsons, R., Jolly, M., Langowski, P., Matonis, M.S., Miller, S., 2014. Post-epidemic fire risk and behavior [Chapter 3], in: Matonis, M.S., Hubbard, R., Gebert, K., Hahn, B., Miller, S., Regan, C. (Eds.), Proceedings RMRS-P-70. Presented at the Future Forests Webinar Series, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 19–28. Pausas, J.G., Parr, C.L., 2018. Towards an understanding of the evolutionary role of fire in animals. Evolutionary Ecology 32, 113–125. Paysen, T.E., Ansley, R.J., Brown, J.K., Gotffried, G.J., Haase, S.M., Harrington, M.G., Narog, M.G., Sackett, S.S., Wilson, R.C., 2000. Chapter 6: Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems(General Technical Report No. RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.Pilliod, D.S., Bull, E.L., Hayes, J.L., Wales, B.C., 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the Western United States: A synthesis (General Technical Report No. RMRS-GTR-173). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Plucinski, M.P., 2019. Contain and control: Wildfire suppression effectiveness at incidents and across landscapes. Current Forestry Reports 5, 20–40.
Page 204
145
Prichard, S.J., Povak, N.A., Kennedy, M.C., Peterson, D.W., 2020. Fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of landform, vegetation, and large, wind-driven wildfires. Ecological Applications 30, e02104. Quarles, S.L., 2019. Fire ratings for construction materials [WWW Document]. eXtension Foundation. URL https://surviving-wildfire.extension.org/fire-ratings-for-construction-materials/ Quarles, S.L., Pohl, K., 2018. Building a wildfire-resistant home: Codes and costs. Headwaters Economics, Bozeman, MT. Radeloff, V.C., Helmers, D.P., Kramer, H.A., Mockrin, M.H., Alexandre, P.M., Bar-Massada, A., Butsic, V., Hawbaker, T.J., Martinuzzi, S., Syphard, A.D., others, 2018. Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 3314–3319. Reinhardt, E.D., Keane, R.E., Calkin, D.E., Cohen, J.D., 2008. Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatments in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 1997–2006. Romme, W.H., 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs 52, 199–221. Scott, J.H., 2006. Comparison of crown fire modeling systems used in three fire management applications (Research Paper No. RMRS-RP-58). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Scott, J.H., Burgan, R.E., 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Scott, J.H., Thompson, M.P., Calkin, D.E., 2013. A wildfire risk assessment framework for land and resource management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-315. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. 315. SER, 2004. SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society of Ecological Restoration, Washington, DC. Shahabi, K., Wilson, J.P., 2014. CASPER: Intelligent capacity-aware evacuation routing. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 46, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.03.004. Sherriff, R.L., Platt, R.V., Veblen, T.T., Schoennagel, T.L., Gartner, M.H., 2014. Historical, observed, and modeled wildfire severity in montane forests of the Colorado Front Range. PLoS One 9, e106971. Simpkins, K., 2021. Mountain residents underestimate wildfire risk, overestimate preparedness. CU Boulder Today. Stephens, S.L., Moghaddas, J.J., Edminster, C., Fiedler, C.E., Haase, S., 2009. Fuel treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications 19, 305–320. Sullivan, A.L., 2009. Wildland surface fire spread modelling, 1990–2007. 1: Physical and quasi-physical models. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 349–368. Sullivan, P.R., Campbell, M.J., Dennison, P.E., Brewer, S.C., Butler, B.W., 2020. Modeling wildland firefighter travel rates by terrain slope: results from GPS-tracking of type 1 crew movement. Fire 3, 52.
Page 205
146
Syphard, A.D., Brennan, T.J., Keeley, J.E., 2014. The role of defensible space for residential structure protection during wildfires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 23, 1165–1175. Syphard, A.D., Keeley, J.E., 2019. Factors associated with structure loss in the 2013-2018 California wildfires. Fire 2, 2030049. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire2030049. Syphard, A.D., Keeley, J.E., Massada, A.B., Brennan, T.J., J., T., Radeloff, V.C., 2012. Housing arrangement and location determine the likelihood of housing loss due to wildfire. PLoS ONE 7, e33954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033954. Tinkham, W.T., Dickinson, Y., Hoffman, C.M., Battaglia, M.A., Ex, S., Underhill, J., 2017. Visualization of heterogenous forest structures following treatment in the Southern Rocky Mountains (General Technical Report No. RMRS-GTR-365). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Tinkham, W.T., Hoffman, C.M., Ex, S.A., Battaglia, M.A., Saralecos, J.D., 2016. Ponderosa pine forest restoration treatment longevity: Implications of regeneration on fire hazard. Forests 7, 137. Town of Estes Park, 2021. Annual Financial Report [WWW Document]. Town of Estes Park. URL https://estespark.colorado.gov/departments/finance/annual-financial-report (accessed 9.3.21). Town of Estes Park, 2009. Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Estes Park. Town of Estes Park, Estes Park, CO. Turner, M.G., Braziunas, K.H., Hansen, W.D., Harvey, B.J., 2019. Short-interval severe fire erodes the resilience of subalpine lodgepole pine forests. Proceeding of the National Academy of Scienced of the United States of America 116, 11319–11328. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022. American Community Survey 2016-2020. Estes Park and Colorado summary population and housing characteristics. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. USFS, 2021a. Wildfire risk to communities [WWW Document]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC. URL https://wildfirerisk.org/ USFS, 2021b. Glossary of forest engineering terms [WWW Document]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forest Operations Research. URL https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/forestops/glossary/ Wagenbrenner, N.S., Forthofer, J.M., Lamb, B.K., Shannon, K.S., Butler, B.W., 2016. Downscaling surface wind predictions from numerical weather prediction models in complex terrain with WindNinja. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 16, 5229–5241. Weir, J.R., Kreuter, U.P., Wonkka, C.L., Twidwell, D., Stroman, D.A., Russell, M., Taylor, C.A., 2019. Liability and prescribed fire: Perception and reality. Rangeland Ecology & Management 72, 533–538. Wildfire Adapated Partnership, 2018. Fire adapted communities neighborhood ambassador approach: Increasing preparedness through volunteers. Wildfire Adapted Partnership, Durango, CO. Williams, J., 2013. Exploring the onset of high-impact mega-fires through a forest land management prism. Forest Ecology and Management 294, 4–10. Wright, C.S., Evans, A.M., Grove, S., Haubensak, K.A., 2019. Pile age and burn season influence fuelbed properties, combustion dynamics, fuel consumption, and charcoal formation when burning hand piles. Forest Ecology and Management 439, 146–158.
Page 206
147
Ziegler, J.P., Hoffman, C., Battaglia, M., Mell, W., 2017. Spatially explicit measurements of forest structure and fire behavior following restoration treatments in dry forests. Forest Ecology and Management 386, 1–12. Zillow Inc., 2021. Estes Park CO Home Prices & Home Values [WWW Document]. Zillow. URL https://www.zillow.com/estes-park-co/home-values/ (accessed 12.1.21).
8. Appendices
8.a. Appendices
Page 207
148
Appendix A. Community Risk Assessment and
Modelling Methodology Our assessment of wildfire risk is based on fire behavior and evacuation modeling and on-the-ground observations from across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Results from the community risk assessment informed recommendations about priority treatment to protect lives, property, infrastructure, and ecosystems in and around the EVFPD.
A.1. CWPP Plan UnitsThe goal of delineating plan units is to identify areas with shared fire risk where residents can organize and support each other to effectively mitigate hazardous fuels across the plan unit (Figure
3.c.1). To delineate plan units in the EVFPD, the team considered clusters of addresses, connectivityof roads, topographic features, land parcels, and local knowledge of community organization. usedclusters of address points and the connectivity of roads to assume geographically and socially distinctunits. Topographic features were considered by utilizing sub-watershed boundaries to guide planunit boundaries. The process included topographic features into the delineation process to ensurethat different units encompass areas with similar fire behavior. Land ownership also played a role inestablishing unit boundaries. No plan unit splits a land parcel, ensuring that fuel treatmentrecommendations within each plan unit can be realistically implemented by landowners.Boundaries were also based on social distinctions and groupings that would enable neighbors to work together to effectively mitigate hazardous fuels within plan unit boundaries. The YMCA and Windcliff plan units cross over each other to keep Thunder Mountain Estates grouped with Wildcliff Estates due to their similarity, and to keep the YMCA property that sits on the east side of Tunnel Rd together with the main YMCA campus.
Page 208
149
A.2. Fire Behavior Analysis
Interpretations and Limitations Fire behavior models have been rigorously developed and tested based on over 40 years of experimental and observational research (Sullivan, 2009). Fire behavior models allow us to identify areas that could experience high-severity wildfires and pose a risk to lives, property, and other values at risk. The process used the fire behavior model FlamMap, which is a fire analysis desktop application that simulates potential fire behavior and spread under constant weather and fuel moisture (Finney, 2006). FlamMap is one of the most common models used by land managers to assist with fuel treatment prioritization, and it is often used by fire behavior analysts during wildfire incidents.
Fire behavior analyses are useful for assessing relative
risk across the entire EVFPD and are not intended to
assess specific fire behavior in the vicinity of individual
homes. It is not feasible to predict every combination of fire weather conditions, ignition locations, and suppression activities that might occur during a wildfire. Uncertainty will always remain about where and how a wildfire might behave until a fire is actually occurring, and even then, fire behavior can be erratic and unpredictable. Fire behavior models like FlamMap do not include structures as a fuel type. Structures like homes, sheds, fences, and other buildings are absolutely a source of fuel during wildland fires and can produce massive amounts of embers that contribute to home-to-home ignitions (Maranghides et al., 2022). However, FlamMap cannot account for fine-scale variation in surface fuel loads, defensible space created by individual homeowners, and the ignitability of building materials, nor are these data available at the scale of individual homes across an entire fire protection district. In the absence of this information and a deeper quantitative understanding of interactions between structures and wildland vegetation during a wildfire, fire behavior cannot be modeled for areas dominated by homes in the same fashion as areas dominated by grassland, shrubland, or forest vegetation. For this reason, TEA conducted a separate analysis to predict potential exposure of homes to radiant heat and ember cast (see Appendix A.3).
With high-quality input data, fire behavior models can provide reasonable estimates of relative wildfire behavior across a landscape. However, wildfire behavior is complex, and models are a simplification of reality. It is recommended to use fire behavior analyses to assess relative risk across the entire EVFPD. Models cannot produce specific and precise predictions of what will occur in the vicinity of an individual home during a wildfire incident.
Page 209
150
Model Specifications and Inputs TEA used FlamMap to model flame length, crown fire activity, potential fire sizes, and conditional burn probability. FlamMap requires information on topography and fuel loads across the area of interest (Figure 8.a.1). See Table 8.a.1 and Table
8.a.2 for details on model inputs andspecifications.TEA used LANDFIRE data modified by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute in 2021 as the basis for our modeling. LANDFIRE is a national program spearheaded by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide spatial products characterizing vegetation, fuels, fire regimes, and disturbances across the entire United States. LANDFIRE products serve as standardized inputs for fire behavior modeling. CFRI modified LANDFIRE data by assigning TL5 fire behavior fuel model to lodgepole pine forests and reducing canopy base height by 30% to more closely replicate observed crown fire activity in this forest type. They also modified surface and canopy fuels in areas that experienced fuel treatments and/or wildfires since 2016. TEA thoroughly quality controlled fuel data and worked with Estes Valley Fire Protection District to assess the reasonableness of model predictions.
Figure 8.a.2 depicts the fire behavior fuel models present across the EVFPD. Fuel models are a stylized set of fuel bed characteristics used as input for a variety of wildfire modeling applications to predict fire behavior (Scott and Burgan, 2005). The area in and around the EVFPD has very high load dry climate timber-shrub fuels, more heavily concentrated in the eastern side of the district. The rest of the district is primarily low to moderate load grass, shrub, timber, and litter fuels. Our maps of fire behavior predictions include areas indicated as “unburnable / not modeled”—parking lots, roadways, bodies of water, and barren areas are considered unburnable; areas dominated by homes and buildings were classified as “not modeled” because fire behavior models do not include structures as a fuel type (Scott and Burgan, 2005). Fire behavior models require estimates of fire weather conditions, and a common practice is to model fire behavior under hot, dry, and windy conditions for an area—not the average conditions, but extreme conditions. Wildfires that grow to large sizes, exhibit high-severity behavior, and overwhelm suppression capabilities tend to occur under extreme fire weather conditions (Williams, 2013). TEA modeled potential wildfire behavior under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions. 60th percentile weather condition are average fire weather conditions. 60th percentile conditions are like a normal summer day, whereas 90th percentile conditions are extremely hot, dry days—days that would qualify for red flag warnings and result in large-fire growth, such as conditions in early September 2020 during the Cameron Peak fire. These two benchmarks allow us to analyze where an average fire in the district may burn so the EVFPD can prioritize outreach and treatment under regular circumstances, as well as what can be expected under more extreme circumstances, as was seen in 2020.
Figure 8.a.1. FlamMap requires a variety of
information about topography and fuels. Image from
Finney (2006).
Page 210
151
Weather parameters for this analysis came from data collected at the Estes Park RAWS and fuel moisture conditions from FireFamilyPlus. Under 90th percentile weather conditions in the EVFPD, relative humidity is 13%, temperature is 82°F, 1-hour fuel moisture is 3%, and 10-hour fuel moisture is 4%, and 100-hour fuel moisture is 7% (Table 8.a.2). Winds across the Front Range of Colorado are unpredictable and can be extremely gusty in mountainous areas. TEA modeled 20-foot windspeeds of 15 mph for 60th percentile fire weather conditions and 25 mph for 90th percentile fire weather conditions. Wind speeds of 25 mph qualify as red flag warnings when occurring with low relative humidity and dry fuels (Table 1.c.1). TEA modeled potential fire spread under winds blowing out of the east (90°) and blowing out of the west-southwest (245°) based on observations from the Estes Park RAWS and observations of local firefighters. TEA modeled flame length and crown fire activity based on west-southwest winds, and we modeled burn probability based on both these prevailing winds. FlamMap offers two methods for calculating crown fire initiation and spread: the Scott and Reinhardt method and the Finney method. TEA used the Scott and Reinhardt method as this method resulted in predictions of crown fire occurrence more consistent with expectations and has been found more reliable than the Finney method (Scott, 2006). Fire spread was modeled with FlamMap’s “minimum travel time” algorithm to predict fire growth between cells and account for fire spread through spotting. We modeled fire growth under 10,000 random ignitions across the landscape, and we allowed fires to grow for 4 hours in the absence of firefighter suppression and control measures. We modeled fire behavior in an area 13 times larger than the EVFPD and centered on the EVFPD to capture the landscape-scale movement of fire. Conditional burn probability is calculated as the percentage of simulated fires that burn each 30-meter by 30-meter (0.2 acre) area under specific fire weather conditions, wind directions and speeds.
Table 8.a.1. Model specifications used for fire behavior analyses with FlamMap for the 2022 Estes
Valley Fire Protection District CWPP.
Model specification Value Crown fire calculation method Scott/Reinhardt (2001) Wind options Gridded winds Wind grid resolution 60 meters Number of random ignitions 10,000*Resolution of calculations 30 meters Maximum simulation time 240 minutes Minimum travel paths 500 meters Spot probability 0.7 Spotting delay 15 minutes Lateral search depth 6 meters Vertical search depth 4 meters *We used the same random ignition locations for fire spread analysis under 60th and 90th fire weatherconditions.
Page 211
152
Figure 8.a.2. Nearly half of the Estes Valley Fire Protection District has very high load dry climate timber-shrub fuels, more heavily
concentrated in the eastern side of the district. The rest of the district is primarily low to moderate load grass, shrub, timber, and litter fuels.
Fire behavior fuel models are an important input for making fire behavior predictions. See Scott and Burgan (2005) for a description of each
fuel model. (Source: Source: LANDFIRE with modifications by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute)
Page 212
153
Table 8.a.2. Fire weather conditions utilized for fire behavior modeling are based on weather observations from the Estes Park Remote
Automatic Weather Station between June 15-October 15, 2001-2020, and fuel moisture predictions from FireFamilyPlus. Weather conditions
on October 21, 2020 during the East Troublesome Fire are presented for comparison.
Variable 60th percentile 90th percentile East Troublesome Fire
(for comparison)
Temperature 74° Fahrenheit 82° Fahrenheit 67° Fahrenheit
Relative humidity 25% 13% 14%
Wind direction West (270°) and east (90°) West (270°) and east (90°) South-southwest (235°)
20-foot wind speed1 15 mph 25 mph 6 mph, gusting to 30 mph
Fuel moisture2
1-hour 5% 3% 13.2%
10-hour 6% 4% 4.5%
100-hour 9% 7% 9.7%
1000-hour3 12% 10%
Live woody 84% 71% 60%
Live herbaceous 49% 35% 3.2%
Crown foliage 100% 80% 120-foot wind speeds are approximately 5 times larger than winds at ground level in fully sheltered fuels; vegetation and friction slow downwindspeeds closer to ground level (NWCG, 2021a).2One-hour fuels are dead vegetation less than 0.25 inch in diameter (e.g., dead grass), ten-hour fuels are dead vegetation 0.25 inch to 1 inch in diameter (e.g., leaf litter and pine needles), one hundred-hour fuels are dead vegetation 1 inch to 3 inches in diameter (e.g., fine branches), and one thousand-hour fuels are dead vegetation 3 inches to 8 inches in diameter (e.g., large branches). Fuels with larger diameters have a smaller surface area to volume ratio and take more time to dry out or to become wetter as relative humidity in the air changes. 31000-hour fuel is moisture not used by FlamMap for predicting fire behavior but is included here to provide additional context.
Page 213
154
Predicted Flame Lengths Flame length is the distance measured from the average flame tip to the middle of the flaming zone at the base of the fire. Flame length is measured on an angle when the flames are tilted due to effects of wind and slope (see image at right). Flame length is an indicator of fireline intensity, and it is utilized by firefighters to guide tactical decisions following the Haul Chart (Table 8.a.3). Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 32% of the EVFPD an experience very high to extreme fire behavior with flame lengths over 11 feet. Under 90th percentile weather conditions, 60% can experience very high to extreme fire behavior with flame lengths over 11 feet (Figure 8.a.3). Flame lengths are notably higher east of Dry Gulch Road in the north-central part of the EVFPD where vegetation transitions from shrublands and developed land into mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests. Under 60th percentile fire weather, flame lengths consistently exceed 11 feet on steep north-west facing slopes covered in dense forest. Under 90th percentile fire weather, extreme fire behavior is observed even on flatter terrain. The East Troublesome Fire killed trees and removed surface fuels, creating areas of reduced predicted flame length west of the EVFPD even under 90th percentile fire weather. Under 60th percentile fire weather, average flame lengths are above 11 feet in all plan units along the southern and eastern boundaries of the EVFPD (Table 8.a.4). Under 90th percentile fire weather, average flame lengths are greater than 11 feet across all plan units, indicating extreme challenges for fire suppression, with the exception of the East Prospect CWPP plan unit where average flame lengths are 6 feet (Table 8.a.4).
Table 8.a.3. Description of fire behavior and tactical interpretations for firefighters from the Haul
Chart (NWCG, 2019).
Fire behavior class Flame length (feet) Rate of spread
(chains*/hour)
Tactical interpretation
Very Low 0-1 0-2 Direct attack with handcrews
Low 1-4 2-5 Direct attack with handcrews
Moderate 4-8 5-20 Direct attack with equipment
High 8-11 20-50 Indirect attack
Very High 11-25 50-150 Indirect attack
Extreme 25+ 150+ Indirect attack *Note: 1 chain = 66 feet. Chains are commonly used in forestry and fire management as a measure ofdistance. Chains were used for measurements in the initial public land survey of the U.S. in the mid-1800s. 1 chain / hour = 1.1 feet / minute.
Page 214
155
Figure 8.a.3. Flame lengths in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District under 60th and 90th percentile
fire weather conditions, categorized by the Haul Chart (Table 8.a.3).
Page 215
156
Table 8.a.4. Average flame length across the entire Estes Valley Fire Protection District and in each
CWPP plan unit. Potentially non-survivable flame lengths start at 8 feet according to the Haul Chart
(Table 8.a.3). Flame lengths are summarized for the plan unit and adjacent topographic areas that
could contribute to fire behavior within the plan unit. Colors correspond with the legend in Figure
8.a.3.
60th Percentile 90th Percentile
Average Flame
Length (feet)
Maximum
Flame Length
(feet)
Average Flame
Length (feet)
Maximum
Flame Length
(feet)
Entire EVFPD 12 139 31 258
Big Thompson 14 123 34 181
Carriage Hills 11 139 29 186
Downtown 7 114 21 193
East Prospect 1 41 6 109
Fall River 8 114 23 193
Fish Creek 9 119 22 174
High Drive 5 114 16 186
Lake Estes 8 84 22 174
Little Valley 16 139 38 234
Lumpy Ridge 8 97 23 193
Mary’s Lake Rd 6 113 18 229
Meadowdale 15 119 39 234
North End 13 122 27 181
Pole Hill 14 123 37 185
Rams Horn 13 139 37 258
Riverside 4 83 16 140
South Prospect 4 83 18 217
Spur 66 8 81 19 154
Windcliff 12 113 28 258
YMCA 13 111 26 258
Page 216
157
Predicted Crown Fire Activity FlamMap models three types of fire activity: surface fires, passive crown fires, and active crown fires. See a discussion about fire behavior in Section 1.c. Introduction to Wildfire Behavior and
Terminology. Both passive and active crown fires pose a significant risk to the safety of firefighters and residents and can destroy homes through radiant and convective heating and ember production. Under 60th percentile weather conditions, 59% of the EVFPD can experience passive crown fire, and only 1% can experience extreme fire behavior with active crown fire. Under 90th percentile weather conditions, 19% of the district is subject to extreme fire behavior with active crown fire (Figure
8.a.4; Table 8.a.5). Active crown fire is less likely to occur during days with higher fuel moisturesand lower wind speeds, but under extremely hot, dry conditions, active crown fires are possible onsteep slopes with dense forest.Notable areas in the EVFPD that could support active crown fire near houses are around Propsect Mountain, Gianttrack Mountain, Rams Horn Mountain, Lily Mountain, and north of The Crags due to steep slopes and dense forests. The East Troublesome Fire killed trees and removed surface fuels, creating areas unlikely to support active crown fire west of the EVFPD even under 90th percentile fire weather.
Page 217
158
Figure 8.a.4. Crown fire activity under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions in the Estes
Valley Fire Protection District.
Page 218
159
Table 8.a.5. Percent of the entire Estes Valley Fire Protection District and each CWPP plan unit
predicted to experience each category of fire activity. Crown fire activity is summarized for the plan
unit and adjacent topographic areas that could contribute to fire behavior within the plan unit. Colors
correspond with the legend in Figure 8.a.4.
60th Percentile 90th Percentile
Un-
burnable
Surface
Fire
Passive
Crown
Fire
Active
Crown
Fire
Un-
burnable
Surface
Fire
Passive
Crown
Fire
Active
Crown
Fire
Entire EVFPD 5% 35% 59% 1% 5% 21% 55% 19%
Big Thompson 3% 19% 77% 1% 3% 9% 69% 19%
Carriage Hills 15% 35% 50% 1% 15% 25% 41% 19%
Downtown 9% 49% 42% 1% 9% 29% 48% 14%
East Prospect 45% 43% 12% 0% 45% 29% 23% 3%
Fall River 3% 49% 48% 1% 3% 30% 53% 14%
Fish Creek 25% 35% 39% 1% 25% 25% 35% 15%
High Drive 12% 52% 36% 0% 12% 30% 49% 9%
Lake Estes 23% 35% 42% 0% 23% 26% 38% 12%
Little Valley 3% 36% 59% 2% 3% 23% 50% 24%
Lumpy Ridge 2% 50% 47% 1% 2% 34% 50% 14%
Mary's Lake Rd 14% 51% 35% 0% 14% 32% 44% 11%
Meadowdale 2% 30% 66% 1% 2% 17% 54% 26%
North End 3% 27% 69% 1% 3% 18% 69% 10%
Pole Hill 4% 27% 67% 1% 4% 14% 56% 26%
Rams Horn 5% 41% 52% 2% 5% 24% 47% 24%
Riverside 25% 49% 25% 1% 25% 24% 37% 15%
South Prospect 21% 50% 29% 0% 21% 29% 38% 13%
Spur 66 8% 51% 41% 0% 8% 37% 48% 7%
Windcliff 3% 43% 53% 1% 3% 23% 58% 16%
YMCA 1% 45% 53% 1% 1% 30% 56% 13%
Page 219
160
Predicted Conditional Burn Probability and Fire Sizes Conditional burn probability indicates how likely an area is to burn during a wildfire. Wind direction strongly affects burn probability, carrying fires quickly up slopes facing toward the incoming winds (Figure 8.a.5; Figure 8.a.6). Topography, non-burnable barriers such as wide rivers, interstates, and highways, and fuel loads also influence conditional burn probability by dictating how fire spreads across the landscape. Short-range transport of embers can cause spot fires to ignite even across unburnable barriers such as U.S. Highway 36 and CO Highway 7), particularly when the head of the fire is being pushed by wind directly at the road (see potential burn perimeters that spot over these highways in Figure 8.a.6). Rapid fire growth and spotting across roadways is more likely under higher windspeeds and with drier fuel conditions. Conditional burn probabilities are relatively low across the EVFPD under 60th percentile fire weather due to lower predicted rates of spread and therefore smaller predicted fire perimeters. Under 90th percentile fire weather, the northern and eastern portions of the EVFPD have elevated conditional burn probabilities relative to more densely populated portions of the EVFPD with less flammable fuel types (i.e., developed properties). Remember that fire behavior models do not account for homes and other buildings as a fuel type, so the risk of wildfires is not negligible in downtown Estes, it just cannot be adequately captured by fire behavior modeling (Figure 8.a.5). CWPP plan units with elevated conditional burn probability under 90th percentile fire weather include Big Thompson, Lumpy Ridge, Meadowdale, North End, and Pole Hill (Table 8.a.6). Unpredictable wind conditions along the Colorado Front Range make it difficult to predict potential fire spread, making it imperative for residents across the EVFPD to take measures to mitigate their home ignition zone (see Section 3.a. Mitigate the Home Ignition Zone). There is a real potential for wildfires to spread across large swaths of the Estes Valley Fire Protection District given uncontrollable fire behavior and extreme fire weather conditions, such as those experienced across the Colorado Front Range in 2020. During red flag warnings, all
residents need to be prepared for evacuations in the case of a wildfire, just as the fire
department will be preparing for wildfire response.
Page 220
161
Figure 8.a.5. Conditional burn probability under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions with
winds blowing out of the west. Wildfire spread was simulated for 4-hours without suppression
activities from 10,000 random ignition locations across an area 13 times larger than and centered on
the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Page 221
162
Table 8.a.6. Conditional burn probability for the entire Estes Valley Fire Protection District and each
CWPP plan unit with winds blowing from the west. Conditional burn probability is summarized for the
plan unit and adjacent topographic areas that could contribute to fire behavior within the plan unit.
Colors correspond with the legend in Figure 8.a.5.
60th Percentile 90th Percentile
Average Burn
Probability
Maximum
Burn
Probability
Average Burn
Probability
Maximum
Burn
Probability
Entire EVFPD 0.13% 0.39% 0.65% 1.47%
Big Thompson 0.19% 0.39% 0.84% 1.47%
Carriage Hills 0.06% 0.23% 0.42% 0.93%
Downtown 0.08% 0.35% 0.48% 1.39%
East Prospect 0.01% 0.12% 0.03% 0.22%
Fall River 0.09% 0.35% 0.57% 1.39%
Fish Creek 0.04% 0.19% 0.28% 0.82%
High Drive 0.05% 0.20% 0.28% 0.83%
Lake Estes 0.08% 0.33% 0.40% 1.19%
Little Valley 0.09% 0.23% 0.59% 0.96%
Lumpy Ridge 0.13% 0.37% 0.73% 1.39%
Mary's Lake Rd 0.05% 0.33% 0.24% 0.74%
Meadowdale 0.12% 0.38% 0.69% 1.42%
North End 0.21% 0.39% 0.91% 1.33%
Pole Hill 0.13% 0.35% 0.70% 1.47%
Rams Horn 0.09% 0.34% 0.49% 0.96%
Riverside 0.01% 0.10% 0.08% 0.36%
South Prospect 0.03% 0.28% 0.16% 0.69%
Spur 66 0.10% 0.33% 0.40% 0.78%
Windcliff 0.12% 0.34% 0.53% 0.88%
YMCA 0.11% 0.35% 0.52% 0.88%
Page 222
163
Figure 8.a.6. Simulated fire perimeters after 4-hours of fire growth without suppression activities originating from 10 of the 10,000 randomly
generated ignition locations across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. We modeled fire growth using FlamMap’s minimum travel time
algorithm and 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions under prevailing winds out of the west and the east. Each fire perimeter is a
unique run from an ignition, ad multiple fire perimeters are shown to demonstrate the variety of sizes, shapes, and travel paths that can
happen around the EVFPD.
Page 223
164
A.3. Predicted Radiant Heat and Ember Cast ExposureTEA assessed the risk that radiant heat and short-range and long-range embercast pose to structures. See Section 1.c. Introduction to Wildfire Behavior and Terminology for a description of how wildfires can ignite homes. Ember production and transport and their ability to ignite recipient fuels are guided by complex processes, so we utilized the simplified approach of Beverly et al., (2010) to assess home exposure to radiant heating and short-and long-range embercast (Figure 8.a.7). Exposure is based on distance from long flame lengths and potential active crown fire assuming:
•Radiant heat can ignite homes when extremefire behavior (flame lengths > 16 feet) occurswithin 33 yards (30 meters) of structures.
•Short-range embers can reach homes within0.06 miles (100 meters) of active crown fires.
•Long-range embers can reach homes within 0.3miles (500 meters) of active crown fires.Distance thresholds used by Beverly et al., (2010)are based on observations from actual wildfires, but their estimates are lower than those from some researchers. Studies on wildfires burning eucalyptus forests in Australia and wildfires burning chaparral in California demonstrated that embers can travel 12 to 15 miles from the flaming front and ignite spot fires (Caton et al., 2016), but these fuel types are very different from conifer forests in Colorado. Embers from ponderosa pine trees tend to ignite fuels at a much lower rate than embers from other tree species (Hudson et al., 2020). In addition, the number of embers reaching an area decreases exponentially with distance traveled, and the likelihood of structure ignition increases with the number of embers landing on the structure (Caton et al., 2016). Therefore, using conservative estimates of distance allows us to identify areas with the greatest risk of ignition from short- and long-range embers.
TEA
Embers can ignite homes even when the flaming front of a wildfire is far away. See Mitigate the Home
Ignition Zone for tangible and relatively simple steps you can take to harden your home against embers. Mitigation practices, such as removing pine needles from gutters and installing covers over vents, can make ignition less likely and make it easier for firefighters to defend your property.
Figure 8.a.7. Research by Beverly et
al. (2010) suggest that homes are
exposed to radiant heat, short-range
embers, and long-range embers
depending on their distance from
the flaming front.
Page 224
165
TEA determined whether exposure to radiant heat and short- and long-range ember cast from active crown fires was possible within the home ignition zone (HIZ; 100-feet radius) of each structure in the EVFPD 4. Potential exposure to radiant heat, short-range ember cast, and long-range ember cast is widespread across the EVFPD (Figure 8.a.8). Under moderate fire weather, 9% of homes in the EVFPD are at risk of exposure to radiant heat and 30% to long-range ember cast, and these percentages increase to 24% of homes potentially exposed to radiant heat and 87% potentially exposed to long-range ember cast under extreme fire weather (Table 8.a.7). Under moderate fire weather, more than half of the structures in Little Valley and Meadowdale plan units are at risk of radiant heat, and more than half the homes in Big Thompson, Fall River, Little Valley, Meadowdale, Riverside, Spur 66, Windcliff, and the YMCA plan units are at risk of long-range ember cast. Under extreme fire weather, majority of homes in Lumpy Ridge, Meadowdale, and Little Valley are at extreme risk of embers and radiant heat (Table 8.a.7). It is important to remember that embers can ignite homes even when the flaming front of a wildfire is far away. Most structures in EVFPD could be exposed to short-range ember cast from at least one other home. On average, homes could be exposed to short-range ember cast from 16 other homes, which puts all those homes as risk of home-to-home ignition, especially if they are not mitigated or hardened (Figure 8.a.9) (Syphard et al., 2012). Some homes could be exposed to short-range ember cast from 88 other structures. Fuel treatments within HIZs and surrounding undeveloped areas could help reduce the exposure of homes to radiant heat and short-range ember cast. Potential exposure to radiant heating and long- and short-range ember cast is widespread across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and this awareness should encourage residents and business owners to complete home hardening practices to reduce the risk of ignition.
4 It is recommended to use this analysis to assess relative risk across the entire Fire Protection District and not to evaluate absolute risk to individual homes. FlamMap and the approach of Beverly et al. (2010) cannot account for defensible space, the fire resistance of materials used in home construction, and other fine-scale variation in fuel loads that contribute to the ignition potential of individual homes.
Page 225
166
Figure 8.a.8. Predicted exposure to short-and long-range ember cast and radiant heat under 60th and
90th percentile fire weather conditions in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Page 226
167
Table 8.a.7. Percentage of structures in the entire Estes Valley Fire Protection District and each CWPP
plan unit at risk of exposure to radiant heat, short-range ember cast, and/or long-range ember cast.
60th Percentile Weather 90th Percentile Weather
Radiant
Heat
Short-Range
Ember Cast
Long-Range
Ember Cast
Radiant
Heat
Short-Range
Ember Cast
Long-Range
Ember Cast
Entire EVFPD 9% 2% 30% 24% 23% 87%
Big Thompson 28% 5% 81% 41% 19% 100%
Carriage Hills 0% 0% 18% 5% 7% 96%
Downtown 2% 0% 18% 24% 27% 99%
East Prospect 0% 0% 0% 3% 7% 58%
Fall River 4% 1% 66% 16% 16% 100%
Fish Creek 9% 1% 15% 18% 16% 48%
High Drive 1% 0% 4% 4% 2% 62%
Lake Estes 1% 0% 19% 13% 16% 82%
Little Valley 76% 4% 86% 84% 45% 100%
Lumpy Ridge 18% 12% 25% 77% 77% 100%
Mary’s Lake
Road 5% 1% 21% 16% 23% 99%
Meadowdale 58% 18% 84% 82% 64% 100%
North End 38% 2% 35% 57% 39% 98%
Pole Hill 16% 4% 46% 43% 32% 99%
Rams Horn 13% 1% 12% 37% 16% 100%
Riverside 5% 2% 82% 32% 57% 100%
South Prospect 1% 0% 10% 31% 30% 98%
Spur 66 9% 15% 59% 15% 27% 89%
Windcliff 42% 3% 71% 73% 37% 100%
YMCA 49% 3% 61% 51% 17% 73%
Page 227
168
Figure 8.a.9. Most homes could be exposed to short-range ember cast from at least one neighboring home, with the average home in EVFPD
potentially exposed to short-range ember cast from 16 other homes. Homes within 100-meters of other homes are at greater risk of home-to-
home ignitions from short-range ember cast (Syphard et al., 2012).
Page 228
169
A.4. EvacuationEvacuation concerns can weigh heavily on the minds of many residents in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. The death of 86 people in Paradise, California during the 2018 Camp Fire, many of whom were stranded on roadways during evacuation, underscores the importance of evacuation preparedness and fuel mitigation along evacuation routes.
Evacuation Congestion Law enforcement personnel must plan for areas of high congestion when making decisions about how to conduct actual evacuations in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (Figure 8.a.10). Roads were categorized by where areas of high congestion could occur during an evacuation, and what did occur during the valley-wide evacuations in October of 2020. Staff from EVFPD and LCSO that manage evacuation planning and were part of the evacuation in 2020 helped identify locations that could experience the most extreme congestion. Roads with the most congestion included the main evacuation routes going east on US Highway 34 and US Highway 36, and back up through town. Major intersections such as Mall Road and highway intersections all experienced congestion, as well as major road connections to the evacuation routes. Considerations were made for future evacuations that may focus cars to the west, northeast, or south. It is important to state that congestion planning does not account for unexpected barriers such as cars breaking down, car accidents, road closures, etc. It also cannot fully account for events like school field trips, major tourism weekends such as Elk Fest or the Highland Festival, or the evacuation of families who do not own vehicles. If an evacuation were ordered over a summer weekend, the congestion would increase dramatically. However, this analysis does highlight areas that are prone to traffic build up even under the best-case scenario. When law enforcement personnel plan for evacuations, they use models to predict evacuation times and routes. Typically the EVFPD expects 1,000-1,250 cars per hour per lane of travel, flowing at five miles per hour. This was approximately what they saw during the valley-wide evacuations that occurred in October of 2020.
Page 229
170
Figure 8.a.10. Roads that could experience extreme congestion during a wildfire evacuation for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Staff
from EVFPD and LCSO that manage evacuation planning and were part of the evacuation in 2020 identified locations that could experience
the most extreme congestion.
Page 230
171
A.5. Roadway SurvivabilityTragedies have occurred when flames from fast-moving wildfires burn over roads while residents are evacuating. Residents can perish in their vehicles trapped on the road, and egress routes can become blocked from flames. Mitigation actions along sections of road with high risk for non-
survivable conditions during a wildfire can increase the chances of survival for residents
stranded in their vehicles during a wildfire and decrease the chance that roadways become
impassable due to flames. TEA utilized fire behavior predictions to identify road segments that could experience non-survivable conditions during a wildfire. We used roadway data from OpenStreetMap and the Colorado Department of Transportation, with modifications to the road network based on local expertise. We identified “non-survivable roadways” as portions of roads adjacent to areas with predicted flame lengths greater than 8 feet. Drivers stopped or trapped on these roadways could have a low chance of survival due to radiant heat emitted from fires of this intensity. This assumption is based on the Haul Chart, which is a standard tool used by firefighters to relate flame lengths to tactical decisions (Table 8.a.2) (NWCG, 2019). Direct attack of a flaming front is no longer feasible once flame lengths exceed about 8 feet due to the intensity of heat output. Flames greater than 8 feet could also make roads impassable and cut residents off from egress routes. Non-survivable conditions are more common along roads lined by thick forests with abundant ladder fuels, such as trees with low limbs and saplings and tall shrubs beneath overstory tress (Figure 8.a.11). Under moderate 60th percentile fire weather, 11% of the roads in the EVFPD could experience non-survivable conditions, and this percentage rises to 32% under extreme 90th percentile fire weather. Under moderate fire weather conditions, Little Valley is the only CWPP plan unit where over a third of roads could become potentially non-survivable, but under extreme weather conditions, over a third of roads could become potentially in 9 of 20 plan units (Figure 8.a.12). Some non-survivable road segments are part of key evacuation routes and a high priority for mitigation to reduce fuels and potential flame lengths, including portions of U.S. Highway 34, U.S. Highway 36, and County Road 43 (Devils Gulch Road). We incorporated information about roadway survivability into recommendations for roadway fuel treatments across the EVFPD (see Section 4.c. Roadway Fuel
Treatment Recommendations).
Page 231
172
Survivable Roadways Potentially Non-Survivable Roadways
Figure 8.a.11. Some roads in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District have been well mitigated by
removing tall trees and saplings, removing limbs on the remaining trees, and keeping grass mowed
(left images). Other roads could experience potentially non-survivable conditions because they are
lined by thick forests that have an abundance of ladder fuels (right images). Photo credits: The Ember
Alliance.
Page 232
173
Figure 8.a.12. Under 60th percentile fire weather conditions, 11% of roads and driveways in the Estes
Valley Fire Protection District could potentially experience non-survivable conditions during wildfires.
This rises to 32% under 90th percentile conditions.
Page 233
174
Table 8.a.8. Percentage of potentially non-survivable roads in plan units across the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District. Darker colors indicate plan units with higher miles and/or percentages of non-
survivable roads.
60th Percentile 90th Percentile
Miles of
Roads
Percent of
Roads
Miles of
Roads
Percent of
Roads
Entire EVFPD 26.8 11% 76.7 32%
Big Thompson 2.3 19% 3.3 27%
Carriage Hills 0.1 1% 0.4 3%
Downtown 0.1 1% 2.9 14%
East Prospect 0.0 0% 0.6 5%
Fall River 0.1 1% 1.5 17%
Fish Creek 0.9 7% 2.6 20%
High Drive 0.0 0% 1.0 10%
Lake Estes 0.1 1% 2.9 16%
Little Valley 5.1 45% 7.0 61%
Lumpy Ridge 0.3 4% 5.1 63%
Mary's Lake Road 0.2 2% 1.4 14%
Meadowdale 4.6 31% 7.4 50%
North End 3.2 21% 7.0 47%
Pole Hill 2.1 13% 8.4 51%
Rams Horn 1.0 8% 4.1 33%
Riverside 0.1 1% 1.6 24%
South Prospect 0.1 1% 4.3 41%
Spur 66 0.1 1% 0.4 7%
Windcliff 3.4 31% 7.3 67%
YMCA 3.3 24% 7.5 53%
Page 234
175
A.6. Climate Change AssessmentClimate change has a measurable impact on fire intensity and frequency, and this is likely to continue given current trajectories. To assess how different climate scenarios might affect the fire district, we used the Climate Toolbox’s Future Climate Scatter to project future weather scenarios for Estes Valley Fire Protection District. This tool models climate scenarios for the next fifty years using the Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 and 8.5. These two models forecast future climate scenarios based on different levels of global greenhouse gas emissions. We analyzed four variables: expected maximum temperature each year and the number of days expected to be “high fire danger” days, and annual 100-hour fuel moisture levels and days with a heat index over 90° Fahrenheit. The models predict that under moderate or intense greenhouse gas concentrations, EVFPD will experience hotter summer temperatures and an increased number of days considered to be high fire danger. In the next 50 years, it would be reasonable to expect maximum summer temperatures to increase by 5-7° Fahrenheit, and the number of high fire danger days is likely to increase by 5-15%,
resulting in 12-15 more high fire danger days per year (Figure 8.a.13, Figure 8.a.14). Fire behavior models from Model Specifications and Inputs account for RAWS weather inputs from 2002-2020. They do not include future weather predictions. These predictions are presented to add a layer of depth regarding the future of fire danger in the EVFPD but are not used in conjunction with other models. Fire behavior has the potential to be extreme based on the weather from the past twenty years, and it may be even more extreme and frequent under the future conditions presented here. This behavior could include longer flame lengths, faster rates of spread, higher fire severity, and more crown fire activity. More extreme fire behavior increases danger to the life safety of residents, as well as to their homes, businesses, and community resiliency.
Page 235
176
Figure 8.a.13. Potential future weather conditions in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District
modelled with the Climate Toolbox Future Climate Scatter (Hegewisch et al., 2021). The top graph is
modelled under the RCP 4.5 scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions stabilize before the year 2100,
peaking around 2040. The bottom graph is modelled under the RCP 8.5 scenario, where greenhouse
gas emissions are not curtailed by 2100.
Page 236
177
Figure 8.a.14. Potential future conditions that impact fire behavior and suppression activities in the
Estes Valley Fire Protection District modelled with the Climate Toolbox Future Climate Scatter
(Hegewisch et al., 2021). The top graph is modelled under the RCP 4.5 scenario, where greenhouse gas
emissions stabilize before the year 2100, peaking around 2040. The bottom graph is modelled under
the RCP 8.5 scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed by 2100.
Page 237
178
A.7. District Capacity AssessmentA district’s suppression capacity can be estimated or measured variably depending on different logical frameworks. To better understand suppression challenges, this analysis first assessed where fire suppression would be the most hampered by fire behavior and response times. This analysis was used to inform minimum resource needs, which were in turn compared to district and local level suppression capacity. Recommendations were drawn from these analyses and interviews with local subject matter experts. Recommendations and results can be found in Section 3.d.
Recommendations to Enhance EVFPD Capacity.
Quantitative Assessment Response times can be calculated in multiple ways. This assessment combines two methods for a hybrid approach. First, a network model of the roads in Estes Valley was built and quality controlled. This network model was used to generate a service area model using ArcGIS. Service area models are based on driving times and roadway speeds. Travel times were calculated from Estes Park Station 71 to every location in network model; a ten-minute mobilization time, based on District assessment of call processing time, volunteer response, and gear up time, was added to the travel time. Second, this was supplemented by a calculated “hike in” time. Distance to road was calculated at a 30 m resolution and arrival times were calculated for every location in the district using a 2.5 mph hiking speed (Sullivan et al., 2020). Although this overpredicts hiking speed in steep terrain, it will underpredict in flatter areas. These two calculations were summed to create a response time surface that estimates potential arrive times for crews leaving from the Station 71 to every location in the district.
Calculating Fire Sizes and Perimeters Fire sizes were calculated at every location in the response area. Notably, the fire sizes are point estimates and do not consider the fuels around them. Fire sizes follow the revised Rothermel methods (Andrews, 2018) that underpin fire behavior tools like BEHAVE (Heinsch and Andrews, 2010). Ninetieth percentile weather and 25 mph twenty-foot west winds were used in the initial calculations. Ellipse length-to-width ratio, a key variable for estimating fire size, was calculated using spatially-explicit, terrain-influenced wind speed outputs from FLAMMAP (Finney, 2006) and WindNinja (Wagenbrenner et al., 2016). A constant wind adjustment factor of 0.5 was used; this overpredicts midflame windspeed in some areas, but that was assessed as more useful than underpredicting (Andrews, 2012). Flanking and backing rates of spread and distances were calculated using these values as they relate to FLAMMAP’s forward rates of spread. Fire perimeters were estimated using a simplified elliptical area formula which results in minor deviation from values calculated in BEHAVE (Equation 1).
Equation 1. Simplified function for estimating fire perimeters from elliptical fire perimeters. 𝜋𝜋(𝐿𝐿𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛ℎ2 × 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝐷𝐷𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒)
Calculating Resource Needs Firefighting resource needs were assessed by mean flame lengths and mean fire perimeters. Values were aggregated at a “fireshed” level, which were built from hillslopes as bisected by roads and waterways (see Appendix B.2. Fuel Treatment Prioritization Methodology for a description of hillslopes). Firesheds were subdivided initially by mean flame length into those where direct attack might be successful (≤ 8 ft mean flame lengths) and where indirect attack would be necessary (> 8 ft mean flame lengths) (NWCG, 2019). Mean fire perimeters, multiplied by three to account for forward spread during suppression actions, were divided by the average number of chains a “type 2”
Page 238
179
handcrew 5 could produce in a 16-hour shift. This line production rate does not take into account slope or variable fuel types and assumes a conifer litter fuel model. Per Broyles 2011, for firesheds where direct attack is possible, a rate of 6.8 ch/hr/crew was used; for firesheds where indirect attack is required, 5.7 ch/hr/crew was used (Broyles, 2011).
Results Arrival times varied from 15 min to 107 min across the modeled area (Figure 8.a.15). Because many areas in the district have limited road access, many areas have significant hike in costs. These result in heterogenous distributions of fire sizes and perimeters based on differing arrival times. Fire sizes were generally constrained closer to roads due to reduced response time (Figure 8.a.16), but significant variability exists (Figure 8.a.17). This variability shows the degree to which response time is not the entire driver of fire size due to the effects of wind, weather, topography, and fuel. Fire sizes and perimeters across the district follow distributions generally seen in fire sizes distributions with many small fires and fewer large fires.
Figure 8.a.15. Response time estimates across the fire district. Hard breaks are present at the edge of
the modeling area due to spatial estimates in the network analyst geoprocessing tool.
5 See NWCG standards for wildland fire resource typing for a description of resource types (NWCG, 2021b).
Page 239
180
Figure 8.a.16. Estimated fire size at arrival time under 90th percentile weather conditions.
Figure 8.a.17. Bivariate plot of estimated pixel-level fire size relative to response time. This shows
variability in fire size is related to but not entirely dependent on response time.
Page 240
181
Fireshed-level fire sizes (Figure 8.a.18) and perimeters (Figure 8.a.19) at predicted time of arrival show how despite the variability, patterns are apparent when aggregated in meaningful spatial units. Mean fire sizes are largest in areas with poor road accessibility. Access is limited in designated Wilderness in Lumpy Ridge and the area west of Lily Lake and in the USFS Roadless Area around Crosier Mountain Although not roadless areas, access up Pole Hill and Hells Canyon roads requires slow four-wheel drive along unimproved roads. Although Hermit Park and North Twin Sisters areas are relatively more accessible than the previous examples, access to these remote recreation areas can still be difficult and time consuming, as demonstrated by the Kruger Rock Fire that burned in this area in 2021. Minimum resources requirements vary across firesheds (Figure 8.a.20). In addition to increased response times, areas closest to roadways generally have lower fuel loads compared to areas farther away from development. A mix of resource types (heavy equipment, engines, handcrews, and aircraft) are suggested for any extended attack fire. The estimates for resource needs should be considered extremely coarse and are provided for identifying trends in response capacity across the district. The resource recommendations shown below have significant assumptions and should not supersede the expert opinion of on-scene incident commanders or duty officers. Under 90th percentile weather conditions, many areas in the district have the potential for extreme fire spread that would quickly challenge containment resources for the district and the local area. Large areas of the district will require indirect attack. Although weather changes can provide opportunity for containment after an initial push (e.g., East Troublesome Fire, Kruger Rock Fire, Marshall Fire), favorable changes in weather cannot be relied upon. In many areas, multiple handcrews (or a configuration of other resources that can achieve equivalent line production rates) are necessary to quickly contain fast moving, intense fires. Ultimately, any fire start under 90th percentile weather conditions will likely challenge the capability of local resources and will require quick mobilization of outside resources.
Page 241
182
Figure 8.a.18. Mean fire size at arrival time aggregated at the fireshed level.
Page 242
183
Figure 8.a.19. Mean fire perimeter in chains at arrival time aggregated at the fireshed level.
Page 243
184
Figure 8.a.20. Minimum resource requirements estimated by fireshed.
Qualitative Assessment District and local capacity were assessed through interviews with local fire managers and by inventorying local fire resources. Interviews focused on capacity to provision fire resources and estimated response times for resources coming into Estes Valley.
Description of District Capacity Estes Valley Fire Protection District is responsible for initial attack on wildfires in their district. There is always an on-duty duty officer or battalion chief, but all other resources respond from home. Self-reported average response time is six minutes from initial page. Currently, thirty members of the district are “red carded” as Firefighter Type 2 (FFT2), making them available as wildland firefighting resources. EVFPD has one qualified engine boss and one qualified ICT4/Task Force Leader 6 . The district has two tenders and three wildland engines (Table 8.a.9).
6 See the NWCG position catalog for a description of the duties and qualification standards for fireline positions (NWCG, 2022).
Page 244
185
EVFPD firefighting resources focus primarily on engine operations. Due to the volunteer, respond-from-home nature of their staffing model, handcrew roles can be challenging to fill. Furthermore, like many fire departments, overhead resources (taskforce leader, division supervisor, etc.) are limited. This adds challenges for providing span of control during emerging or transitioning incidents. Rocky Mountain National Park will self-dispatch up to two miles outside the park boundary. They have multiple firefighting resources but are limited by seasonal staffing (Table 8.a.11).
Table 8.a.9. Estes Valley FPD firefighting resources. Data current as of January 2022. See NWCG
standards for wildland fire resource typing for a description of resource types (NWCG, 2021b).
Unit ID Resource Type Engine 713 Engine T3 Engine 723 Engine T3 Engine 716 Engine T6 Tender 71 Tactical Tender Tender 72 Tactical Tender Tender 73 Support Tender
Water Sources There are plentiful water resources close to structures in the EVFPD (Figure 8.a.21). Hydrants are available throughout the EVFPD, and dip sites for helicopters are available with short turn-around times. However, fewer water resources are available in remote areas where response time is long. This contributes to fire control challenges by requiring longer hoselays for water delivery.
Figure 8.a.21. Water resources in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District
Page 245
186
Local Capacity Significant local firefighting resources are available (Table 8.a.10, Table 8.a.11). Air resources are available from JeffCo Tanker Base and the NOCO Seat Base, including heavy air tankers, type 1 helicopters, and SEATs. Large numbers of engine resources are available (notably, 38 type six wildland engines), particularly from fire protection districts. Only two type 1 handcrews (i.e., hotshot crews) are within local dispatch and, as national resources, they are often unavailable due to out of area assignments; the same can be said of the local type 2-IA crew in Boulder County, Shadow Canyon. Multiple initial attack modules (smaller handcrew resources) in the area provide additional line production in areas where engines or heavy equipment are unable to access.
Table 8.a.10. Local wildland firefighting resources, count, minimum travel time for one resource, and
average travel time. Data current as of January 2022. See NWCG standards for wildland fire resource
typing for a description of resource types (NWCG, 2021b).
Resource Type Count Min. Travel Time
(minutes)
Average Travel Time
(minutes)
Crew T1 2 10 39
Crew T2 1 57 57
Engine T1 1 18 18
Engine T2 2 90 90
Engine T3 9 3 52
Engine T4 6 22 48
Engine T5 5 22 30
Engine T6 38 3 59
Engine T7 1 18 18
Helicopter T1 1 12 12
Helitack 1 12 12
IA Module 8 8 64
Large Air Tanker 1 6 6
Seat 2 10 10
Tactical Tender 6 3 24
Tender 16 5 59
Page 246
187
Table 8.a.11. Local resources and estimated travel time to Estes Valley. Resources are sorted by travel time. Data current as of January 2022. See NWCG
standards for wildland fire resource typing for a description of resource types (NWCG, 2021b).
Agency Resource ICS Type Duty Station Travel Time
(mins.)
Availability
Estes Valley Engine 713 Engine T3 Estes Park 3 Local
Estes Valley Engine 723 Engine T3 Estes Park 3 Local
Estes Valley Engine 716 Engine T6 Estes Park 3 Local
Estes Valley Tender 71 Tactical Tender Estes Park 3 Local
Estes Valley Tender 72 Tactical Tender Estes Park 5 Local
Estes Valley Tender 73 Support Tender Estes Park 5 Local
Jefferson County Tanker Base (USFS) Tanker 10 Large Air Tanker Broomfield 6 National
Rocky Mountain National Park Squad 33 Ia Module Estes Park 8 Local
Rocky Mountain National Park Engine 632 Engine T6 Estes Park 8 Local
NOCO SEAT Base T-862 Seat Loveland (FNL) 10 National
NOCO SEAT Base T-864 Seat Loveland (FNL) 10 National
Rocky Mountain National Park Alpine IHC Crew T1 Estes Park 10 National (seasonal with some off-season staffing)
Jefferson County Tanker Base
(Interagency)
Northern Colorado Helitack Helitack Broomfield 12 National
Jefferson County Tanker Base (USFS) Helicopter T1 Broomfield 12 National
Glen Haven FD Tender 33 Tactical Tender Glen Haven 14 Local
Glen Haven FD Engine 6-30 Engine T6 Glen Haven 14 Local
Pinewood Springs VFD Tender 5141 Tactical Tender Lyons 18 Local
Pinewood Springs VFD Engine 5131 Engine T6 Lyons 18 Local
Pinewood Springs VFD Engine 5132 Engine T6 Lyons 18 Local
Pinewood Springs VFD UTV 5154 Engine T7 Lyons 18 Local
Pinewood Springs VFD Engine 5101 Engine T1 Lyons 18 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 48 Engine T3 Drake 20 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 486 Engine T6 Drake 20 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Tender 48 Tactical Tender Drake 20 Local
Glen Haven FD Engine 5-24 Engine T5 Glen Haven 22 Local
Glen Haven FD Engine 4-1 Engine T4 Glen Haven 22 Local
Page 247
188
Agency Resource ICS Type Duty Station Travel Time
(mins.)
Availability
Allenspark FPD Engine 5231 Engine T5 Allenspark 23 Local
Allenspark FPD Engine 5232 Engine T5 Allenspark, C0 23 Local
Allenspark FPD Engine 5233 Engine T5 Allenspark 23 Local
Allenspark FPD Tender 5242 Tender Allenspark 23 Local
Big Elk VFD Engine 4931 Engine T6 Lyons 29 Local
Big Elk VFD Tender 4940 Tender Lyons 29 Local
Big Elk VFD Tender 4941 Tender Lyons 29 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 494 Engine T4 Drake 29 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 496 Engine T6 Drake 29 Local
Lyons FPD Engine 4011 Engine T4 Lyons 29 Local
Lyons FPD Engine 4031 Engine T6 Lyons 29 Local
Lyons FPD Engine 4032 Engine T6 Lyons 29 Local
Lyons FPD Engine 4033 Engine T6 Lyons 29 Local
Lyons FPD Tender 4041 Tender Lyons 29 Local
Lyons FPD Tender 4042 Tender Lyons 29 Local
Lyons FPD Engine 4051 Engine T6 Lyons 29 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 474 Engine T4 Loveland 34 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 476 Engine T6 Loveland 34 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 426 Engine T6 Loveland 41 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 433 Engine T3 Loveland 43 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Tender 43 Tactical Tender Loveland 43 Local
Berthoud FPD Engine 623 Engine T3 Berthoud 44 Local
Berthoud FPD Engine 626 Engine T6 Berthoud 44 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 416 Engine T6 Loveland 47 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Tender 45 Tactical Tender Loveland 48 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 466 Engine T6 Loveland 51 Local
Berthoud FPD Engine 613 Engine T3 Berthoud 53 Local
Berthoud FPD Engine 616 Engine T6 Berthoud 53 Local
Berthoud FPD Tender 62 Tender Berthoud 53 Local
Arapaho-Roosevelt NF - South Zone Squad 1-2 IA Module Nederland 57 Local
Page 248
189
Agency Resource ICS Type Duty Station Travel Time
(mins.)
Availability
Arapaho-Roosevelt NF - South Zone Squad 1-1 IA Module Nederland 57 Local
Boulder County Fire Management 6533 Engine T6 Boulder 57 Local
Boulder County Fire Management 6531 Engine T6 Boulder 57 Local
Boulder County Fire Management Shadow Canyon Crew T2 Boulder 57 Local (seasonal)
Boulder County Fire Management 6532 Engine T6 Boulder 57 Local
Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Engine 505 Engine T5 Johnstown 57 Local
Poudre Fire Authority Engine 146 Engine T6 Fort Collins 57 Local
Poudre Fire Authority Tender 02 Tender Fort Collins 59 Local
Larimer County Sheriff's Office
Emergency Services
E-691 Engine T6 Fort Collins 63 Local
Larimer County Sheriff's Office
Emergency Services
E-692 Engine T6 Fort Collins 63 Local
Larimer County Sheriff's Office
Emergency Services
Initial Attack Module IA Module Fort Collins 63 Local
Poudre Fire Authority Tender 11 Tender Loveland 63 Local
Poudre Fire Authority Engine 273 Engine T3 Laporte 65 Local
Poudre Fire Authority Engine 286 Engine T6 Fort Collins 66 Local
CO Div. of Fire Prevention and
Control (Northeast Region)
Overland Module IA Module Windsor 67 Local
Poudre Fire Authority Engine 126 Engine T6 Fort Collins 67 Local
Poudre Fire Authority Tender 12 Tender Fort Collins 67 Local
Arapaho & Roosevelt NF - North Zone Engine 653 Engine T6 Fort Collins 68 Local
Arapaho & Roosevelt NF - North Zone Engine 654 Engine T6 Fort Collins 68 Local
Arapaho & Roosevelt NF - North Zone Squad 55 IA Module Fort Collins 68 Local
Arapaho-Roosevelt NF & Pawnee NG Roosevelt IHC Crew T1 Fort Collins 68 National (seasonal with some off-season staffing)
Poudre Fire Authority Engine 266 Engine T6 Fort Collins 68 Local
Poudre Fire Authority Tender 06 Tender Fort Collins 68 Local
CO Div. of Fire Prevention and
Control (Northeast Region)
Engine 3111 Engine T3 Hudson 82 Local
Livermore FPD Engine 631 Engine T6 Livermore 85 Local
Page 249
190
Agency Resource ICS Type Duty Station Travel Time
(mins.)
Availability
Livermore FPD Tender 1 Tender Livermore 85 Local
Livermore FPD Engine 632 Engine T6 Livermore 85 Local
Livermore FPD Engine 432 Engine T4 Livermore 85 Local
Livermore FPD Engine 3 Engine T6 Livermore 85 Local
Livermore FPD Tender 4 Tender Livermore 85 Local
CO Div. of Fire Prevention and
Control (Northeast Region)
James Peak Module IA Module Black Hawk 86 Local
CO Div. of Fire Prevention and
Control (Northeast Region)
E-6121 Engine T6 Black Hawk 86 Local
Glacier View FD Engine 501 Engine Type 2 Livermore 90 Local
Glacier View FD Engine 502 Engine Type 2 Livermore 90 Local
Glacier View FD Engine 302 Engine Type 4 Livermore 90 Local
Glacier View FD Tender 1 Tender Livermore 90 Local
Glacier View FD Tender 2 Tender Livermore 90 Local
Arapaho-Roosevelt NF - South Zone E-612 Engine T6 Idaho Springs 105 Local
Arapaho & Roosevelt NF - North Zone Squad 56 Crew (other) Red Feather Lakes 107 Local
Arapaho & Roosevelt NF - North Zone Engine 651 Engine T6 Red Feather Lakes 107 Local
Crystal Lakes FPD Tender 1 Tender Red Feather Lakes 135 Local
Crystal Lakes FPD Brush 1 Engine T6 Red Feather Lakes 135 Local
Crystal Lakes FPD Brush 2 Engine T6 Red Feather Lakes 135 Local
CO Div. of Fire Prevention and
Control (Northeast Region)
Engine 3141 Engine T3 Sterling 158 Local
Arapaho-Roosevelt NF - South Zone E-681 Engine T6 Grand Lake 200 Local
Page 250
191
A.8. Community Values at Risk Assessment – Quantitative
MethodologyRisk assessments can help inform planning and decision making as they relate to prevention and mitigation and are thus a useful tool for addressing complex coupled socio-ecological systems like the fire environment. We evaluated risk to identified values in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District based on fire behavior modeling and burn probability. These approaches are limited by the spatial unit of analysis for fire behavior simulations (30 m2), industry shortcomings in simulating extreme fire behavior, and ongoing research into contributing factors for structure loss. However, output is useful to identifying areas of highest risk and directing limited funding to strategic actions to mitigate risk.
Non-Residential Values At Risk
Methodology Risk assessments involve quantifying the potential for loss (probability and intensity) as they relate to human life, health, property, and the environment, which are generally called “values” (Aven et al., 2018). Values used for this risk assessment were identified through a collaborative process with the CWPP working group. Multiple spatial datasets were used as a starting point for communication equipment, emergency services locations, healthcare equipment, etc. These were further refined by stakeholder input. To reduce the complexity of this analysis and provide more value for emergency management, housing was not included in this specific analysis. Values were grouped by the FEMA community lifelines framework (FEMA, 2019). This framework classifies community components necessary for the continuous operation of critical government and business functions. Community lifelines include: 1.Safety and Security2.Food, Water, Shelter3.Health and Medical4.Energy5.Communications6.Transportation7.Hazardous MaterialEach community lifeline has multiple components and subcomponents. For instance, “Safety and Security” includes obvious components such as “Law Enforcement” and “Fire Service”, but also less obvious ones like “Government Service”, which includes such subcomponents as “Government Offices”. For further information on community lifelines, components, and subcomponents, cross-reference Appendix E of the FEMA Incident Stabilization Guide (FEMA, 2019). Analysis followed methods modified from wildfire risk assessments techniques widely adopted by federal land management agencies (Scott et al., 2013). Identified values were overlayed with the modeled flame lengths (intensity of impact) and normalized burn probability (probability of impact) under 90th percentile weather conditions. To simplify the process, value “response functions” were not included (Finney, 2005); all fire impacts on values at risk were considered to be negatively impactful, with increasing flame lengths considered increasingly negative. Burn probability was normalized between 0-1. Values at risk were plotted against “haul chart” flame length categories
Page 251
192
which are based on the requisite tools or tactics needed for wildfire suppression (Table 8.a.3) (NWCG, 2019). We also assessed values to risk based on potential exposure to radiant heat, short-range ember cast, and long-range ember cast. Radiant heat can ignite structures when extreme fire behavior occurs within near proximity to structures, but embers can ignite structures even when the flaming front is far away. Following the analysis approach outlined in Appendix A.3. Predicted Radiant Heat and
Ember Cast , we assessed exposure within the home ignition zone (HIZ; 100-foot radius) of values at risk.
Key Findings Under 90th percentile weather conditions, cultural resources (which fall within the FEMA lifeline category “Safety and Security”) have the highest risk in terms of probability and intensity (Figure
8.a.22). Perhaps the greatest concerns are various youth educational facilities that are exposed tohigh burn probability and flame lengths – notably, the Eagle Rock School, the UNC Old Man MountainCenter, and the YMCA facilities. Other values within the “Safety and Security” lifeline category (e.g.,fire stations) were exposed to low burn probability and low flame lengths (Figure 8.a.23).Communication towers on Prospect Mountain were exposed to potentially very high flame lengths, but burn probability was estimated to be low (
Page 252
193
Table 8.a.12). The potential impact of losing these critical tools is very high, especially during an emerging incident. Communications are critical for safe incident response, whether for responders or for communicating vital information to the public. Notably, the YMCA Comms Tower is at elevated burn probability, but has less immediate impact on emergency communications during a wildfire incident. Some values were exposed to relatively low flame lengths but had elevated burn probability. The East Portal Substation, the K47EC analog television tower, and the Harmony Foundation Rehabilitation Clinic are notable examples of these situations. Some values at risk have low burn probabilities but are still at risk from wildfires due to ember exposure (
Page 253
194
Table 8.a.12). Based on this analysis, four values at risk have the potential for extreme exposure to embercast: Clatworthy Place, Mountainside Lodge, Prospect Mountain communications towers, and Wind Ridge.
Figure 8.a.22. Quantitative risk assessment for values at risk in the Estes Valley Fire Protection
District separated into FEMA community lifeline categories. Risk is assessed in terms of probability
(relative burn probability) and intensity (flame length) under 90th percentile weather conditions.
Values above 25 ft. flame lengths were not plotted.
Page 254
195
Figure 8.a.23. Quantitative risk assessment for values at risk within the “Safety and Security”
community lifeline category in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District. Risk is assessed in terms of
probability (relative burn probability) and intensity (flame length) under 90th percentile weather
conditions. Values above 25 ft. flame length were not plotted. EOC = Emergency Operations Center.
Page 255
196
Table 8.a.12. Quantitative risk assessment for values at risk in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District
separated into FEMA community lifeline categories. Risk is assessed in terms of Haul Chart categories
(related to flame length), burn probability, and exposure to radiant heat, short-range spotting, and/or
long-range spotting under 90th percentile weather conditions. Values at risk are sorted by Haul Chart
categories followed by burn probability. Colors for the Haul Chart categories correspond with colors in
Figure 8.a.22.
Name FEMA
Community
Lifeline Category Haul Chart
Category
Burn
Probability Exposure
level1 Fairground - Staging Area Safety and Security Hand tools Low Low Fuel Storage at County Facility Energy Hand tools Low Low Mountain Top Childcare Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Low Shell Gas Station Energy Hand tools Low Low Sinclair Gas Station Energy Hand tools Low Low Bank of Estes Park - Hwy 7 Communications Hand tools Low Low Community Center Safety and Security Hand tools Low Low American Legion Post 119 Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Bank of Colorado Communications Hand tools Low Moderate Bank of Estes Park - Downtown Communications Hand tools Low Moderate Boulder Valley Credit Union Communications Hand tools Low Moderate Estes Park EOC at the Fire Station Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate Conoco Gas Station Energy Hand tools Low Moderate Country Market Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Event Complex Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate High School Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Post Office Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate Local Dispatch Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate Police Department Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate Town Hall EOC Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate EVFPD Station 1 Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate Famous Eastside Food Store Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Water Supply Gauge - Glen Comfort Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate
Page 256
197
Name FEMA
Community
Lifeline Category Haul Chart
Category
Burn
Probability Exposure
level1 Good Samaritan Health and Medical Hand tools Low Moderate Hangar Restaurant Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate Original RMNP HQ Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate KeyBank Communications Hand tools Low Moderate Dispatch Comms Towers Communications Hand tools Low Moderate Lifelong Learning Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Olympus Dam Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Park Place Preschool Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Plan de Salud Del Valle Health and Medical Hand tools Low Moderate Rocky Mountain Park Inn Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Safeway Grocery Store Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Safeway Gas Station Energy Hand tools Low Moderate Safeway Pharmacy Health and Medical Hand tools Low Moderate Shell Gas Station Energy Hand tools Low Moderate Sinclair Gas Station Energy Hand tools Low Moderate UCHealth Primary Care Clinic Health and Medical Hand tools Low Moderate Weist Lot Comms Towers Communications Hand tools Low Moderate Water Supply Gauge - 1SSE Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Options School Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Park Theatre Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate Elementary School Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Estes Park Museum Safety and Security Hand tools Low Moderate Lake Estes Substation Energy Hand tools Low Moderate Waste Water Treatment Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Water Supply Gauge - Estes Park Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Mountain View Bible Fellowship Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Peakview Comms Tower Communications Hand tools Low Moderate
Page 257
198
Name FEMA
Community
Lifeline Category Haul Chart
Category
Burn
Probability Exposure
level1 Middle School Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Lake Estes Powerplant Energy Hand tools Low Moderate Community for Kids Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Low Moderate Estes Park Home Health Care Health and Medical Hand tools Low High Hospice Health and Medical Hand tools Low High Estes Park Medical Center Health and Medical Hand tools Low High Library Safety and Security Hand tools Low High U.S. Bank National Association Communications Hand tools Low High Bennet Childrens Program Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Moderately low Low YMCA Summer Day Camp Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Moderately low Low Sanitation District Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Moderately low Moderate Transfer Station Hazardous Material Hand tools Moderately low Moderate Crags Lodge Safety and Security Hand tools Moderately low Moderate Presbyterian Community Church Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Moderately low Moderate Urgent Care Center Health and Medical Hand tools Moderately low Moderate Stanley Hotel District Safety and Security Hand tools Moderately low Moderate Edgemont Safety and Security Hand tools Moderately low Moderate Rocky Mountain Pharmacy Health and Medical Hand tools Moderately low Moderate Fuel Storage at Estes Park School Transportation Energy Hand tools Moderately low Moderate CDOT Facility Transportation Hand tools Moderately low High Loveland Heights Cottages Safety and Security Hand tools Moderately low High Fish Hatchery Property Safety and Security Hand tools Moderately low High Longhouse (YMCA) Food, Water, Shelter Hand tools Moderately high Moderate H Bar G Ranch Safety and Security Hand tools Moderately high Moderate
Page 258
199
Name FEMA
Community
Lifeline Category Haul Chart
Category
Burn
Probability Exposure
level1 Mountainside Lodge Safety and Security Hand tools Moderately high Extreme Mary's Lake Substation Energy Equipment Moderately low Moderate Mary's Lake Substation Energy Equipment Moderately low Moderate Rockside Cottage Safety and Security Equipment Moderately low Moderate Dunraven Safety and Security Equipment Moderately high Moderate Dunraven Inn Safety and Security Equipment Moderately high Moderate East Portal Substation Energy Equipment Moderately high Moderate Clatworthy Place Safety and Security Indirect Low Extreme Mary's Lake Powerplant Energy Indirect Moderately low High Harmony Foundation Health and Medical Indirect Moderately high High Eagle Rock School Food, Water, Shelter Indirect High Moderate UNC Old Man Mountain Center Food, Water, Shelter Indirect Moderately low High Prospect Mtn Comms Towers Communications Indirect Moderately low Extreme YMCA Comms Tower Communications Indirect Moderately high Moderate Cheley Camp Safety and Security Indirect Moderately high High Wind Ridge Safety and Security Indirect High Extreme
1Low exposure = potential exposure to long-range ember cast. Moderate exposure = potential exposure to long-rang ember cast and short-range ember cast. High exposure = potential exposure to long-range ember cast or short-range ember cast and radiant heat. Extreme exposure = potential exposure to long- and short-range ember cast and radiant heat.
Page 259
200
Residential Values At Risk
Methodology We assessed residential values to risk based on potential exposure to radiant heat, short-range ember cast, and long-range ember cast. Radiant heat can ignite structures when extreme fire behavior occurs within near proximity to structures, but embers can ignite structures even when the flaming front is far away. See Appendix A.3. Predicted Radiant Heat and Ember Cast for our methodology and findings. We also determined the number of homes that could be impacted by fires traveling through different portions of the landscape. This highlighted areas where fuel treatments might protect the greatest number of homes. We determined how many homes fell within each of the 10,000 wildfire perimeters simulated for the FlamMap conditional burn probability analysis. We determined the number of fires that passed through a given area and encountered at least one home and summarized this data by fireshed. We weighted this value by the number of structures impacted by fires across all simulated fires so areas with higher values experienced more fires and exposed a greater number of homes. We normalized this value to range from 0 to 1 across the analysis area.
Key Findings Under 90th percentile fire weather conditions, the firesheds where the most simulated wildfires impact the most structures are centralized in the northeastern part of the district (Figure 8.a.24). These areas, influenced by generally more open stands, flashier fuels, are at risk of fires spreading from the west and impacting the dense structures situated here. In the western and southwestern part of the district, elevated risk is present as well. These firesheds are likewise influenced by the fuels and density of structures. Due to the relative paucity of structures, outlying areas experience the least potential impacts.
Page 260
201
Figure 8.a.24. We used simulated fire perimeters to determine locations more likely to experience
wildfires that impact homes, with values closer to 1 indicating areas with a higher likelihood of fires
that impact homes AND a higher number of homes that could be impacted.
8.b. Appendices
Page 261
202
Appendix B. Treatment Prioritization Methodology
B.1. Plan Unit Hazard AssessmentWe compared the relative risk that wildfires pose to life and property in 20 plan units across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (Figure 3.c.2). Homes across the EVFPD have high risk from wildfire damage, but to help prioritize hazard mitigation, we developed a rating of relative risk. A plan unit receiving a relative rating of “moderate risk” has risk factors that are lower than risk factors in other plan units, but it is still an area with wildfire hazards. We assessed hazards in four categories: fire risk, fire suppression challenges (e.g., limited hydrant availability and engine access), evacuation hazards, and home ignition zone hazards. We developed the ratings of relative risk specifically for the EVFPD, so the assessment is not suitable for comparing EVFPD to other communities. Our assessment was based on predictions of fire behavior, potential exposure to radiant heat and ember cast, roadway survivability, and evacuation time, as well as an on-the-ground assessment of each plan unit. In October of 2021, employees of The Ember Alliance drove around the EVFPD and used a modified version of the NFPA Wildfire Hazard Severity Form Checklist (NFPA 299 / 1144) to rate home ignition zone hazards within each plan unit.
Hazard Rating Scale A rating scale was developed specifically for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District based on the range of values observed across the community (Table 8.b.1). The purpose of the assessment is to compare relative hazards within the community and is not suitable for comparing the EVFPD to other communities.
Table 8.b.1. Relative hazard rating matrix for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Points Relative hazard rating
Hazard category Max. possible Range of values observed in EVFPD plan units Moderate High Extreme
A. Fire risk 55 7 – 53 <21 21-39 ≥40 B. Fire suppressionchallenges 45 3 – 38 <10 10-24 ≥25 C. Evacuation hazards 40 0 – 40 <16 16-20 ≥21 D. Home ignition zonehazards 53 10 – 48 <20 20-29 ≥30 Overall risk 193 43 – 151 <80 80-104 ≥105
Page 262
203
Relative Risk Rating Form
A. Fire Risk Points B. Fire Suppression Challenges Points 1.Average flame length1 1. Average response time
2≤4 feet 0 <4 minutes 0 >4-8 feet 6 4-8 minutes 3 >8 feet 12 >8 minutes 5 2. Crown fire activity (percent area predictedfor active crown fire)1 2. Percentage of homes near hydrants≤0.5% 0 >75%0 0.5-1% 6 25-75%5 >1%12 <25% 10 3. Presence of dip / draft sites3.Percentage of homes with exposure toradiant heat, short-range ember cast, and long-range ember cast1
Not necessary due to hydrant availability 0 At least one dip / draft site 0 <2% 0 No dip / draft site 5 2-15%6 4.Road/driveway accessibility for Type 3engines (percent of roads/driveways)>15%12 4. Conditional burn probability
1 >90%0 <0.06% 0 75-90%5 0.06-0.12% 3 50-75%10 >0.12%6 <50% 15 4. Additional risk factors
5. Presence of legible and reflective signs(percent of roads and homes)Mid-slope homes 2 >90%0 Homes on ridge tops 2 75-90%3 Saddles / ravines / chimneys 4 <75% 5 Utilities (gas / electric) placement 6. Presence / absence of HazMatAll underground 0 Absent 0 Infrequent overhead powerlines 3 Present 5 Frequent overhead powerlines 5 B. Total points possible 45
A. Total points possible 55 2Response time estimated using Service Area analysis in ArcMap. 1Predictions from FlamMap under 60th percentile fire weather conditions for plan unit and adjacent watersheds.
Page 263
204
C. Evacuation Hazards Points D. Home Ignition Zone Hazards Points 1. Number of lanes in each direction 1. Roof construction materialAt least 1 lane on >75% of roads 0 Class B or C on <10% of homes 0 At least 1 lane on >50-75% of roads 5 Class B or C on 10-15% of homes 5 Less than 1 lane on >50% of roads 10 Class B or C on >25% of homes 10 2.General impression of evacuation challengesbased on housing density and egress routes Class C on >50% of homes 15 2. Percent of homes with combustible siding/ deckingLow 0 Moderate 10 <10% 0 High 20 10-50%5 3.Percent of roads with non-survivableconditions under 60th percentile fire weather >50%10 <1% 0 3. Percent of homes with wooden fenceswithin defensible space zone 11-20%5 >20%10 <10% 0
C. Total points possible 40 40 10-25%1 >25%2 4. Percent of homes with adequatemitigation of ladder and canopy fuels indefensible space zones 1 and 2>90%0 75-90%3 50-75%6 <50% 10 5. Percent of homes with adequatemaintenance of defensible space>90%0 75-90%1 50-75%3 <50% 5 6. Percent of homes with additional hazardsin zones 1 and 2 (e.g., wood piles,flammable lawn furniture)<10% 0 10-25%1 25-50%3 >50%5 7.Average number of homes potentiallyexposed to short-range ember cast fromother homes<5 homes 0 5-15 homes 3 >15 homes 6
D. Total points possible 53
Page 264
205
B.2. Fuel Treatment Prioritization MethodologyForesters often conduct fuels treatments across forest stands—areas with similar tree sizes, species compositions, topography, and soils types. To create stand boundaries for our fuel treatment prioritization, we delineated small watersheds (i.e., an area of land where all precipitation falling in that area drains to the same location) and subdivided these into three hillslopes—one on each side of a stream or river and one above the headwaters of the watershed (Figure
8.b.1). We delineated hillslopes in ArcGISusing a modified version of the WEPPHillslope Toolbox, which is based onTOPAZ (Topographic ParameterizationSoftware) from the USDA AgriculturalResearch Service.We used 30 m resolution digital elevation models from the U.S. Geological Service, and delineated hillslopes with a critical source area of 60 hectares (about 150 acres) and a minimum source channel length of 330 feet (100 meters). Critical source area is the minimum allowable area above the head of a first-order channel, and minimum source channel length is the minimum length of a channel used to delineate watersheds. We split hillslopes by major roads (U.S. Highway 34, U.S. Highway 36, and CO Highway 7). We merged hillslopes <10 acres with larger, adjacent hillslopes. We delineated a total of 1,036 hillslopes in and around the Estes Valley FPD, averaging 165 acres in size and ranging from 10 to 1,050 acres—reasonable sizes for forest management projects in the WUI. We developed a prioritization scheme to weight potential treatment units based on predicted fire behavior under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions, homes potentially exposed to short-range ember cast and radiant heat from the unit, potential exposure of homes to fires that could burn through a treatment unit, presence of priority roadway treatments, and percent slope within the unit (Table 8.b.2). Some forest stands have high risk of crown fire but are extremely steep and far from roads, and therefore inaccessible to forestry equipment. According to Hunter et al. (2007), use of mechanical equipment is generally infeasible on slopes greater than 35%. We assumed that handcrews can thin forests on slopes up to 50%. Since it is less feasible to treat steep areas, we lowered the priority of stands that had high percentages of inoperable slopes. We prioritized roadside treatments based on non-survivable conditions (predicted flame lengths >8 feet) under 60th and 90th percentile fire weather conditions and road segments that could become evacuation pinch points. Areas with non-survivable conditions under 60th percentile fire weather are at greater risk than those with conditions that only become non-survivable under 90th percentile weather because the surrounding vegetation can produce long flame lengths even under less severe (and less uncommon) fire weather conditions. Staff from EVFPD and LCSO that manage evacuation planning and were part of the evacuation in 2020 helped identify locations that could experience the most extreme congestion. We prioritized treatments following the scheme presented in Table 8.b.3.
Figure 8.b.1. Depiction of small watersheds and their
subdivided hillslopes.
Page 265
206
Table 8.b.2. Prioritization scheme for ranking potential treatment units to mitigate fire hazards within and adjacent to the Estes Valley Fire
Protection District.
Prioritization category Maximum
weight
First priority Second priority Third priority Number of homes exposed to short-range ember cast from crown fire in the unit and/or radiant heat from flame lengths > 8 feet (60th percentile fire weather)
30% Cutoff ≥5 homes 1-4 homes 0 homes Weight 30 15 0
Contains priority roadways (non-survivable evacuation pinch point)
20% Cutoff At least one priority roadway No priority roadways Weight 20 0 Percent active crown fire (60th percentile fire weather)
15% Cutoff ≥5% 0.5 - <5% <0.5% Weight 15 8 0 Percent area with flame lengths > 8 feet (60th percentile fire weather) 15% Cutoff ≥75% 50 - <75% <50% Weight 15 8 0 Normalized count of fires impacting structures weighted by structures impacted (90th percentile fire weather, 25 mph W winds)1
15% Cutoff ≥50% 10 - <50% <10% Weight 15 8 0
Percent operable (slopes <50%) 5% Cutoff ≥75% 33 - <75% <33% Weight 5 3 0
Overall priority First priority Second priority Third priority Cutoff ≥61 46 – 60 31 – 45 1Details about this analysis are provided in the section Residential Values At Risk and results are displayed in Figure 8.a.24.
Page 266
207
Table 8.b.3. Prioritization scheme for ranking potential roadside treatments to mitigate fire hazards
along roadways in the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
Prioritization
category
Conditions
First •Non-survivable conditions (flame lengths >8 feet) under 60th percentilefire weather conditions
•Road segments with evacuation congestion
Second •Non-survivable conditions (flame lengths >8 feet) under 90th percentilefire weather conditions
•Road segments with evacuation congestion
Third •Non-survivable conditions (flame lengths >8 feet) under 60th percentilefire weather conditions
•Roads without excessive evacuation congestion
8.c. Appendices
Page 267
208
Appendix C. Focus Group and Survey
C.1. MethodsA focus group of community leaders from across the Estes Valley Fire Protection District was held in November 2021. Community leaders were identified by the core team and invited to participate, and all community members were invited via social media and the local newspaper to participate. Participants filled out a short demographic survey, joined in interactive prompts regarding community values and wildfire preparedness, and participated in a discussion about community attitudes, actions, barriers, and education around wildfires. Following the focus group, the relevant questions were transposed to an online survey format that the public could respond to in their own time. This survey was hosted by the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition. Questions were built based on feedback from the interactive prompts from the focus group as well as questions developed by the Wildfire Research group (WiRē). The survey was open to the public from mid-November 2021 to the end of January 2022. Results from the focus group and survey were compiled together anonymously and analyzed for trends and themes. A note on potential bias: Participants rated themselves as more knowledgeable than the average citizen about wildfires and fire mitigation and indicated that they believe many of their neighbors are less informed and less active in fire mitigation. Focus group attendees were identified as community leaders, many of whom have shown an interest in fire mitigation in the past and are in tune with their neighborhood knowledge and feelings. They were asked to both speak for themselves and to make educated guesses on their neighbors’ knowledge and actions.
C.2. Results
Values at Risk Focus group participants brainstormed all the values that residents believe are at risk from wildfire in Estes Valley. They worked together to narrow down that list to a few categories, which were then prioritized by attendees and survey respondents. Participants ranked private property much lower than residents in other communities in Colorado. In other communities this is often the second top priority. Residents here have a high awareness of larger community problems which could indicate a willingness to invest in community-wide mitigation action, rather than an individual-centric approach. Participants are very concerned with having protected utilities and infrastructure including firefighter support and safety, and they have a notable awareness of mental health issues surrounding wildfires.
Page 268
209
Figure 8.c.1. Participant-identified values at risk and general value categories. Colored dots were part
of the prioritization activity for the focus group.
Page 269
210
Figure 8.c.2. Relative importance of local values at risk. Participants ranked these categories as first,
second, or third priority, and these rankings were weighted (one point for each third priority, two
points for each second priority, and three points for each first priority). Weighted rankings were
divided by the total votes to assign a percentage of votes to each category. No one voted for “air
quality” as a category.
Mitigation Work Participants reported starting mitigation work on their property when buying, building, or remodeling a home, when the 2020 fires were affecting the valley, and when home insurance companies required mitigation work. This indicates that working with the local realtor’s association and builder or contractor associations may help deliver high-quality information when residents are most willing and ready to make changes to their properties. Most participants do annual upkeep and mitigation work in the fall, making late summer and early fall an ideal time for outreach and fire season warnings. While most participants did not indicate that property loss was their highest concern in a wildfire event, self-serving outcomes are still useful in initiating action. Many homeowners do not want to lose home insurance and do not want to pay more for it. The FPD could encourage creating a savings plan for roof replacements so residents are financially prepared when an insurance company
Page 270
211
requires it to keep them insured. Community goals like creating a FireWise community in their neighborhood can also factor into insurance decisions. It may be useful to build off local fires, such as the Kruger Rock Fire, to start a campaign to remind residents to mitigate their HIZs. Using specifics to detail how mitigation work did or could have changed the course of the fire may provide substantiative proof that homeowners need to begin work. Creating fear is never a sensible goal in public outreach; alleviating uncertainty with actionable knowledge is a better goal. Community-led mitigation is a good strategy in the Estes Valley. Denser populations than many mountain towns will require shared mitigation and community action. A community ambassador program would be appropriate to help the district work more closely with each neighborhood in the valley.
Figure 8.c.3. Percent of participants that have completed different categories of home hardening and
defensible space around their home.
21%21%26%26%37%37%42%47%47%47%53%58%58%63%63%68%
0%20%40%60%80%Put mesh guards on ventsInstalled fire-resistant deck materialsInstalled fire-resistant sidingMoved propane tank away from homeInstalled a Class A roofInstalled multi-pane windowsThinned trees less than 100 ft awayAnnually clear debris from roof and guttersMow grass around home regularlyLimbed trees to 6 ftMoved firewood awayAnnually clear flammable items around homeRemoved ladder fuelsAnnually clear duff from around homeClear slash annuallyMaintain access space around driveway
Percent of participants
What fire mitigation work have you done on your property?
Page 271
212
Figure 8.c.4. Relative percent of participants that indicated what initiated their mitigation work on
their property in the Estes Valley. Many events have been the catalyst for residents in Estes Park to
begin wildfire mitigation on their home and property. Building off these events may help encourage
others to begin the process.
Barriers to Mitigation Cost and time are the biggest barriers to mitigation in the community, and this is not surprising. Some mitigation tasks are inexpensive and easy (see the Section on Defensible Space), and others are expensive and time consuming. Estes is one of the oldest communities in the state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020) and many retirees need assistance making big changes to their property or completing all the recommended annual maintenance tasks. A lack of contractors is a more recent issue that has been worsened due to the Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing economic issues. It is difficult for a FPD to assist with some of these barriers. However, certain financial barriers can be eased by advertising home mitigation grant opportunities or supporting a tool library with basic HIZ mitigation supplies for checkout. Other barriers that participants identified highlight opportunities for the FPD and partners to provide assistance. Residents that do not know where to take slash can be educated about current slash disposal options, and the FPD can work toward installing a local slash yard for residents of the
5%
25%
15%30%
15%
5%5%
When did you begin doing wildfire mitigation work on your property?
When remodelling my home2020 firesWhen my insurance required itWhen I moved hereWhen I built my house hereWhen I started working with myHOAWhen my neighborhood becameFirewise
Page 272
213
valley. Residents that would like help identifying specific tasks and priorities on their properties can be educated about the free home inspection program that EVFPD runs. EVFPD can also support HOA regulations that support personal and community fire mitigation by continuing to be an active part of HOA meetings as part of their outreach.
Figure 8.c.5. Relative percent of responses that identified these barriers to mitigation.
7%
48%22%
4%
11%
4%4%
What keeps you from doing more more mitigation?
My HOA /POAMoney/CostTimeAccountability from othersLack of contract helpMy neighbors preferencesLack of knowledge/priorities
Page 273
214
Figure 8.c.6. Relative percent of responses that identified resident needs to enable further mitigation
action. *Note that the fire district does not own any electric wiring within their district.
Educational Content When the fires of 2020 threatened the valley for months, many participants got their news from the live streamed video updates, InciWeb, NoCoAlerts, community Facebook pages, and the newspaper. People also found local webcams very useful once they were evacuated. This shows a trend toward residents being interested in real-time updates and information during fire events, and this is something that EVFPD can be aware of and work on continuing. Informed participants tend to look toward the EVFPD as the local expert for fire mitigation information. This shows community trust and successful outreach by the district. Leveraging this reputation through a community ambassador program can help spread trusted, quality information. Others in the community receive information from the Colorado State Forest Service, their HOA, and their insurance agency. This CWPP document references CSFS standards for home hardening and defensible space throughout so the information coming from the EVFPD and the CSFS is coordinated. HOA leaders have asked the fire district to speak to them about fire mitigation, and these relationships can continue to develop so that residents that get their information from HOAs are receiving the same information as their neighbors.
Leadership Have the Fire Dist. insulate its wiring*
Town or HOA enforcement with penalties
Access to inexpensive/easy waste disposalList of specific tasks to do
Help doing the work
What would encourage and enable you to do more mitigation?
Page 274
215
Participants stated that they are interested to virtual events and prefer to be contacted through email, paper mail, social media, and the local newspaper. Some residents would benefit from a mitigation calendar or outreach with smaller, more achievable goals, as the HIZ checklists can be intimidating.
Figure 8.c.7. Percent of participants that received information about active wildfires from each
category.
37%32%32%32%
21%21%21%
11%5%5%5%5%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
How do you get your information on wildfires?
Page 275
216
Figure 8.c.8. Percent of participants that received information about fire safety and wildfire
mitigation from each organization.
32%26%26%21%
11%5%5%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Who do you get information on fire safety from?
Page 276
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
1191 Woodstock Dr. #8
P.O. Box 4494
Estes Park, CO 80517
evwatershed@evwatershed.org
www.evwatershed.org
August 11, 2022
To the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees:
The Estes Valley Watershed Coalition has worked with the Town of Estes Park, the
Estes Valley Fire Protection District, Northern Water, and Larimer County to fund
and Manage wildfire mitigation projects on private lands on the edge of Estes
Park, as well as the recently completed Community Wildfire Protection Plan. We
strongly support the Fire District’s efforts to find the resources to increase their
efforts in wildfire mitigation.
Based on our recent experiences, it is getting harder to get this work done by
private contractors, because of increasing liability and the decreasing ability for
them to get insurance. The only clear solution is for local governments to become
directly involved in providing those services for their communities.
We encourage you to seriously consider the recent Fire District request to
increase their sales tax funding. With our continued cooperative efforts to
increase wildfire mitigation and healthier forests, we can make Estes Park a safer,
and more resilient place to live in the future. Thank you for your consideration
and ongoing support.
The Board of the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
Frank Theis, President
Attachment 3
Page 277
8/24/2022
Presented to Town Board by:
David Wolf, Fire Chief
Estes Valley Fire Protection District
August 23, 2022
History
2021
1. Kruger Mountain* 147
2020
2. Cameron Peak 208,663
3. East Troublesome 192,560
4. Calwood 10,106
5. Lefthand Canyon 460
6. Lewstone 165
2012
7. High Park 87,284
8. Fern Lake 3,500
2010
9. Cow Creek 1,500
2002
10. Big Elk*4,800
2000
11. Bobcat Ridge 10,599
(EVFPD ≈ 45,000 acres)2
Maps available on NIFC FTP
2
3
4
5
67
8
9 11
3 1
10
* - Fatalities on these incidents
Page 278
8/24/2022
Fire Adapted
Community
A community consisting of informed
and prepared citizens collaboratively
planning and taking action to safely
coexist with wildland fire.
(National Wildfire Coordinating Group
definition)
The Need for a CWPP
Risk (probability x consequence)
Benefit of a plan
4
Page 279
8/24/2022
What is a
Community
Wildfire
Protection
Plan
(CWPP)?
https://csfs.colostate.edu/wildfire-mitigation/community-wildfire-protection-plans/
Community Engagement
Wildfire Risk Analysis
Project Prioritization
On-the-Ground Action
What is a
Community
Wildfire
Protection
Plan
(CWPP)?
Page 280
8/24/2022
CWPP Process & Timeline
Need for CWPP
determined (Nov 2020)
Core Team identified
Identified The Ember
Alliance as contractor
to complete work
(Jun 2021)
Funded by EVFPD,
EVWC, TOEP, VEP
Completion Jul 2022
7
Required Members
Diverse Forest and Fuel Conditions
•Mixed conifer forest
•Ponderosa woodlands
•Grassland
Understanding the Environment
Page 281
8/24/2022
Fire Behavior AssessmentUnderstanding the Fire Behavior
Understanding the Impact of Weather
Page 282
8/24/2022
Community Plan Units
Components
of Relative
Risk
12
Page 283
8/24/2022
Overall
Relative
Risk
13
Figure 3.c.2 – Relative
risk rating for plan units
across the Estes Valley
Fire Protection District.
“Moderate” risk is a
relative term –ALL plan
units and communities
within the Estes Valley
Fire Protection District are
at high risk of loss from
wildfires and should take
recommended actions
from the CWPP seriously.
Project
Areas
Priority locations
for agencies and
land managers to
direct resources in
the next 5 years.
Treatments here
will benefit the
whole community.
Page 284
8/24/2022
What if I don’t live in a Project Area?
All project locations in the Valley are at risk and
important
Areas prioritized based on relative risk and
perceived ability to address those risks at a
landscape scale
Everyone in the Valley has a role to play in
mitigating wildfire risk
Follow guidance from the recommendations for
your plan unit (every plan unit has
recommendations)
15
Shared Implementation Responsibility
Individual: Home Ignition Zone & Defensible
Space
Communities: Coordinated mitigation by Plan
Unit
District: Strategic landscape and roadway fuel
treatments in priority areas
16
Page 285
8/24/2022
Resources for Individuals & Neighborhoods
Estes Valley
specific action
guides
Home self-
assessment
checklists
Colorado
Mitigation Tax
Credit
17
https://www.estesvalleyfire.org/wildfire
Next Steps for Neighborhoods & District
Review CWPP Plan Unit
Recommendations
(available for all plan units)
Coordination with partners
already doing work
Seek Community
Champions to initiate
neighborhood-scale work
Seek grant funding for
priority project areas
18
Page 286
8/24/2022
Next Steps for District
Strive to accomplish
“Recommendations to
Enhance EVFPD Capacity”
Strategic Planning for
Prevention & Operations
Pursue revenue to
increase capacity and
address shortfalls
19
Summary
20
pg 7
pg 41
Page 287
Page 288
8/24/2022
Workforce Housing
Regulatory Linkage Fee
Discussion -August 2022
Outline ●History - Consideration and
Adoption of Ordinance 02-22
●Fee Study
○Methodology
○Modeling
○Fee Analysis
●Ordinance 02-22 - Specifics and
Implementation
Page 289
8/24/2022
History
Consideration, Adoption & Implementation of Ordinance 02-22
June 8th
Board directed staff to
research options of a
Use Fee/Tax on
vacation homes
August 24th
September 14th
Board directed staff to
pursue fee study &
appropriated funds
October 26th
Engage Root Policy
Research to complete
fee study
December 1st
Study Session to discuss
& provide direction on
methodology
March 1st
Reviewed draft study
results & received
direction on ordinance
2021 2022 2023
March 22nd
Adopt Ord 02-22
Effective 1/2023
2023 Collect fee
during annual
renewal
February 8th
Update on study
including review of data
and impact analysis
January 1st
Methodology &
Project Objective
Quantify the relationship
between the operation of
homes in Town as short-
term rentals and the cost
and availability of
workforce housing
Approach
Descriptive Statistics –overview of housing and
labor market trends and current STR landscape
Impact Model -Econometric model based on
The Effect of Home-Sharing on House Prices and
Rents: Evidence from Airbnb to identify housing
market impacts directly caused by STR activity.
Fee Option –Converts supply impact into a per
unit annual fee to be assessed to mitigate
impacts identified in the study.
Page 290
8/24/2022
Supportable Fee Calculation
The “affordability gap” methodology for fee calculation:
● Standard method for fee calculation in affordable housing linkage fee
studies. The same principle applies though the impact was derived from a
supply-impact methodology as opposed to a demand-impact methodology.
● Measures the difference in market-rate housing and what is affordable
housing to workforce weighted by the income distribution of existing
residents.
●That differential is applied to the supply impacts and annualized to quantify a
potential annual fee per short-term rental unit.
This analysis supports a fee of up to $1,390 per unit per year to mitigate the
quantifiable impact of STRs on local workforce housing.
Page 291
8/24/2022
Supportable
STR Fee
Calculation
It is important to note that the
methodology described above
reflects a conservative approach to
fee calculation as the fee only
captures the marginal difference
between market-rate home costs
and workforce affordable home
costs (as opposed to capturing the
full cost to construct “replacement”
units) and because it assumes
displaced households have the
same income representation as
current residents.
Supportable Fees in Context
Page 292
8/24/2022
Ordinance 02-22 - Adopted March 22nd
Ordinance Specifics
●Adopted CO Tourist Model -
$1,390
●Annual Fee to be collected during
annual renewal of the business
license - January 1-31
●All zoning districts - CO properties
may be exempt with a qualifying
exception.
Implementation 2023 & Future Years
●Annual notice sent in December
for payment no later than
January 31, 2023
●Fee adjusted by consumer price
index annually
●Formation of an Enterprise Fund
Questions
&
Board Discussion
Page 293
Comment on vacation rental regulatory linkage fee
Brown, William C. <william.brown@brownwinick.com> Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:58 AM
To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>
August 22, 2022
To the Estes Park Mayor and Town Trustees,
As you may know, the Estes Chamber of Commerce has voted to urge the Town Board to repeal the vacation
rental impact fee approved in March of this year upon the approval of the Visit Estes Park ballot initiative that
is being considered for this November’s election.
That ballot initiative would increase the lodging tax in the local marketing district from 2% to 5.5% with the
increased tax dedicated to workforce housing and childcare.
It is difficult for an elected official to turn his or her back on a revenue source which has already been approved.
However, the Chamber’s proposal would be to repeal that impact fee only upon the successful adoption by the
voters of the Visit Estes Park ballot initiative.
That ballot initiative is projected to provide $5.2 million of funds for workforce housing and childcare in the
Estes Valley, while the impact fee is projected to raise only $685,000.
What I am asking is for you to substitute the prior revenue source with a much larger revenue source by
repealing the vacation rental impact fee approved this past March contingent upon the approval of the Visit
Estes Park ballot initiative in November.
There are several reasons why I believe this would be a wise move for the Town Board. First, the adoption of
the impact fee has seriously damaged trust in the Town Board – not only among vacation rental owners and the
businesses that serve them, but also among others in town who are seriously concerned about the targeting and
scapegoating of a single constituency in town without a concrete plan on how the funds would be used. The
Town Board’s commitment to repeal the impact fee would go a long way in restoring the trust of that
constituency and voters like me.
Second, I believe that most of the vacation rental community would support the ballot initiative if a majority of
the Town Board publicly commits to repeal the vacation rental impact fee upon approval of the ballot initiative.
However, I believe they will actively campaign against the ballot initiative if such a commitment is not made.
I was the manager of the Lodging Tax Exploration Task Force. When the Task Force voted on proceeding with
the ballot initiative the vote was approved by a 10 to 5 vote. Among the no votes were three members of the
vacation rental community. Based on our discussion in the Task Force, I believe those three members would
support the ballot initiative if the impact fee were repealed. I do not believe that we can afford to leave this
constituency alienated when we are asking the voters to approve a substantial tax increase.
Finally, without repeal of the vacation rental impact fee, owners of vacation rentals in town would essentially be
subject to double taxation if the ballot initiative is approved since they would be subject to both the impact fee
and the added lodging tax. Not only is this unfair double taxation, but it puts these owners at a further
competitive disadvantage to vacation rentals in the Estes Valley outside of town who are not subject to the
town’s sales tax and the vacation rental impact fee. That would be a significant slap in the face to vacation rental
property owners in the town of Estes Park.
Unfortunately, I have to be out of town and will not be able to be at the August 23 Town Board meeting to
provide my comments in person. I will try to watch the meeting live on the internet and provide public
comment. Nonetheless, I urge you to support the proposed contingent repeal of the vacation rental impact fee
which the Estes Chamber has approved.
William C. Brown
Public Comment received by noon on 08-23-2022
Page 295
Page 296
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 8/15/2022
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Cathy Alper
Stance on Item: Neutral
Agenda Item Title: General Public Comment.
Public Comment:
The Community Recycling Committee appreciates the support that has been given to us by the town board
and town staff. Attached are some comments related to the current planning and budgeting processes.
Thank you for all you do for the community. Sincerely, Cathy Alper Chair, Community Recycling Committee
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
Community Recycling Comments on Strategic
Plan.pdf 103.06KB
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.
Page 297
Estes Park 2023 Strategic Plan Recommendations
Community Recycling Committee
August 25, 2022
The Community Recycling Committee (CRC) offers support for the efforts the town is taking
towards sustainability, and we offer recommendations for additional items to be included in
the 2023 strategic plan.
The CRC supports the recommendations for action made by Mr. Damweber at the June 14,
Town board meeting, in particular:
•Plan for implementation of the Colorado Plastic Pollution Reduction Act which among
other things will prohibit stores and retail food establishments from providing single -use
plastic carry out bags at the point of sale.
•Assist with educational efforts ass ociated with recycling, home energy-savings, and
other sustainable practices (such as promoting the use of reusable bags, straws, water
bottles) including sharing information from the County on recycling practices and
composting
•Provide more recycling bins in Town facilities, especially where there are larger
gatherings of the public (such as the Visitor Center and Event Center.)
•Create zero-waste guidelines for event organizers holding an event on town property,
and work with private groups and event venues to implement zero-waste practices into
their own activities.
•Discontinue purchasing of bottled water using Town funds.
•Install additional water refill stations in Town facilities.
The CRC supports the Hazardous Waste collection day budgeted for by the Utility department
for 2023. We believe that you need volunteers for this event, and CRC would be willing to
provide volunteers.
CRC recommends that the town board consider adding several items to the 2023 strategic plan:
•Improve recycling in Estes Park downtown area - Improve the labeling and appearance
of the recycling and landfill/trash bins.
•Provide a cardboard compactor for businesses to make cardboard recycling easier for
them.
Page 298