HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC.packet 06112014 - Community Wildfire Protection Plan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
REGULAR MEETING DATE: June 11, 2014
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving a Pitkin County Colorado Community
Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) 2014 Update
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Darryl Grob, Pitkin Wildfire Mitigation Specialist
ISSUE STATEMENT: Shall the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution
approving a Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2014.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this plan is to identify areas where the hazard
and potential community impact of wildfire is greatest and to guide and coordinate community efforts
to reduce the risk of wildfire through public education, reducing hazardous fuels and reducing
structural ignitability
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Livable and Supportive Community
KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: In 2014, Pitkin County Emergency Management consulted with
local fire chiefs, the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Colorado State Forest
Service to review an existing draft 2011 update to the Pitkin County CWPP. Through this process i t
was decided that the draft 2011 Pitkin County CWPP was consistent with the intent and goals of SB
09-001 The 2014 CWPP updated plan should be adopted to incorporate new CWPP definitions..
BUDGETARY IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION: Approve the Pitkin County CWPP 2014 Update
Resolution on first reading and set for second reading and public hearing on June 28, 2014
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution and
Pitkin County Colorado Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP) 2014 Update
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
APPROVING ADOPTION OF A PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN
(CWPP) 2014 Update.
RESOLUTION NO. _______-2014
1. The purpose of the County Community Wildfire Protection Plan is to identify, foster, and implement
planning to better mitigate the threat of catastrophic wildland fire to our communities and natural resources.
2. The County Wildfire Protection Plan enables relations with other state and local government officials,
local fire chiefs, state and national fire organizations, and federal land management agencies,, thereby
ensuring collaboration among these groups in initiating a planning dialogue and facilitating the
implementation of priority mitigation actions across ownership boundaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado, that it adopt the Resolution approving a Pitkin County Colorado Community Wildfire Protection
Plan (CWPP), 2014 Update and authorizes the chair to execute the agreement upon the satisfaction of the
county attorney.
INTRODUCED, FIRST READ, AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ______ DAY OF
_______________ 2014.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION
PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON ____________, 2014.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND THE FULL TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION POSTED ON THE
OFFICIAL PITKIN COUNTY WEBSITE ( www.aspenpitkin.com ) ON THE ______DAY OF
_______________ 2014.
ADOPTED AFTER FINAL READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ______ DAY OF
_______________ 2014.
PUBLISHED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY, AFTER ADOPTION, IN THE ASPEN TIMES
WEEKLY
POSTED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY ON THE OFFICIAL PITKIN COUNTY WEBSITE (
www.aspenpitkin.com ) ON THE ______DAY OF_______________ 2014.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By _________________________ By: _____________________________
Jeanette Jones Robert A. Ittner, Jr., Chair
Deputy County Clerk
Date: ______________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: MANAGER APPROVAL
___________________________ _________________________________
John Ely, County Attorney Jon Peacock, County Manager
Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan
Prepared in cooperation with:
Valerie MacDonald, Pitkin County Emergency Management
Darryl Grob, Pitkin County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist
Rick Balentine, Aspen Fire Protection District
Scott Thompson, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District &
Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
Ron Leach, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
Kelly Rogers, Colorado State Forest Service
David R. Toelle, CO Division of Fire Prevention and Control
Doug Paul, Upper Colorado Interagency Fire Management Unit
June, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.1. Authority .............................................................................................................................. 6
1.2. Figure 1: Pitkin County Land Status Map ...................................................................... 7
2. PITKIN COUNTY CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................... 8
2.1. Fire History .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Pitkin County Historic Wildfire Occurrence Map ...................................................... 10
2.3. Mountain Pine Beetle ........................................................................................................ 11
2.3.1. Forest Conditions ............................................................................................................ 11
2.3.1.1. Table 2: Existing Vegetation Types in Pitkin County ...................................... 14
2.3.2. Fuels Analysis ........................................................................................................15
2.3.2.1. Table 3: Fire behavior fuel model descriptions found in Pitkin County .. 16
2.3.2.2. Table 4: Models in the Landfire Dataset for Pitkin County ........................... 18
2.3.3. Fire Behavior Analysis ................................................................................................... 18
2.3.3.1. Table 5: BehavePlus Predictions of Fire Behavior on 20 Percent Slope for
Average and Severe Climatic Conditions for pre-epidemic conditions. ....... 19
2.3.4. Ecology of Mountain Pine Beetle .................................................................................. 20
2.3.5. Effects of MPB on Fuels ................................................................................................. 20
2.3.5.1. Table 6: Projected post-epidemic FBFMs............................................................ 22
2.3.6. Effects of MPB on Potential Fire Behavior .................................................................... 22
2.3.6.1. Table 7: BehavePlus Predictions of Fire Behavior ........................................... 22
2.3.7. Verbenone Treatments ................................................................................................... 24
3. PITKIN COUNTY WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION .................................. 24
3.1. Mapping .............................................................................................................................. 25
3.1.1. Pitkin County Wildfire Hazards Mapping ................................................................. 28
3.1.1.1. Wildfire Hazards in the Crystal Valley .............................................................. 29
3.1.1.2. Wildfire Hazards in the Upper Frying Pan Valley ........................................... 30
3.1.1.3. Wildfire Hazards in Roaring Fork Valley ......................................................... 31
3.1.1.4. Wildfire Hazard in Snowmass/Aspen Area ................................................32
3.1.2. Pitkin County Values at Risk Mapping ....................................................................... 33
3.1.2.1. Crystal River Valley Values at Risk ................................................................... 34
3.1.2.2. Upper Fryingpan Values at Risk ......................................................................... 35
3.1.2.3. Roaring Fork Valley Values at Risk ................................................................... 36
3.1.2.4. Snowmass/Aspen Area Values at Risk ............................................................... 37
3.1.3. Pitkin County Wildfire Risk Mapping......................................................................... 38
3.1.3.1. Crystal River Valley Wildfire Risk ..................................................................... 39
3.1.3.2. Upper Fryingpan Wildfire Risk .......................................................................... 40
3.1.3.3. Roaring Fork Valley Wildfire Risk..................................................................... 41
3.1.3.4. Snowmass/Aspen Area Wildfire Risk .........................................................42
3.1.4. Pitkin County Wildfire Risk + Hazard + Value Mapping ........................................ 43
3.1.4.1. Crystal River Valley Risk + Hazard + Value Mapping ................................... 44
3.1.4.2. Upper Fryingpan Valley Wildfire Risk + Value + Hazard Mapping ........... 45
3.1.4.3. Roaring Fork Valley Wildfire Risk + Value + Hazard Mapping .................. 46
3.1.4.4. Snowmass/Aspen Area Wildfire Risk + Value + Hazard Mapping ..........47
4. INTERAGENCY COOPERATION ................................................................................................... 48
4.1. USFS & BLM Coordination ..................................................................................................... 48
4.2. Agency Responsibilities ...................................................................................................50
4.2.1. Prevention ........................................................................................................................ 50
4.2.2. Preparedness .................................................................................................................... 51
4.2.3. Mitigation ......................................................................................................................... 51
4.2.4. Suppression ...................................................................................................................... 51
4.2.4.1. Fire Protection Districts ........................................................................................ 51
4.2.4.2. Colorado State Forest Service.............................................................................. 51
4.2.4.3. United States Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management ........................... 51
4.2.5. Reclamation/Rehabilitation ........................................................................................... 52
4.2.6. Fiscal .................................................................................................................................. 52
5. PRESCRIBED FIRE—AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................... 53
5.1. USFS/BLM ................................................................................................................................... 53
5.2. Colorado State Forest Service .................................................................................................. 53
5.3. Pitkin County .............................................................................................................................. 53
5.4. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment .................................................. 54
6. COUNTY FIRE PLAN—DETAILED LAYOUT ............................................................................ 54
6.1. Annual Review .................................................................................................................54
7. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 55
7.1. Prevention .................................................................................................................................... 55
7.2. Preparedness ............................................................................................................................... 56
7.3. Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 59
7.4. Suppression ................................................................................................................................. 61
7.5. Fiscal ............................................................................................................................................. 62
7.6. Work Plan ................................................................................................................................... 63
8. ADDITIONAL MAPPING .............................................................................................................. 63
8.1. Crystal Valley Land Ownership & Parcel Map .................................................................... 64
8.2. Fryingpan Valley Land Ownership and Parcel Map ........................................................... 65
8.3. Roaring Fork Valley Land Ownership and Parcel Map ...................................................... 66
8.4. Snowmass/Aspen Land Ownership and Parcel Map ............................................................ 67
9. REPORT AUTHOR ........................................................................................................................... 68
10. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 69
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2000, the Colorado Legislature passed legislation clarifying responsibilities for wildland
fire management in the State. House Bill 1283 redefined the responsibilities of County
Sheriffs, the State Board of Agriculture, and the State Forester to include the prevention,
control and management of wildland fire. The Bill authorized Boards of County
Commissioners to cooperate in managing as well as preventing and suppressing forest
fires. The legislation authorized counties to prepare and implement a County Fire Plan.
In 2009, the Colorado Legislature passed Senate Bill 09-001, which requires the board of
county commissioners of each county, with the assistance of the state forester, to determine
whether there are fire hazard areas within the unincorporated portion of the county.
SB 9-001 further requires the board of county commissioners (BOCC), in collaboration with
the representatives of the organizations or entities that participated in establishing the
guidelines and criteria, to prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) to
address wildfires in fire hazard areas within the unincorporated portion of the county. SB
09-001 further specifies that a county that has already prepared a CWPP which considered
the guidelines and criteria is not required to prepare a new CWPP to satisfy the
requirements of the act.
SB 09-001
http://wwwstate.co.us/gov%20dir/leg%20dir/olls/sl2009a/sl%20189.htm
In early 2009, Pitkin County Emergency Management, local fire chiefs, US Forest Service,
and Bureau of Land Management staff met with Colorado State Forest Service staff to
review the intent and requirements of SB 09-001 and the 2005 Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan. Through this meeting it was decided that the 2005 Pitkin County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (PCWFP) was consistent with the intent and goals of SB
09-001, but should be updated to incorporate new CWPP guidance as well as the changed
fire hazards associated with the ongoing mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae)
epidemic. The 2009 draft update, the 2011 draft update, and th is 2014 draft updated
PCCWFP meet the intent and goals of SB 09-001.
The Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan began with collaboration between
local and state agencies in consultation with federal agencies and other interested parties.
This understanding establishes a mutual commitment to the mission and objectives
outlined in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan to facilitate interagency
collaboration in the implementation of a wildland fire program in Pitkin County.
This plan includes identification and prioritization of areas for hazardous fuel reduction,
recommended types of treatment, and provides guidance how to protect at-risk essential
infrastructure through the development of sub-County level CWPPs. Recommended
measures for homeowners, business owners, and communities to reduce ignitability of
structures within the community are available in the Firewise home protection programs,
but the intent is that more detailed plans be developed at the sub-County level.
Firewise Wildfire Home Protection
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/natres/06304.html)
Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
http://www.stateforesters.org/files/cwpphandbook.pdf
The content of this plan is consistent with CWPP guidance as established by the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act through the incorporation of:
a definition of the community wildland-urban interface (WUI), preferably outlined
on a map with an accompanying narrative,
a discussion of the community‟s preparedness to respond to wildland fire,
a community risk analysis that considers, at a minimum, fuel hazards, risk of
wildfire occurrence, and community values to be protected, both in the immediate
vicinity and the surrounding zone where potential fire spread poses a realistic
threat,
identification of fuels treatment priorities, including locations on the grounds and
preferred methods of treatment
recommendations regarding ways to reduce structural ignitability,
an implementation plan or Action Plan, and
the plan must specifically identify the community for which the plan is prepared.
The Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the 2009/2011/2014 updates
are intended to aid in the implementation of a seamless, coordinated effort among all
relevant agencies in determining appropriate combinations of wildland fire management
actions and programs in the county. The Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection
Plan outlines six interagency management objectives that are necessary to achieve and
implement effective wildland fire management programs:
1. Prevention
2. Preparedness
3. Mitigation
4. Suppression
5. Reclamation /Rehabilitation
6. Fiscal
This plan identifies the roles and responsibilities of Pitkin County, the United States Forest
Service - White River National Forest (Sopris and Aspen Ranger Districts), Colorado State
Forest Service-Grand Junction District (CSFS), Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and
Control (DFPC), Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD), Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection
District (SWFPD), Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District (BFPD), and Carbondale & Rural
Fire Protection District (CFPD), and specifies contacts for each agency. Activities needed to
achieve the objectives are identified and prioritized.
Each activity listed contains a brief description of the issue, background information, and
specifies agencies involved, estimated costs, funding sources and estimated completion
date.
1.1. Authority
The Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan is being prepared and
implemented among various governmental authorities. This plan is consistent with the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and guidance from the Colorado State Forest Service.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Pitkin County Emergency Management
1.2. Figure 1: Pitkin County Land Status Map
July 18, 2011 7
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Protection PlanProtection
Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
[Type text]
2. Pitkin County Characteristics
Pitkin County is located in west-central Colorado. Pitkin is the 24th largest county in the
state out of 64 counties, encompassing approximately 975 square miles (626,832 acres). The
ownership of the County is dominated by United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service lands, of which 490,760 acres (78% of the County) is owned by the White River
National Forest, 27,915 acres (4.5%) is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, 800
acres (less than 1%) is owned by the State (primarily the Colorado Division of Wildlife),
and 107,358 acres (17%) is privately held. Pitkin County‟s population is estimated at
approximately 15,500 (according to the 2008 census), and the median cost of a home in
Pitkin County is approximately $760,000.
The majority of private lands and homes are located along the major river corridors- the
Roaring Fork and Crystal River valleys. Other homesites and developments follow other
river drainages, including the Frying Pan River, Snowmass Creek, Woody Creek, Castle
Creek, Conundrum Creek and East Sopris Creek. However, many of the new
developments are occurring further from these main corridors, moving up onto hillsides
and areas with more remote access.
Pitkin County is unique in its fire suppression, given that so much of the county is
dominated by higher elevation fuel types that burn infrequently, and that more urban
areas are located in areas surrounded by National Forest lands. Initial attack and extended
attack is often done by the local Fire Protection Districts (FPD), with the support of the
USFS and BLM. Because of this, the local FPDs have more extensive wildland fire fighting
related skills, equipment and incident command experience than one would expect for
organizations found outside of the Federal land management agencies. In other areas
around the state with more frequent wildfires, the Federal fire fighting resources are often
more heavily involved with initial attack, with incidental and opportunistic support from
local FPDs.
Geography
Pitkin County is dominated by several large mountain ranges. The Elk Mountains roughly
form the western and southern sides of the county, while the Sawatch Range runs the
eastern boarder of the county. In between these mountain ranges, valleys hold the majority
of the population, as well as the majority of private ownership lands. The elevations in the
county range from 6,250‟ along the Crystal River south of Carbondale, to over 14,000‟ on a
number of peaks in the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Area. The majority of Pitkin
County is dominated by high elevation forests and alpine environments, with the lower
valleys dominated by irrigated farmlands and urban/suburban developments. In between
the high elevation forests and alpine habitats and the lower farmlands lay pinion/juniper
woodlands, oakbrush stands, aspen forests, lodgepole pine forests, and much of the rural
population.
Rainfall in the county widely varies, from over 48” in the Maroon Bells, to a dry 13” in the
lower Crystal River valley south of Carbondale, with average rainfall around 23”.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Protection PlanProtection
Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
[Type text]
2.1. Fire History
Wildland fire occurrence in Pitkin County is tracked by three agencies. The zoned
management of the White River National Forest/Bureau of Land Management, records fire
data from Federal lands. Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) keeps records of fires on
state and private lands. CSFS statistics only reflect those wildland fires reported by local
fire departments.
As with most areas in Colorado, the majority of fires started are from human-caused
(including equipment) ignitions. Likewise, only a few of the fires in the County end up
accounting for the majority of acreages burned.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
10 July 18, 2011
2.2. Pitkin County Historic Wildfire Occurrence Map
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
11 June, 2014
2.3. Mountain Pine Beetle
Mountain Pine Beetle (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05528.html)
Aspen Pitkin MPB Information & Links
(http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/county/Com%20Dev/EHNR/Mtn_Pine_Beetles.pdf)
The Colorado State Forest Service reports that the current mountain pine beetle
epidemic in Colorado has impacted millions of acres to date. As this epidemic reaches
Pitkin County, an update to the County Wildfire Plan was requested to provide
planning information on how this epidemic may impact wildfire hazards in Pitkin
County.
2.3.1. Forest Conditions
Pitkin County is approximately 50% forested with much of the remaining vegetation
types dominated by pinyon/juniper, alpine meadows, rock & scree, willows and
riparian shrublands, Gambel‟s oak, sagebrush and agricultural grasslands. The forested
areas are primarily aspen stands with widespread mixed conifer stands. The
percentage of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine contained within mixed conifer
stands is not quantitatively tracked by the USFS or Pitkin County. Without stand
exams or stand-level analysis, the percentage of coniferous trees susceptible to MPB is
not known. However, in order to predict fire behavior and thus appropriate
prioritization for planning, we typed the general fuels found in stands with MPB
susceptible trees. Wildland fuels are comprised of both live and dead vegetation that
are available for combustion. Of greatest immediate concern in terms of hazard fuels
are the lodgepole pine forests and mixed conifer stands that surround the WUI and are
being subjected to the MPB epidemic
Lodgepole Pine http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/forest-types-lpp.html
Approximately 20, 376 acres of stands
dominated by lodgepole pine occur within
Pitkin County. This is approximately 6% of
the forested timber types found in Pitkin
County.
The fire return interval for this species is
extremely variable, but is generally 25 to 75
years in stands experiencing mixed
severity fire and 100 to 300 years in stand
replacement fire regimes (Anderson 2003,
Lotan et al 1985, Arno and Fielder 2005).
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
12 June, 2014
Landfire analysis classifies the majority of local lodgepole forests as mixed to stand
replacement fire severity on order of every 100 to 300 years.
In many stands the lodgepole pine grows tall and the lower limbs are self pruned,
offering little opportunity for fire to climb into the tree crowns. The forest floor is
covered by densely packed needles, with a noticeable paucity of understory vegetation,
which only supports very low intensity surface fire. If fire does reach the crowns in
such stands, they can support crown fire. More open lodgepole woodlands have a
lower crown density, lower limbs, and heavier understory growth. Fire is more likely
to torch the crowns of individual or small groups of trees, but less likely to be carried
from crown to crown.
These stands are currently suffering heavy mortality resulting from the MPB epidemic
as documented by the USFS (USDA 2007). If the infestation continues at its current rate,
mortality of mature lodgepole pine may exceed 90%. The mortality is currently most
pronounced on Mount Sopris, in Woody Creek, on Independence Pass and on
Smuggler Mountain. Known work on fuelbreaks, overlot thinning, and defensible
space has been performed near Smuggler Mountain (east of Aspen) at this time, but
other smaller projects may be occurring on other lands. Many of the other stands with
lodgepole pine do not occur near the WUI.
Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/projects/virtdept/ipvft/subalp.html
Spruce-fir stands develop on moist, cool
sites typically above 10,200 feet and
experience infrequent stand replacing
fires on order of 150 to over 300 years
apart. The low branches in these stands
allow for the initiation of crown fire,
and crown fire is readily propagated
through the dense canopy under the
right conditions. It requires unusually
dry conditions to support large scale
fires in these forests, but the abundance
of ladder fuels and closed canopy can
support high intensity crown fires. The
spruce/fir community type accounts for approximately 59% of the timber type in Pitkin
County, however a significant portion of this is also mixed with aspen timber types.
These thin barked species are extremely sensitive to fire and will be killed by even low
intensity fires (Schoennagel et al 2004, Uchytil 1991a, Uchytil 1991b). While both species
are shade tolerant, subalpine fir will tend to slowly dominate the stand.
While the lodgepole forests of Pitkin County are currently experiencing a MPB
epidemic, spruce and fir can also be impacted by insect outbreaks. The presence of
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
13 June, 2014
spruce beetles was noted during recent field surveys of the County, as well as
armellaria root rot and balsam fir beetle in subalpine fir stands. No wide-spread
infestations or disease of spruce or fir were noted in field visits for this project. In the
County, lodgepole pine is often a component of spruce/fir stands at lower elevations.
Quaking Aspen
http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_potr5.pdf
Aspen exist in a post-disturbance seral stage or
in stable, self perpetuating stands. This thin
barked species is easily top-killed by fire, but
readily regenerates from the surviving root
system. From many standpoints, aspen stands
are a desired forest type in the WUI. They
provide some privacy screening for residences,
are widely used by wildlife species, and are
aesthetically pleasing while being generally fire
resistant. Aspen stands also provide summer
shade while allowing for winter sun. In Pitkin
County, approximately 74,000 acres (24% of
timbered vegetation) of occurs, but another
39,865 acres (13% of total timbered vegetation) of
aspen occurs as a codominant with other
evergreen trees species.
Fire is the most important disturbance agent for
aspen regeneration in Colorado, but aspen
stands are generally considered fire resistant
(Romme 2001). The high thin crowns resist
crown fire initiation and spread. Fire return intervals for Colorado aspen are believed
to be approximately 140 years, but stand health may tend to decline after about 80 years
without disturbance (Romme 2001). Fire exclusion may result in the decadence and
decline of an aspen stand or in conifer encroachment. Both cases jeopardize stand
survival and create conditions prone to higher intensity fires.
14 June, 2014
Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Pitkin County Emergency Management
2.3.1.1. Table 2: Existing Vegetation Types in Pitkin County
Pitkin County Existing Vegetation Summary
Date: 07.16.2009
Vegetation Class Description Acres Percent
Water Lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams. 1,140.4 0.2%
Riparian Cottonwood, willow, sedges along waterways. 2,403.7 0.4%
Snow Perennial snow fields. 2,964.7 0.5%
Alpine Meadow > 11,500' tundra vegetation including grasses, forbs, sedges. 50,640.1 8.1%
Talus Slopes & Rock Outcrops Talus and scree slopes, nearly 100% rock. 14,087.8 2.3%
Rock < 10% vegetation, rock outcrops, red sandstones, etc. 54,624.6 8.8%
Barren Land < 10% vegetation. 9,647.7 1.6%
Douglas Fir/Aspen Mix Mixed forest codominated by PSME and Aspen. 18,556.3 3.0%
Spruce/Fir/Aspen Mix Mixed forest codominated by PIEN, ABLA, and Aspen. 21,309.0 3.4%
Lodgepole Pine Coniferous forest dominated by PICO. 20,386.7 3.3%
Douglas Fir Coniferous forest dominated by PSME. 13,020.2 2.1%
Englemann Spruce/Fir Mix Coniferous forest codominated by PIEN and ABLA. 161,199.2 25.9%
Aspen Deciduous forest dominated by Aspen. 74,444.6 12.0%
PJ-Mtn Shrub Mix Codominate Pinon-Juniper and Oak, Mtn. Mahogany or other deciduous shrubs. 7,046.0 1.1%
PJ-Sagebrush Mix Codominate Pinon-Juniper and Sagebrush. 1,242.1 0.2%
Upland Willow/Shrub Mix High elevation shrubland dominated by willow and mixed shrubs. 34,845.1 5.6%
Mesic Mountain Shrub Mix Oak dominant with sagebrush, snowberry, grass. 16,663.6 2.7%
Gambel Oak Deciduous woodland (or tall shrubland) dominated by Gambel oak. 40,224.4 6.5%
Pinon-Juniper Pinon-Juniper woodland with mixed understory. 764.7 0.1%
Sagebrush/Grass Mix Codominate sagebrush shrubland and perennial grassland. 24,455.6 3.9%
Sagebrush Community Sagebrush with rabbitbrush, bitterbrush. 432.9 0.1%
Grass/Forb Rangeland Perennial and annual grasslands and/or mixed forbs. 30,371.0 4.9%
Agriculture Land Row crops, irrigated pasture, dry farm crops. 7,767.6 1.3%
Urban/Built Up High density commercial or high density residential areas. 213.6 0.0%
UNCLASSIFIED Areas not mapped within Pitkin County vegetation data. 12,924.8 2.1%
Total 621,376.5
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
15
2.3.2. Fuels Analysis
To analyze potential fire behavior, these forests must be considered in terms of how they
support combustion and fire spread. Current fuel conditions are discussed here while
projected fuel conditions are discussed in Section 2.3.5.
Vegetation communities are described in terms of fuel models, which do not always
correspond directly to species composition. The load and arrangement of surface fuels, the
distance to the base of the forest canopy, and the density of the forest canopy are subject to
specific evaluation. These characteristics help determine the surface fire intensity, the
likelihood of crown fire initiation and propagation.
Potential surface fire behavior may be estimated by classifying vegetation in terms of fire
behavior fuel models (FBFMs) and using established mathematical models to predict
potential fire behavior under specific climatic conditions. These models represent points
along a continuum and are used here to illustrate potential fire hazard. In this analysis, the
standard fire behavior fuel models developed by Scott and Burgan (2005) were used as
obtained from Landfire data (U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey 2006).
Canopy characteristics for fire behavior modeling were also obtained from Landfire and
were then linked to the appropriate FBFM. Field observations were generally consistent
with the Landfire fuel model data.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
16
2.3.2.1. Table 3: Fire behavior fuel model descriptions found in Pitkin County
FBFM Description
NB 1, 2, 3, 8 & 9 Non-burnable, including urban areas, snow & ice, agricultural lands, open water, and
bare ground
GR2
Primarily grass with some small amounts of fine, dead fuel, and shrubs which do not
affect fire behavior. Low flame length and rate of spread. Found locally in meadows.
GS1
Low load shrubs with low grass cover. The spread rate is moderate and flame length is
low.
GS2
Moderate Load, Dry Climate Grass-Shrub: The primary carrier of fire in GS2 is grass and
shrubs combined. Shrubs are 1 to 3 feet high, grass load is moderate. Spread rate is high;
flame length moderate. Found locally in meadows and clearcuts.
SH1
Woody shrubs and shrub litter, fuelbed depth is about 1 foot, may be some grass, but the
spread rate and flame lengths are low. Sagebrush types in the County fall into this fuel
model.
SH2
Woody shrubs and shrub litter, the fulebed depth is about 1 foot, but with no grass. The
spread rate and flame lengths are low. Tall sagebrush, and shorter mixed-mountain
shrublands (i.e. serviceberry & snowberry) fall into this fuel model
SH7
Woody shrubs and shrub litter, with a very heavy load. The fuelbed depths are 4 to 6
feet, with a moderate spread rate but very high flame length. Pinyon/juniper and
Gambel’s oak woodlands fall into this fuel model.
TL8
Moderate load long needle pine litter. This model fitted best in Pitkin County for
describing ponderosa pine stands, and occupies a very minor component in the County
TU1
Low Load Dry Climate Timber-Grass-Shrub: The primary carrier of fire in TU1 is low load
of grass and/or shrub with litter. Spread rate is low; flame length low. This model
described about half of the timber fuel type in the County.
TU5
Very High Load, Dry Climate Timber-Shrub: The primary carrier of fire in TU5 is heavy
forest litter with a shrub or small tree understory. Spread rate is moderate; flame length
moderate. This model described about half of the timber fuel type in the County.
From Scott and Burgan 2005
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
17
The following fuel types are identified within Pitkin County, and may be susceptible to
MPB and other forest pathogen-induced mortality. Predicted post-MPB attack fuel
characteristics and fire behavior is presented.
TU1: Low Load Timber Understory
TU1 is identified as one of the predominant
fuel models in the County, occupying 28%
of the area based on Landfire data. Landfire
primarily includes aspen and lodgepole pine
in this fuel model. Fire is carried in the low
loads of conifer litter and light load of
course fuels. Surface fire in this fuel model
is characterized by low flame lengths and
rates of spread (Scott and Burgan 2005). The
canopy base height was set to reflect a
severe case scenario of 5 ft. Canopy bulk
density was set to 0.0086 lbs/ft3.
TU5: Heavy Load, Dry Climate Timber-Shrub
Landfire analysis identifies TU5 as the one of the predominant fuel models in the County,
occupying 20% of the area. This fuel model is consistent with spruce-fir forest and
lodgepole pine with emerging spruce, fir, or pine regeneration. In TU5 the fire spread rate
and flame length are moderate. Surface fire
is carried by heavy forest litter with a shrub
or small tree understory (Scott and Burgan
2005). Canopy characteristics were
determined using Landfire data, field
observations, and comparison to stereo
photo samples (Scott and Reinhardt 2005).
For fire behavior modeling, crown bulk
density was set at relatively dense 0.015
lbs/ft3 while fire behavior was modeled for
canopy base heights (cbh) of 2.5 feet and 5
feet to reflect field observations.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
18
2.3.2.2. Table 4: Models in the Landfire Dataset for Pitkin County
Fire Behavior Fuel Model FBFM
Abbreviation
Vegetation
Communities
Percent of
Cover
Moderate Load Long Leaf Pine Litter
TL8
Ponderosa Pine
0.31%
Very High Load, Timber and Shrubs
TU5 spruce-fir, lodgepole with
regeneration
20%
Low Load Timber Understory
TU1 aspen, lodgepole pine,
some spruce/fir
28%
Very High Load Shrub
SH7
Pinyon/juniper, Gambel’s
oak- likely
underrepresented in
County
<.01%
Moderate Load Shrub
SH2
Sagebrush,
pinyon/juniper and
Gambel’s Oak
5.27%
Low Load Shrub
SH1
Sagebrush, snowberry
0.13%
Moderate Load Grass and Shrubs
GS2 Meadows w/ sagebrush,
snowberry
22%
Short, Sparse Grass
GS1 Shrubby meadows,
sparse sagebrush
0.04%
Short Grass
GR2
Meadows, alpine tundra
2.34%
Bare Ground and Rock (not burnable)
NB9
--
17.8%
Open Water (not burnable)
NB8
--
0.42%
Agricultural (not burnable)
NB3
Agricultural meadows,
some wet meadows
along montane streams-
may burn during spring
season
2.07%
Snow/Ice (not burnable)
NB2
--
0.33%
Urban
NB1
Includes some
subdivisions in the WUI-
which are definitely
burnable
1.22%
2.3.3. Fire Behavior Analysis
Fire behavior is defined as the manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel,
weather, and topography. Two key measures of this behavior are the rate of spread and
the intensity. These indicators are modeled for surface fire behavior at the flaming front
and do not represent crown fire behavior or spread by spot fires. These predictions are
used to illustrate the current and projected degree of hazard around the WUI focus areas
where MPB may impact fuel conditions.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
19
Rate of spread is often expressed in chains (1 chain = 66 feet) per hour which is equal to 1.1
feet per minute. Fireline intensity is reflected by flame length at the flaming front; it does
not account for continued burning of fuels once the main fire front has passed.
Fire behavior simulations were conducted for average (50th percentile) and severe (90th
percentile) conditions for the critical months of the fire season, June through September, as
determined from the RAWS data (Table 5). Slope steepness was set to 20 percent.
BehavePlus 3.0.1 (Andrews 2000) software was used to illustrate the potential surface fire
behavior given the prevailing fuel types, local topography, and local weather conditions.
Runs were made for the two most prevalent timber fuel models, TU1 and TU5. TU5 was
modeled with two canopy base heights to reflect the diversity of observed conditions.
2.3.3.1.Table 5: BehavePlus Predictions of Fire Behavior on 20 Percent Slope for
Average and Severe Climatic Conditions for pre-epidemic conditions.
Fire
Behavior
Fuel Model
Description
Rate of Spread
(chains/hr)
Flame Length
(feet)
Torching
Able to Support
Active Crown
Fire
Avg
Severe
Avg
Severe
Avg
Severe Avg Severe
TU1
Low Load Timber
Understory: aspen
stand, and less
dense conifer stands
1.8
4.5
1.1
2.5
No
No
No
Yes
TU5
2.5 ft. cbh
Very High Load
Timber-Shrub:
denser conifer
stands with low cbh
5.4
20.1
5.8
11.2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
TU5
5 ft. cbh
Very High Load
Timber-Shrub:
denser conifer
stands with higher
cbh
5.4
20.1
5.8
11.2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
-Average conditions based on 50th percentile weather and 9 mph 20 ft windspeed
- Severe conditions based on 90th percentile weather and 25 mph 20 ft windspeed
Modeled results for forests prior to the full impact of the MPB epidemic illustrate several
important points:
TU1, typical of lodgepole pine forests with low or moderate understory fuels,
generally lacks the ladder fuels necessary to initiate crown fire and requires severe
conditions to propagate fire through the forest canopy.
TU5, typical of mixed conifer or lodgepole with an emerging understory, generally
has sufficient ladder fuels even with a 5 ft. cbh to support torching. Crown fire will
actively spread through the forest canopy under severe conditions.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
2.3.4. Ecology of Mountain Pine Beetle
Mountain Pine Beetle, Colorado
http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/mountain-pine-beetle.html
Aerial surveys of Pitkin County indicate the size of the MPB infestation increased 740%
from 1999 to 2005, from 14,021 acres to 104,293 acres. Within the County, lodgepole pine
stands occur in relatively isolated areas, and are often co-dominated by other tress
including Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzeisii), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), aspen
(Populus tremuloides) and subalpine fir (Abies bicolor). Because of this, mountain pine beetle
activity can be locally detrimental to lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine, but the
widespread stand mortality seen in other areas of Colorado is tempered by the fact that
other trees species occur within the forest stands in Pitkin County. J. Burke (USFS pers.
comm. 7/15/2009) hypothesizes that MPB in Colorado can be broken down into roughly
two infestation types- “source” stands and “sink” stands (or “victim” stands). Large
contiguous stands of lodgepole pine can produce an overabundance of MPB, which have
formed the huge epidemic populations seen in Grand, Summit and eastern Eagle County.
This large population of beetles will then infest small and less suitable stands where the
beetles will infest and kill suitable host trees, but as the “sink” stands do not have a
propensity of suitable host trees, the MPB infestation will not produce an overabundance
of beetles. Within Pitkin County, most of the forest stands could be considered to be “sink”
stands, however, the unfortunate effects are the same- all or most suitable host trees will
succumb to MPB. At the time of this report update, all lodgepole pine stands in Pitkin
County are considered to be infested with MPB, and most suitable lodgepole pine trees will
be dead within the next 2 to 3 years. Suitable ponderosa pine trees in the county will also
likely succumb to MPB within the next few years.
In the Pitkin County the impacts of the epidemic are still variable. Many of the lodgepole
pine stands east of Aspen, in Woody Creek and on Mount Sopris are taking on the
noticeably red hue of mortality, but as other trees species are co-mingled with the
lodgepole pine the effects are somewhat tempered.
2.3.5. Effects of MPB on Fuels
During the first year of a MPB attack, pine
needles remain green. In year two, the
needles turn yellow or red, eventually
dropping off entirely in year three or four.
Beginning about five years post mortem, the
dead stems become increasingly susceptible
to rot and blow-down. The post epidemic
fuel profile will depend on a number of
variables including the number of years post
mortem, the composition of the forest
July 18, 2011
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
21
A beetle-killed overstory with a TU5 fuel load
comprised of pine and spruce regeneration
understory, and subsequent disturbances. The further out from the initial epidemic, the
more difficult it becomes to predict the fuel model as more variables are introduced.
Surface Fire Behavior Fuel Models (FBFM) are projected for the relatively short time frame
of 10 to 20 years to help provide an understanding of the post epidemic fuel hazard. There
is no doubt that the MPB epidemic will greatly increase the amount of dead biomass in
lodgepole forests, but predictions that this translates into an immediately drastic increase
in the fire hazard is an oversimplification. The cycle is nuanced and complex, and a variety
of fuel profiles and fire concerns will emerge.
The expected changes in fuels are discussed
here in terms of the standard generalized fuel
models. In general terms, TU1 (low load
timber understory) can be expected to
transition into TL5 (high load conifer litter) as
dead fall begins to accumulate approximately
10 years post mortem. The fine and course
fuel loads increase, but regeneration is slow
in establishing itself.
TU5 (very high load, timber and shrub) will
experience a release of the existing
understory, increase regeneration, and
increased dead fuel loads. This may continue
to be modeled as TU5 (Green 2007), though it
may be more instructive to increase the dead fuel loads to levels similar to those found in
SB2 (moderate load activity fuel or low load blowdown). To illustrate this condition, fire
behavior runs were made with a TU5 “heavy load” with dead fuel loads increased by 0.25,
0.5, and 1 ton per acre for 1 hour, 10
hour, and 100 hour fuel size classes
respectively. As the volume of large
down logs increases over time, there
may be areas better represented by TL7
(large down logs).
Page and Jenkins (2007) developed
custom fuel models from field
measurements in several Utah stands.
When comparing fire behavior
predictions between standard models
and their own, they found that TL5
generally approximated recently
impacted stands while stands were well
represented by TL7 approximately 20
years after mortality. Some areas can
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
22
also be expected to move through a period where grass, seedlings, and shrubs are the
dominant surface fuels. This may be especially true in project areas where logs are
removed.
2.3.5.1. Table 6: Projected post-epidemic FBFMs.
Forest Type
Pre-Epidemic Fuel Model
Potential Fuel Models Approximately
10 to 20 Years Post Mortem
Lodgepole Pine with grass/low
shrub understory
TU1- Low Load Timber
Understory
TL5- High Load Conifer Litter
TL7- Large Down Logs
Lodgepole Pine with Mixed Conifer
or Heavy Understory Load
TU5- Very High Load, Timber
and Shrubs
TU5- Very High Load, Timber and
Shrubs or heavier
2.3.6. Effects of MPB on Potential Fire Behavior
There have been many public statements about the expected impacts of the MPB epidemic
on fire behavior, but foresters and fire scientists are still trying to develop an
understanding of the situation (Page and Jenkins 2007). There are many variables to
consider in these diverse and constantly changing stands. It is generally understood that
the amount of dead fuels is going to dramatically increase over the next 10 to 20 years and
that new vegetation will grow up where the lodgepole pine stands once were.
Crown bulk density and wind adjustment factors were set to reflect canopy mortality and
diminished sheltering as dead trees fall. While foliar moisture content is typically held
constant at 100% for modeling purposes, the runs for MPB impacted TU1 and TU5 were
made with a foliar moisture content of 30% to reflect tree crowns with dead needles (Page
and Jenkins 2007).
2.3.6.1. Table 7: BehavePlus Predictions of Fire Behavior
The following table shows results from BehavePlus modeling of fire behavior on 20 Percent
Slope for Average and Severe Climatic Conditions in Post-Epidemic Stands. Fire behavior
outputs for post MPB epidemic stands with “red needles” are shown in orange cells for
comparison. After MPB have killed off the lodgepole pine components of TU1 and TU5,
and these stands begin to establish understory coniferous seedlings and saplings (within 10
years or so), these stands will transition to the post-epidemic TL5 and TU5 “heavy load”
models respectively (shown in green cells). After 20 years post-MPB epidemic, we used the
TL7 model to illustrate fire behavior with significant deadfall components in the fuels
profile.
Fire
Behavior
Fuel
Model
Description
Surface Fire
Intensity
Required for
Torching
Btu/ft/sec
Rate of
Spread
(chains/hr)
Flame Length
(feet)
Torching
Able to
Support Active
Crown Fire
Avg Severe Avg Severe Avg Severe Avg Severe
TU1
Low Load
Timber
Understory
23
1.8
4.5
1.1
2.5
No
No
No
Yes
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
23
TU1
red
needles
Moderate Load
Conifer Litter:
red needled
6
1.8
4.5
1.1
2.5
No
No
No
Yes
TU5
2.5 ft. cbh
Very High Load
Timber-Shrub
32
5.4
20.1
5.8
11.2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
TU5
red
needles
Very High Load
Timber-Shrub:
red needled
8
5.4
20.1
5.8
11.2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
TU5
green
needles
Very High Load
Timber-Shrub:
heavy load
23
6.4
24.6
6.2
12.2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
TL5 High Load
Conifer Litter
23
3.6
15.4
1.9
4.0
Yes
Yes
No
No
TL7 Large Downed
Logs
23
2.9
10.3
2.0
3.9
Yes
Yes
No
No
- Average conditions based on 50th percentile weather and 9 mph 20 ft windspeed
- Severe conditions based on 90th percentile weather and 25 mph 20 ft windspeed
The fire behavior predictions illustrate several important points about the impacts of the
MPB epidemic. Torching is dependent upon the proximity of flames to low branches (i.e.
fireline intensity vs. cbh). While lowering foliar fuel moisture to simulate dead needles
does lower the fire intensity required to ignite tree crowns, there does not appear to be an
increase in crown fire activity given the environmental parameters modeled for TU1 and
TU5. After MPB killed stands grow seedlings and saplings in the understory (about 10-
years post-mortem), flame lengths and rates of spread increase expectedly. Due to the low
crown heights in young trees, the potential for torching of the emerging post-epidemic
trees is high, but the absence of a contiguous overstory diminishes the threat of active
crown fire. As the stands reach maturity over the period of several decades, the crown fire
hazard will reemerge with the new overstory.
The modeled fire behavior illustrates the following expectations:
These runs did not capture an increase in predicted crown fire behavior as a result of
dead needles; however the surface fire intensity required for transition to crown fire
under red needle conditions is significantly lower.
Increased dead fuel loads and the release of understory vegetation will support
higher rates of spread and higher flame lengths than pre-epidemic conditions.
Needle loss and tree mortality eventually eliminate canopy continuity, resulting in
reduced crown fire activity until a new forest is established.
The MPB epidemic will produce a pronounced cycle of change in the fuel bed over the
next several decades, which will be reflected in the nuanced and shifting nature of
the fire hazard.
The drier canopy conditions produced by dead crowns require less fire intensity to
propagate combustion. Situations where a low surface fuel load and high canopy base
height prevent torching of a live canopy may not be dramatically changed by the presence
of a dead canopy. Likewise, where a live canopy was not dense or contiguous enough to
support crown fire, the death of the canopy may not significantly alter fire behavior. But,
as previously noted, these modeled conditions represent points along a spectrum of
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
24
conditions. It can be expected that a dead canopy will drive the threshold for crown fire
activity down in most situations.
In summary, red needled canopies are more prone to crown fire, though crown fire will not
be supported in all situations. The change in potential fire behavior precipitated by the
MPB epidemic will be more nuanced than simply a dramatic increase in fire hazard.
Because many of the lodgepole pine stands in Pitkin County are codominants with
spruce/fir trees, support or enhancement of crown fire activity may occur under normal or
dry times of the year, but during wetter periods of the year, or during wet years (when live
fuel moistures are elevated), the presence of the dead lodgepole pine canopy intertwined
with live spruce/fir canopies may support more torching or pockets of crown fire activity,
but running crown fire behavior would not likely be supported. Once dead needles fall to
the forest floor, the aerial fuels required to carry running crown fires will be significantly
reduced and in some cases eliminated, even with the comingled spruce/fir canopies. This
will be accompanied by an increase in dead surface fuels as needles and branches
accumulate on the ground. The open canopy conditions will subsequently allow the
release of brush, grass, and seedlings, creating potential for more intense and severe
surface fire under dry conditions. As snags fall to the ground, surface fires will become
more severe (longer production of higher heat), though these heavy fuels may not
dramatically increase rate of spread or flame length. Higher fuel loading on the surface
and the presence of larger fuels (downed logs) will make suppression and fire control more
difficult and time consuming. The ability for fire crews to rapidly contain and control
surface fires will be reduced, and increased snags and subsequent torching of snags will
make suppression and initial attack efforts very time consuming, difficult and dangerous.
Spotting distances will also likely increase due to the presence of receptive fuels (including
increased grass and forb cover as well as snags and downed logs).
2.3.7. Verbenone Treatments
Mountain Pine Beetle, Colorado
http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/mountain-pine-beetle.html
3. Pitkin County Wildland Fire Hazard Identification
Pitkin County has adopted the format of the Colorado State Forest Service‟s state-wide
Wildfire Hazard Map and the tools used in its development (Geographical Information
System based analysis), but has updated this process for this 2009 revision to incorporate
new data, information, and GIS tools, and the impacts of mountain pine beetle. These
maps take into consideration slope, aspect, fuel types, potential ignition sources, housing
density, road density, and lighting strikes. At the County scale, this map is very accurate.
At tighter scales these maps are not entirely accurate, and thus Pitkin County supports and
is in the process of developing sub-County level CWPPs.
As part of the analysis process in determining wildland fire risk and hazards, we utilized
the Colorado State Forest Service‟s model, but further enhanced the accuracy of the
assessment by utilizing the more accurate Pitkin County GIS vegetation data layer. In
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
25
comparing ReGAP vegetation data, USFS data, and Pitkin County GIS vegetation data, we
found that Pitkin County‟s vegetation data was the most accurate of these three GIS data
themes, but even still the Pitkin County GIS data had some observed inaccuracies. We
ground-truthed and used aerial photo interpretation to further enhance the Pitkin County
vegetation data resources to key in on lodgepole pine stands due to mountain pine beetle
induced mortality. From these data we produced the Wildland Fire Hazard Maps.
We then produced additional maps using the Pitkin County vegetation data layers, and
incorporated Pitkin County assessor data as well as lightning strike and road data to
produce overall Wildland Fire Hazard (Risk + Hazards + Values) Maps.
For all new construction or redevelopment applications in the County, the land
owner/applicant must complete a Wildfire Hazard Analysis. This analysis includes a
wildfire hazard assessment for the homesite. Based on fuels, slope, aspect and access,
construction sites are rated as a Low, Medium or High Hazard areas. All new or additional
permitted construction is required to have supplemental fuels mitigation (thinning) as
defined by a qualified wildfire professional for Low, Medium and High Hazard sites.
Homes within a High Hazard area have more stringent building materials and
construction requirements that must be incorporated into the building design prior to
permit approval. At this time, older and existing homes that have not gone through a
hazard review are not being inspected under the Land Use Code guidance, but may be
inspected by local Fire Marshals, the Colorado State Forest Service, local Fire Departments,
or County approved fire experts by owner request, or the Fire Marshals discretion. The
Wildfire Hazards guidance from the Pitkin County Land Use Code can be found in:
Pitkin County Land Use Code - Wildfire
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/county/countycode/bocc-ord-010-03.pdf
3.1. Mapping
The templates for developing the maps in the 2009-2014 Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan were developed in ArcGIS 9.2 and data was provided by the
following services and agencies:
Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Department
Colorado State Forest Service
Colorado Department of Transportation
United States Forest Service
United States Geological Service
Bureau of Land Management
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
26
The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) Wildland-Urban Interface data on fire risk,
hazard, and life and property “value”, was utilized as a template for customizing the maps
for this plan. The GIS analyst for map production and data analyses was:
Zach Perdue
Elev8, Inc.
PO Box 635
Avon, CO 81620
zperdue@elev8-inc.com
970-409-9012
Data, Projects, and Digital Maps are contained on a Compact Disk. Data is in ESRI
“shapefile” and “grid” formats. Projects (.mxd) were created using ArcMap 9.2. Digital
maps in ArcMap 9.2 were exported to Adobe Illustrator CS2, and finally into Adobe
Acrobat (.pdf) files, as well as .jpeg image format. Map descriptions and data directory
locations are listed below:
Data
Sources for base data include:
Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Department: parcels and structures shapefiles for value
assessment, road and railroad shapefiles for risk assessment, vegetation shapefile for hazard
assessment.
Colorado Department of Transportation: streams and lakes shapefiles for hazard
assessment, cities shapefile for display.
United State Forest Service: historical fire occurrences shapefile, historical insect damage
shapefiles for hazard assessment, historical lightning strike data for risk assessment.
United States Geological Service: 10-meter NED(National Elevation Dataset) Level 2
digital elevation model for hazard assessment.
Bureau of Land Management: historical fire occurrences, land ownership for display.
Source for all fire hazard, risk, value and final risk indices was the Colorado State Forest
Service. Model weights and values and analyses methodology adopted from Appendix A
of the Colorado Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Assessment Methodology
Projects
One map project (.mxd) exists as template. Individual map extents have been
bookmarked within the template file.
26 Adobe Illustrator projects (.ai) exist as final figures.
Directory location for .mxd: L:\Pitkin_Fire\Projects
Directory location for .ai: L:\Pitkin_Fire\Projects\AI
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
June, 2014
27
Maps
Land Status, map of land ownership and topography in and surrounding Pitkin
County. Land owner data acquired from the Bureau of Land Management.
Pitkin County Wildfire Hazard, maps showing hazard values obtained from slope,
aspect, fuel hazard and disturbance regime data. Disturbance regime and fuel
hazard data derived from Pitkin County Vegetation data. Classification system for
fuel hazards and disturbance regime obtained from Appendix A of the Colorado
Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Assessment Methodology produced by the Colorado
State Forest Service (2002). Slope and aspect produced from 10m USGS DEM.
Pitkin County Value, map showing representative values extrapolated from Pitkin
County „Parcel‟ and „Structure‟ spatial data. Values expressed as a classification of
density units per acre. Density classification derived from Appendix A of the Colorado
Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Assessment Methodology produced by the Colorado
State Forest Service (2002).
Pitkin County Wildfire Risk, maps showing wildfire risk values obtained from
lightning strike data and proximity to existing roads and railroads. Values
expressed on a relative equal-interval scale of 1-4 derived from Appendix A of the
Colorado Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Assessment Methodology produced by the
Colorado State Forest Service (2002).
Pitkin County R+H+V (Risk + Hazard + Value), maps showing resulting
combination of risk, hazard and value data for assessed risk of wildland fire within
Pitkin County. Values expressed on a relative equal-interval scale of 0-14 derived
from Appendix A of the Colorado Wildland Urban Interface Hazard Assessment
Methodology produced by the Colorado State Forest Service (2002).
Pitkin County Historical Wildland Fire Occurrences, map showing historical
wildland fires for years 1984 – 2006 within Pitkin County. Data obtained from the
Bureau of Land Management.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
28 July 18, 2011
3.1.1. Pitkin County Wildfire Hazards Map
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
29 July 18, 2011
3.1.1.1. Wildfire Hazards in the Crystal Valley
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
30 July 18, 2011
3.1.1.2. Wildfire Hazards in the Upper Frying Pan Valley
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
31 July 18, 2011
3.1.1.3. Wildfire Hazards in Roaring Fork Valley
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
32 July 18, 2011
3.1.1.4. Wildfire Hazard in Snowmass/Aspen Area
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
33 July 18, 2011
3.1.2. Pitkin County Values at Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
34 July 18, 2011
3.1.2.1. Crystal River Valley Values at Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
35 July 18, 2011
3.1.2.2. Upper Fryingpan Values at Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
36 July 18, 2011
3.1.2.3. Roaring Fork Valley Values at Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
37 July 18, 2011
3.1.2.4. Snowmass/Aspen Area Values at Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
38 July 18, 2011
3.1.3. Pitkin County Wildfire Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
39 July 18, 2011
3.1.3.1. Crystal River Valley Wildfire Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
40 July 18, 2011
3.1.3.2. Upper Fryingpan Wildfire Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
41 July 18, 2011
3.1.3.3. Roaring Fork Valley Wildfire Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
42 July 18, 2011
3.1.3.4. Snowmass/Aspen Area Wildfire Risk
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
43 July 18, 2011
3.1.4. Pitkin County Wildfire Risk + Hazard + Value Mapping
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
44 July 18, 2011
3.1.4.1. Crystal River Valley Risk + Hazard + Value Mapping
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
45 July 18, 2011
3.1.4.2. Upper Fryingpan Valley Wildfire Risk + Value + Hazard Mapping
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
46 July 18, 2011
3.1.4.3. Roaring Fork Valley Wildfire Risk + Value + Hazard Mapping
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
47 July 18, 2011
3.1.4.4. Snowmass/Aspen Area Wildfire Risk + Value + Hazard Mapping
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
48 June, 2014
4. Interagency Cooperation
Since Pitkin County encompasses a mosaic of land ownership and jurisdictional
boundaries, interagency cooperation is essential not only for wildland fire suppression
but also for prevention, preparedness, mitigation, reclamation / rehabilitation, and
fiscal issues to provide efficient and effective wildland fire programs. Currently, all fire
agencies within Pitkin County are working aggressively to provide a consistent and
unified approach to most fire programs regardless of ownership. However, differences
do exist between agencies due to internal policies and procedures as well as land base
and jurisdictional boundaries.
4.1. USFS & BLM Coordination
(Taken from BLM/USFS internal documents) The Upper Colorado River Interagency Fire
Management Unit is a fully integrated fire management program with the BLM
Western Slope Center, the Grand Junction BLM Field Office, the Glenwood Springs
BLM Field Office, the White River National Forest, and the Grand Valley Ranger
District of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. The Upper
Colorado River Interagency Fire Management Unit (UCR) provides preparedness,
suppression, prevention and fuels management services to the above units.
Each agency maintains discrete budgeting, staffing and support services which are
combined where appropriate to increase program effectiveness and efficiency to
participating units. The following discussion is limited to the Bureau of Land
Management‟s portion of the program with references to the interagency staff unit
where appropriate.
Fiscal Year Budget and the Ability to Support Planned and Unplanned Actions
Program Leadership – The BLM portion of the interagency fire management program
consists of a Unit Fire Management Officer and an Assistant Fire Management Officer
for Operations. The Forest Service contributes an Assistant Fire Management Officer
for Fuels and Aviation. Both The BLM and the Forest Service contribute to funding a
Zone Fire Management Officer and Assistant Fire Management Officer to manage each
of the three Zones that make up the Unit.
Preparedness –The UCR budget allocation includes funding for fire management
activities on the Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs Field Offices and the White
River National Forest. The BLM funds and staffs the following fire management
resources:
Type 4 engines
Type 6 engines
Type 3 Helicopter with 5 crewmembers
Interagency Dispatch Center
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
49 June, 2014
Type 1 Air Tanker Base
The FS funds and staffs the following fire management resources:
Type 4 engine
Type 6 engines
Initial Attack Squads
Helicopter crewmembers
Interagency Dispatch – The interagency dispatch center is located at the Grand Junction
Air Center at Walker Field, Grand Junction, Colorado. The BLM is responsible for the
facilities management, utilities, and fees associated with the air center. The BLM staffs
the following non-seasonal positions:
Air Center Manager (GS-455-11)
Assistant Air Center Manager, Ramp and Facilities (GS-455-09)
Lead Initial Attack Dispatcher (GS-455-07)
Lead Aircraft Dispatcher (GS-455-07)
Air Tanker Base Manager (GS-455-07)
The FS staffs the following non-seasonal positions:
Assistant Air Center Manager, Dispatch (GS-455-09)
Initial Attack Dispatcher (GS-455-06)
Aircraft Dispatcher (GS-455-06)
Fuels Management – The fuels management program is the responsibility of the fire
ecology section of the fire management staff. Prescribed fire is conducted with the
support of the operations staff. The BLM also hosts a fire use module for prescribed fire
and wildland fire use events. The BLM funds and staffs the following fuels positions:
Fire Ecologist
Fuels Specialist
Fuels Planners
The FS funds and staffs the following fuels positions:
Fire Ecologist
Fuels Planner
Fuels Specialists
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
50 June, 2014
New to 2009, the Forest Service has tasked an Incident Commander position to facilitate
mitigation of mountain pine beetle impacts to forests on the White River National
Forest. This position is based out of the Eagle Ranger District.
Cooperative Agreements and Interagency Contacts
The BLM conducts the fire management program with Federal and State partners under
the terms of the following agreement:
Colorado Interagency Cooperative Fire Management Agreement – between the USDI,
Bureau of Land Management, Colorado; USDA Forest Service, Region 2; USDI National
Park Service, Intermountain Region; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain and
Prairie Region; USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Region and Colorado State
Forest Service.
This agreement establishes statewide authority for interagency fire protection assistance
and cooperation between the above agencies for mutual cooperation in fire training,
prescribed fire, prevention, preparedness and suppression activities.
At the Unit level, the Bureau of Land Management and White River National Forest
have a Memorandum of Agreement that provides the basis for interagency fire
management activities and the exchange of funds via reimbursable agreements to
support the interagency staff unit.
Both the BLM and Forest Service are signatories to co-op fire plans for each county
within the affected jurisdictions that are executed on an annual basis to provide for
cooperative fire management activities between affected Federal and local jurisdictions.
Copies of these plans are available on CD from agency fire management staff and or
Colorado State District Foresters.
4.2. Agency Responsibilities
4.2.1. Prevention
With the exception of enforcement, wildland fire prevention is a shared responsibility
of all agencies. Education and information associated with wildland fire is not
jurisdictional and relates to all land ownership. Education and awareness materials are
available through all partnering agencies. The USFS and BLM responsibility for
enforcement of wildland fire prevention is tied to primary Federal lands respectively.
The Fire Protection Districts enforce wildland fire prevention on private lands, with
support from the Colorado State Forest Service and the Pitkin County Sherriff. All
agencies cooperate to establish restrictions and closures when wildland fire conditions
meet pre-established criteria outlined in the Pitkin County Annual Operating Plan
(AOP).
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
51 June, 2014
4.2.2. Preparedness
USFS/BLM responsibility is primarily tied to Federal lands within the County. The
CSFS and Fire Protection Districts (FPD) assist all agencies, communities and
associations with fire planning, readiness and wildland fire hazard identification. All
agencies share responsibility to coordinate and cooperate in mitigation planning, pre-
attack planning and communication with the public and the news media. When high
fire hazard conditions exist (i.e. high fire danger ratings) then FPDs and Federal
agencies coordinate through monthly meetings while these elevated fire danger
conditions persist.
4.2.3. Mitigation
USFS/BLM fuels reduction implementation is tied primarily to Federal lands. The
CSFS has coordinated, assisted and often provides additional funding for fuel reduction
projects on state and private lands. Agreements allow for cross-jurisdictional fuel
reduction project planning and implementation. Pitkin County‟s Hazard Assessments
was established to provide mandatory building and land use codes to reduce wildfire
hazards, and to require individual wildland fire hazard site inspections and
assessments in order to minimize and mitigate fuels hazards and unsafe building
materials. These regulations were adopted to reduce the hazards to homeowners as
well as firefighters and first responders.
4.2.4. Suppression
4.2.4.1. Fire Protection Districts
The Fire Protection Districts are responsible for all wildland fire suppression activities
on private and State lands within their fire districts. However, by state statute the
Pitkin County Sheriff has ultimate authority over all fires on state and private lands in
the County. FPD‟s typically handle routine wildfire suppression within their districts
and rely on the Sheriff to summon additional assistance as needed. Initial control
actions can and usually are taken by fire protection districts or Federal firefighters
dispatched by the Grand Junction Interagency Dispatch Center (GJC), or Aspen-Pitkin
County Communications Center (APCCC).
4.2.4.2. State of Colorado
In 2012, fire management responsibilities of the Colorado State Forest Service were
transferred to the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control (DFPC) as per state
statute HB12-1283. The DFPC will, upon request, assist all agencies on wildland fires within
Pitkin County. The DFPC will assume duties as specified under provisions of the Emergency
Fire Fund when a forest fire exceeds the County's resources, upon agreement of the Pitkin
County Sheriff or designated representative and the DFPC Director or designated
representative.
4.2.4.3. United States Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management
The USFS/BLM is responsible for all fire management activities on Federal lands. The
GJC will notify local FPDs of fires on federal lands through the APCCC due to the close
proximity of many FPDs to federal lands.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
52 June, 2014
4.2.5. Reclamation/Rehabilitation
The US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are responsible for burn area
emergency rehabilitation (BAER) on affected National Forest lands and BLM lands.
Close coordination and cooperation with other agencies is necessary to determine
values at risk that may be affected by BAER activities on adjacent lands. CSFS provides
technical assistance to property owners, with consulting and financial support of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Pitkin County can coordinate with other
County departments, state and federal agencies and qualified contractors to assist
private landowners affected by wildland fire occurrence.
4.2.6. Fiscal
Funding for prevention, preparedness, mitigation and burn area rehabilitation by
USFS/BLM personnel is tied to Federal lands. The Colorado Division of Fire Prevention
and Control (DFPC) administers the Emergency Fire Fund (EFF) for those Colorado
counties that contribute to the fund. Pitkin County contributes annually to this fund. At
the Pitkin County Sheriff’s request, the DFPC District may request EFF designation from
the DFPC Director . If approved, EFF will reimburse county suppression costs
according to the current Annual Operating Plan (AOP), the master EFF agreement, and
as agreed to for the specific incident. The DFPC will request Federal Emergency
Management Agency reimbursement for qualified suppression costs according to the
most current agreements. DFPC administers various grants to assist local fire
departments and property owners as funds are available for suppression, training and
other projects.
NWCG Grant Listing
http://www.nwcg.gov/grants/wf-grants.pdf
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
53 June, 2014
5. Prescribed Fire—Agency Roles and Responsibilities
Definition: Any fire ignited by management actions under certain predetermined
conditions to meet specific resource management objectives. A written, approved
prescribed fire plan must exist, and agency requirements must be met prior to ignition.
5.1. USFS/BLM
USFS/BLM objectives are: to use fire from management ignitions in a safe, carefully
planned, and cost effective manner to benefit, protect, maintain, and enhance natural
resources; to reduce future fire suppression costs; and, to the extent possible, to restore
natural ecological processes. Prescribed fire refers to the planning and implementation
of management-ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific, pre-stated resource
management objectives as defined through the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process and accomplished through the interdisciplinary team process. At least
once a year, district staff should meet with local cooperators to discuss future and
current fuels projects. Typically, the meetings should include the local FPD‟s staff and
local representatives of the Colorado State Forest Service. Discussions should revolve
around where to initiate new projects in the urban-wildland intermix.
Prior to implementation, the following requirements are fulfilled:
Prepare and approve burn plan
Obtain smoke permit
Prepare communications plan
Prepare monitoring plan
Provide advance notification to State smoke regulators and (through the
Dispatch Center) to area cooperators
Provide advance notification to news media, elected officials and neighbors as
described in the communications plan
Complete a project file including the components required in the burn plan
Delete section 5.2. and renumber to follow. Currently, it has not been determined which (if
any) state agency will offer assistance to landowners with prescribed burning.
5.2. Pitkin County
Currently, Pitkin County allows only slash burning and agricultural burning, and at
this time does not have guidance regarding prescribed fire for forest health or fuels
reduction on private lands. Given the fuels and the size of most private parcels, it is
unlikely that private property owners would conduct prescribed fires, however if they
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
54 June, 2014
did, Pitkin County could likely grant them a “one-time” permit. Pitkin County requires
a burn permit for any open burning to assist 911 Dispatch in identifying and
dispatching emergency response, reducing false alarms.
5.3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requires air quality
permits for burns grassland or forest management, including vegetative, habitat, or fuel
management and includes only clean, unprocessed wildland fuels. Fire use requires a
smoke permit from CDPHE. Agricultural burning does not require a smoke permit
from CDPHE at this time.
6. County Fire Plan—Detailed Layout
The County Fire Plan identifies six management objectives essential to achieve this
plan‟s mission statement. These management objectives include:
Prevention
Preparedness
Mitigation
Suppression
Reclamation / Rehabilitation
Fiscal
For each of the management objectives, contact positions and phone numbers are listed
for each agency. Additionally, any agreement that refers to a particular management
objective is also listed. A reference appendix will be created that will contain a copy of
each agreement. Each management objective lists a statement that summarizes the goal
and objective, plus activities that need to be accomplished to meet the objectives and the
overall mission statement. For each activity listed, a brief background is provided,
along with agencies involved, priority, status, estimated costs, funding sources and
completion schedule.
6.1. Annual Review
An interagency group will review the Pitkin County Community Wildfire
ProtectionPlan, management objectives and activities listed to ensure that objectives
are being accomplished. Activities will likely be added to and removed from the plan
due to completion of projects and changes in priorities. Pitkin County Emergency
Management will serve as the lead agency and coordinate updates and annual reviews.
Future activities can be submitted by any Pitkin County resident to the interagency
group for review and addition to the year’s County Fire Plan.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
55 June, 2014
7. Management Objectives
Agency Contacts:
Valerie MacDonald, Pitkin County Emergency Management
Darryl Grob, Pitkin County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist
Rick Balentine, Aspen Fire Protection District
Scott Thompson, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
Ron Leach, Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
Scott Thompson, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
Kelly Rogers, Colorado State Forest Service
David R. Toelle, CO Division of Fire Prevention and Control
Doug Paul, Upper Colorado Interagency Fire Management Unit
7.1. Prevention
Reduce human caused wildfire ignitions through information, education and
enforcement.
Activity (P1) Improve public awareness
Background The individual property owner/occupant has the primary responsibility to protect
their property from a wildland fire event. Only limited numbers of citizens in
the general public are aware of the wildland fire threat. Information is available,
but a coordinated approach to educational outreach is needed.
Agencies Pitkin County, CSFS, USFS/BLM, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD
Priority High
Status Ongoing
Estimated Costs Staff time
Funding Sources Existing programs and supplemental funds/grants (CSFS?)
Schedule As needed, information and links on multiple websites.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
56 June, 2014
Activity (P2) Develop ways to update news media and Pitkin County residents of
the current wildfire danger
Background Utilize news media outlets and Public Information Officers to inform the citizens
of current wildland fire danger. Promote the use of CDOTs highway
informational signs.
Agencies USFS/BLM, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD
Priority High
Status Programs in place
Estimated Costs Staff time, some training costs.
Funding Sources Supplemental funds/grants (CSFS?)
Schedule Seasonally
7.2.Preparedness
Plan the most effective level of resources to protect human and natural resources
Activity (Pr1) Enforce/Improve road signs and posted address numbers in rural
Pitkin County
Background The County’s current road signage and site addressing system has many gaps
where road signs are absent and home addresses conflict with official records.
Although current road naming and site addressing is occurring through the
Community Development and Building departments, many serious deficiencies
exist in older platted subdivisions, on metes & bounds parcels, and in 35+ acre
developments. Emergency service personnel and parcel delivery companies are
often unable to locate properties quickly or at all, due to the lack of a road name
and/or a site address. Due to inaccurate or inadequate information provided by
property owners, many properties have received address numbers that are not
accurate, further adding to the confusion. A major barrier to overcoming the
many deficiencies of the current system is likely to be resistance by some
property owners to naming their road, changing their address, or funding the
posting of road signs in subdivisions.
Status Complete 2011. GPS, GIS, CAD, Google Maps, etc.
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
57 June, 2014
Activity (Pr2) Develop local PIO, IMG and Type 3 teams for local incidents
Background A local Incident Management Group or Type 3 Incident Management Team
needs to be developed for managing wildfire suppression incidents, working
towards National Wilfire Coordinating Group qualification for for all members.
Agencies Pitkin County Emergency Management, CSFS, DFPC, USFS/BLM, AFPD,
SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD
Priority High
Status Active
Estimated Costs Training costs
Funding Sources Existing program funds and grants
Schedule Ongoing
Activity (Pr3) Assist in development of CWPPs
Background Using the CSFS wildfire hazard maps and local knowledge, prioritize
subdivisions in the county that should have Wildfire Protection Plans completed.
Responsible Agencies will then need to work with subdivisions and/or
homeowners associations to determine the identified mitigation, funding and
cooperation.
Agencies Pitkin County Emergency Management, Pitkin County Wildfire Mitigation
Specialist, CSFS, DFPC, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD
Priority High
Status Ongoing
Estimated Costs $10,000 to $15,000 per subdivision
Funding Sources Grants and homeowners, CSFS, BLM/USFS
Schedule TBD pending assessments
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
58 June, 2014
Activity (Pr4) Coordination and dissemination of burn restriction information
Background Guidelines exist within the AOP for determining the need for fire restriction
and/or fire closures. Information as well as implementing or lifting
closures/restrictions shall be coordinated with all agencies. Agencies should
also discuss agricultural burning policies.
Agencies Pitkin County Emergency Management, DFPC, USFS/BLM, AFPD, SWFPD,
BRFPD, CRFPD
Priority High
Status Ongoing
Estimated Costs Staff time
Funding Sources Existing programs
Activity (Pr5) Strengthen and Ensure effective Multi-Agency Coordination and
EOC/IMT interface capabilities. 2011
Background With Pitkin County support and buy in of the new Mountain Rescue Aspen
(MRA) building, as of August 2014, the County will have a dedicated
Emergency Operation Center (EOC) and dedicated Incident Command Post
(ICP). The dedicated EOC in the new building will provide us with a central
location from which government can provide interagency coordination and
executive decision making in support of incident response and community
wide services and protection. Our dedicated ICP and EOC will provide
coordination compatible with local, regional, state, and federal agencies.
Agencies Pitkin County Sheriff Emergency Management
Priority Very High
Status The MRA building is scheduled for completion August 2014
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
59 June, 2014
7.3. Mitigation
Plan and implement action to reduce potential negative impacts on human and natural
values from wildland fire
Activity (M1) Pursue funding for more reverse 911 capacity
Background Reverse 911 is becoming more prevalent and widely used. Pitkin County
Emergency Management, in cooperation with other service providers is
expanding this service. Expansion of this service has been deemed a worthwhile
pursuit.
Agencies Pitkin County Emergency Management, local FPDs, Pitkin County
Communications
Priority High
Status Complete
Reverse 911 implemented 2011
Pitkin Alert
http://www.pitkinalert.org/index.php?CCheck=1
Activity (M2) Prioritize needed Community Wildfire Protection Plans
for subdivisions
Background Using the CSFS wildfire hazard maps and local knowledge, prioritize
subdivisions in the county that should have Wildfire Plans completed. Agencies
will then need to work with subdivisions and/or homeowners associations to
determine funding and cooperation.
Agencies Pitkin County Emergency Management, Pitkin County Wildfire
Mitigation Specialist, DFPC, CSFS, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD,
contractors Priority High
Status Conundrum, Snowmass/Wildcat, Starwood have CWPPs at this time.
Estimated Costs $10,000 to $15,000 per subdivision
Funding Sources Grants and homeowners
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
60 June, 2014
Activity (M3) Continue to conduct required and voluntary wildfire hazard
inspections and disseminate info to FPDs.
Background The Pitkin County Land Use Code mandates required inspections for new
construction, and any project tha requires a developmental review. Information
on structures and subdivisions that are up to county code with regards to
defensible space should be disseminated to local FPDs. Local Fire Marshalls
also inspect development proposals.
Agencies Pitkin County Community Development, Pitkin County Wildfire Mitigation
Specialist, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD
Priority High
Status Ongoing
Estimated Costs Staff time
Funding Sources Existing programs
Schedule Ongoing
Activity (M4) Identify cross-boundary fuel reduction projects
Background Under existing agreements CSFS, USFS/BLM are working together to identify
cross-boundary fuel reduction projects within the wildland urban interface.
Projects will focus on area where agencies have planned actions to address
environment and watershed issues and where residents have expressed interest
and support.
Agencies CSFS, USFS/BLM, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD, CRFPD
Priority High
Status Ongoing
Estimated Costs Staff time and project dependant
Funding Sources Existing programs and grants
Schedule Annual review
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
61 June, 2014
7.4. Suppression
Use appropriate strategies and tactics for safe and cost effective protection of human
and natural resource values from wildland fire
Activity (S1) Pitkin County resource list
Background Building on the list of resources in the Annual Operating Plan, include National
Wildfire Coordinating Group certified personnel and qualification levels. This
will improve multi-agency wildfire resource ordering and deployment. Utilize
the Individual Qualifications System (IQS) database for tracking.
Agencies Pitkin County Emergency Management, DFPC, USFS/BLM, AFPD, SWFPD,
BRFPD, CRFPD
Priority High
Status Ongoing
Estimated Costs Staff time
Funding Sources Existing programs
Activity (S2) Mutual aid agreements
Background Rapid mobilization of resources after initial reports of wildland fire is critical in
keeping fires small and reducing the risk to lives and property. To insure
maximum resource response, mutual aid agreements are maintained among the
FPDs in Pitkin County. These agreements allow each agency to tap closest
resources to assist them on wildland fires without consideration for
reimbursement for costs for the first 24 hours on the incident.
Status Complete, including the Annaul Operating Plan update.
Activity (S3) Coordinated communications
Background Various radio systems and frequencies are in use throughout Pitkin County. The
listing of these frequencies and use are detailed in the AOP. The Pitkin County
Sheriff’s Department should ensure that these lists are available to other
firefighting agencies in the area, and likewise the FPDs should have lists of
Federal firefighting radio frequencies, and possibly have some radios on-hand
that are pre-programmed to federal frequencies..
Status Completed 2011
63 July 18, 2011
7.5. Fiscal
Establish funding priorities and budget strategies for management objectives
Activity (F1) Identify, prioritize and develop cost estimates
Background Cooperators will identify, prioritize and develop cost estimates for common management
objectives. Cooperators will be identified that can contribute an amount. Other cooperators
will then be able to submit future budget requests. This process will be reviewed on an annual
basis
Agencies Pitkin County Emergency Management, DFPC, USFS/BLM, AFPD, SWFPD, BRFPD,
CRFPD
Priority Medium
Status Ongoing Estimated Costs
Agency staff time
Funding Sources Existing budgets
NWCG Grant Listing
http://www.nwcg.gov/grants/wf-grants.pdf
8. Additional Mapping Follows
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
64 July 18, 2011
8.1. Crystal Valley Land Ownership & Parcel Map
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
65 July 18, 2011
8.2. Fryingpan Valley Land Ownership and Parcel Map
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
66 July 18, 2011
8.3. Roaring Fork Valley Land Ownership and Parcel Map
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
67 July 18, 2011
8.4. Snowmass/Aspen Land Ownership and Parcel Map
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
68 June, 2014
9. Report Authors
Primary Author
The primary author of both the 2005 and 2009 update Pitkin County Community Wildfire
ProtectionPlan is Eric Petterson of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Mr. Petterson
holds a Masters of Science Degree in Rangeland Ecosystem Science (emphasis on fire ecology)
and a Bachelors of Science Degree in Wildlife Biology from Colorado State University. Mr.
Petterson has 19 years of natural resource planning and management experience. He has
authored numerous Wildfire Hazard Reviews for Pitkin County, and has authored three
Community Wildfire Protection Plans in the Roaring Fork Valley. Mr. Petterson has also
conducted fuels inventories and management recommendation reports for 5 Colorado State
Parks. As a contractor, Mr.
Petterson has performed various assessments and planning tasks on the Cerro Grande,
Missionary Ridge, Burn Canyon, Big Fish, Eldorado Canyon, and Hayman fires. Prior to being
a consultant/contractor, Mr. Petterson was a Fuels Planner on the Canyon Lakes Ranger
District on the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest. As a fuels planner, Mr. Petterson was the
Project Manager for five prescribed fires, ranging in size from 300 acres to 7,000 acres, as well as
combination mechanical treatment/prescribed fire projects. Mr. Petterson was with the USDA
Forest Service for 10 years and has managed Rocky Mountain Ecological Services since 2000.
Eric Petterson
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc.
Natural Resource Consulting
PO Box 833
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-9558
Mobile: (970) 309-4454
epetterson@rmes-inc.com
2014 Update Author
Retired Aspen Fire Chief Darryl Grob was retained as the Pitkin County Wildfire Mitigation
Specialist by Pitkin County Emergency Manager Valerie MacDonald in May, 2014. Mr Grob
has 32 years in the Fire Service, with 16 years as career Fire Chief. His credentials include
certification as a Colorado Division of Fire Safety Fire Officer III. He served on the Board of
Directors of the Pitkin County 911 and Combined Communications Center for 15 years, the
first fire service representative to do so. He served the Pitkin County Public Safety Council for
15 years, Chairperson for 5 of those years. He has served two terms on the Colorado Division
of Fire Safety Firefighter Certification Advisory Board, appointed by the Governor. His wildfire
experience includes Command and Control assignments as a cooperator on Type-3 Incident
Management Teams at all major wildfires in the North-West region of Colorado beginning with
Storm King in 1996.
Darryl Grob, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist
Pitkin County Emergency Management
darryl.grob@pitkinsheriff.com
970-379-1377
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
69 June, 2014
10. Appendices & Links
SB 09-001 CWPPs and County Governments
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2009a/sl_30.htm
SB 09-20 Wildfire Authorities and Responsibilities Summery
http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/documents/Summary_Talking_points_SB-020_3.pdf
NWCG Grant Listing http://www.nwcg.gov/grants/wf-grants.pdf
Pitkin County Community Wildfire ProtectionPlan 2005
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B20sbo6LXuR4NjY
5ZmNkZGItOGRiZi00YmUwLWEyOGYtYTlmNDk0YjQ3NzQy&hl=en_US
Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2009 draft
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B20sbo6LXuR4MGZhZjAzMzItODhjYS00MjI5LTgxMjktYz
ZhMzc2Yzg1YWJl&hl=en_US
2011Annual Operating Plan, Wildfire
https://docs.google.com/a/pitkinsheriff.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid
=0B20sbo6LXuR4OGY2MjkxYWUtYjNjNS00NzBiLTg5YzQtNGE0NzAyOGRjYzhm&hl=en_US
Roaring Fork Valley AOP Resource List
https://docs.google.com/a/pitkinsheriff.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=tru
e&srcid=0B20sbo6LXuR4NWMzNWU0Y2QtMGYzOC00MWU0LWIzODQtZDk4Zjk3N
zQwOGRh&hl=en_US&authkey=CK290ccK
Pitkin County Land Use Code - Wildfire
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/county/countycode/bocc-ord-010-03.pdf
Mountain Pine Beetle http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/mountain-pine-beetle.html
Conundrum Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2004
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B20sbo6LXuR4OD
MzZmIyYTYtYjdjNi00YTBjLTk0OTQtNzk1ODIzYzcxZTkz&hl=en_US
Snowmass Village Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2008
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B20sbo6LXuR4OD
RiZDc3ZTEtYzRjYy00YTM3LTgzNzctZjg1ZTBmNDhjNWZk&hl=en_US
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Pitkin County Emergency Management
70 June, 2014
Marble Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2011
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Bx6_iUW-
7lkVZjFmZTljMjMtZWFmYi00YTk0LThmN2YtZDMyMjFiMjNhNTEx&hl=en_US
Firewise Guidelines
http://csfs.colostate.edu/pages/are-you-firewise-program.html
Pitkin Alert http://www.pitkinalert.org/index.php?CCheck=1
Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
http://www.stateforesters.org/files/cwpphandbook.pdf