About the Front Range Roundtable

1. About the Front Range Roundtable October 2012 • Facilitated by:

2. Colorado’s Fire Seasons Thousands of acres of wildfire per year (Total = 1.9 million acres of wildfire since 1995) Includes Hayman fire: $200 million of costs from the Hayman Fire alone, which accounted for one-fifth of all acres burned that year (138k acres) Includes Waldo (18k acres) and High Park (87k acres) Includes Bobcat Gulch fire: 11k acres Includes Buffalo Creek fire: 12k acres Includes Fourmile fire: 6k acres FRFTP formed Round-table Vision Five years of implementation Sources: 1995 – 2010: Rocky Mountain Area and Coordination Center Annual Activity Report (2001-2004); Wildland Fire Activity by Cause, Combining Federal and Non-federal Agencies Within Each State (www.fs.fed.us/r2/fire/oo_annual_report.pdf); 2011 – 2012: http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html

3. Front Range Forests • 4.2 million acres of forestin the Front Range • 1.4 million in need of ecological restoration and fire risk mitigation “Subalpine”: Lodgepole Pine and Spruce Fir “Upper Montane”: Mesic Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer “Lower Montane”: Dry Ponderosa pine and Dry Douglas fir

4. Alpine • Sub-alpine • Upper Montane • Lower Montane • Lower Ecotone Definitions of Front Range life zones Front Range life zones General elevations1 Example communities Dominant overstory composition Associated vegetation types >~11,500’ • None • No trees • Grassy slopes and boulder fields • Sedges, mat and cushion plants, dwarf willows • Winter Park • Ward ~9,000-9,500’ to ~11,500’ • Lodgepole Pine • Spruce/Fir • Bogs, meadows, ponds, rich in wildflowers • Mesic Ponderosa Pine • Mesic Mixed Conifer2 • Some permanent meadows ~8,000’ to ~9,000-9,500’ • Estes Park • Granby ~6,000’ to ~8,000’ • Dry Ponderosa Pine • Dry Douglas-fir • Mountain-mahogany • Scrub Oak • Evergreen • Monument • Transition to Ponderosa Pine • Grassland • Mountain-mahogany • Scrub Oak • Boulder • Golden ~5,500’ to ~6,000’ 1 Elevations noted are rough estimates – actual elevation limits depend on latitude, aspect, and other local factors; elevations generally lower in northern Front Range and on north-facing slopes, higher in southern Front Range and on south-facing slopes (e.g., Upper limit of Lower Montane ~7,500’ in Larimer vs. ~8,500’ in El Paso) 2 May include: Ponderosa Pine, Douglas-fir (up to ~8,000’), Aspen, Blue Spruce, Limber Pine, Engelmann Spruce, Sub-alpine Fir Note: Riparian zones are included and considered in each life zone in which they are found

5. The Lower Montane is the Roundtable’s highest priority ecosystem for landscape-scale ecological restoration. Risk of ignition / fire spread HRV2 well understood? Difference from HRV2? High General elevations1 Front Range ecosystems Mixed Low >~11,500’ • Alpine ~9,000-9,500’ to ~11,500’ • Sub-alpine ~8,000’ to ~9,000-9,500’ • Upper Montane ~6,000’ to ~8,000’ • Lower Montane ~5,500’ to ~6,000’ • Lower Ecotone 1 Elevations noted are rough estimates – actual elevation limits depend on latitude, aspect, and other local factors 2 Historical Range of Variability in terms of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances

6. Historical photos show how forest treatments in the Lower Montane restore forest structures

7. Forest Restoration = Fire Risk Reduction in the Lower Montane Fourmile Canyon Fire, 2010 Bald Mountain • Began Labor Day, September 6, 2010 • Estimated $217 million in personal property losses and damages: fire destroyed 169 homes. • “Without past mitigation activities, the outcome could have been worse.” Source: Map by the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee Buttes National Grassland; Photos by John Bustos, a public affairs officer for the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee Buttes National Grassland in Fort Collins, CO.

8. Front Range Lives and Resources Remain at Risk Natural and economic resources People Water and safety • 4.2 million acres of forests6 (53% of all land types7) including 2 million acres of habitat for 31 species of concern5 • 80% of Front Range forests have recreation opportunities5 attracting some of Colorado’s 28 million overnight visitors spending $10 billion annually, making tourism the second- highest employment sector in the state, with 143,000 jobs3 • $5 million per year of available biomass from forest treatments12 • 881 communities1 • 2 million people(more than 40% of Colorado’s population)2 • More than 700,000 homes3 • 1,246 essential water supply infrastructures (intakes4, reservoirs, transbasin diversions) • 4.2 million acres of forest watersheds important for drinking water (65% at risk for post-fire erosion)5 • 1,775 miles of roads8 • 1,573 miles of transmission lines • 664 miles of gas pipeline9 • 122 communications towers10 • Federal Register (as of January 4, 2001) • 2005 Census (ESRI) • SERGoM (Spatially Explicit Regional Growth Model) version `12 June 2008 (Theobald) 100m CDPHE, 2009 Colorado State Forest Service and The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Colorado Statewide Forest Assessment (in preparation). LANDFIRE, 2006 (Includes PJ and shrubs) • ESRI, 2007 • TIGER: USCB. 2006 • Ventyx, December 2009 • FAA, 2009 • “State spending on tourism a hot potato for lawmakers,” Rocky Mountain News, January 12, 2009. • 166,000 bdt/y (Jefferson County Biomass Facility Feasibility Study, McNeil Technologies Inc , January 2005 ) * $30

9. The Front Range Roundtable The Front Range Roundtable was formed to “serve as a focal point for diverse stakeholder input into efforts to reduce wildland fire risks and improve forest health through sustained fuels treatment along the Colorado Front Range.” Mission Ecological Restoration Goals Fire Risk Mitigation Goals The Front Range roundtable has reached consensus that 1.5 million acres of Front Range forests require treatments to reduce fire risk and/or achieve ecological restoration. Vision ~400,000 acres ~400,000 acres ~700,000 acres Overlap of goals

10. 2009 Map of Priorities: Accomplishments vs. 2006 Recommendations Notes on methods Data collected back to 2004 to our best available knowledge (received for treated acres separately from planned acres as shown) Excludes private land treated without the assistance of the CSFS Excludes county lands treated in Park, Teller, Douglas, El Paso, and Grand. Some of these areas have been treated with prescribed or natural burn and may not require additional near-term treatment. Some of these areas have been treated mechanically but still require prescribed or natural burn to achieve restoration. Different databases are used between units/agencies. Data is comparable within a unit, but not between units. This should be resolved for 2009 and future years. Source: Map by USFS-ARP

11. Treatment Accomplishments by County as of 2009 vs. 2006 Roundtable Recommendations Data underlying the monitoring map on the prior slide:

12. Progress Towards the Roundtable Vision Direct Roundtable Successes Launched the self-sustaining Woodland Park Healthy Forest Initiative (WPHFI) with seed funds of $75,000 provided by Roundtable members and partners, which the WPHFI leveraged into an additional $175,000 in other funding Helped submit a winning proposal to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) for an additional $1 million for Front Range National Forests in FY10, $3.4 million in FY11 and $3.1 million in FY12 (with the possibility of further allocations). Partners’ successes consistent with recommendations Long term stewardships contracts: Arapaho-Roosevelt and Pike-San Isabel (3,000 acres/yr for 10 years) Increased federal funding for on the ground treatments: $1.8 mm more in 2008 than in 2006; $1 million in 2009 ARRA funds Biomass utilization: bioheating in Gilpin, Boulder, and Park counties; planned in El Paso; 22 slash sites for private landowners across Front Range CWPPs: 75 Front Range CWPPs approved (out of 151 completed in Colorado) Policies: Passage of state legislation authorizing the creation of local Forest Improvement Districts

13. Progress Against 2006 Roundtable Recommendations • Significant progress made G • Some progress made B • Initial progress made Y • Needs attention P • No action taken R • Sept. 2009 “gut check” • April 2010 • OEO team analysis • 2011 “gut check” • 2006 Roundtable goals • Recommended initiatives Increase funding for forest treatments • Identify new state and local funding sources for treatments on state and private land. • Increase forest treatment incentives for private landowners. • Advocate for additional federal funding for Front Range forest treatments. • Increase appropriate application of prescribed fire and wildland fire use as a management tool. • Increase utilization of woody biomass for facility heating. • Increase contract sizes and durations with stewardship contracts on federal land. • Change local policy to limit the growth of fire risk in the Wildland-Urban Interface. • Promote the development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans for Front Range communities-at-risk. • Adopt a clear and common framework for prioritizing treatments. • Convene follow-on Roundtable to ensure implementation of recommended initiatives. B B B B Y B Y Y B Reduce the cost of forest treatments R Y Y P P Y Y Y B Ensure local leadership and planning P P P B B B Set clear priorities and ensure progress against common goals R B B B G G • Source: Most initiatives were rated by a poll at the September 18, 2009 Quarterly Roundtable meeting of 37 attendees from 24 organizations representing 11 stakeholder groups. Ratings for initiatives 3, 5, and 6 were increased by one level at the December 2, 2010 Executive Team meeting. Ratings for initiatives 3, 5, and 6 were raised on level at the March 4, 2011 Roundtable meeting.

14. Roundtable Partners Mixed teams Roundtable Organization Funders Executive Team Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership (FRFTP)2 Coalition for the Upper South Platte (CUSP)—Fiscal Agent)1 Colorado Watershed Wildfire Protection Working Group (CWWPWG)2 Members Northern Front Range Mountain Pine Beetle Working Group (NFRMPBWG)2 Facilitator Guests Community Protection (CP) Team Biomass Utilization and Slash Sites (BUSS) Team Landscape Restoration (LR) Team Wildlife Team Colorado Forest Restoration Institute (CFRI) 3 The Front Range Roundtable is not itself a legal entity but an informal volunteer coalition with CUSP acting as fiscal agent. Partner groups are separate from the Front Range Roundtable and have their own organizational structures and initiatives. Project leader and fiscal agent for the CFLRP Monitoring Teams

15. Executive Team Structure and Change Process Dedicated to certain organizations1 Dedicated to certain stakeholder groups2 Open to other stakeholder groups3 Size: At least 6 or no more than 9 members4 Current Executive Team Membership USFS-AR Supervisor Glenn Casamassa USFS-PSI Supervisor Jerri Marr CSFS State Forester Joe Duda Conserva-tion NGO Paige Lewis, The Nature Conservancy County Commis-sioner—North Cindy Domenico, Boulder County County Commis-sioner—South Sallie Clark El Paso County Treasurer Carol Ekarius, Coalition for the Upper South Platte Landscape Restoration Team Liaison Pam Motley, West Range Reclamation Community Protection Team Liaison Megan Davis, Boulder County Process for changing membership: Term ends Dec. 2013 Only when there is a change in the leadership of the organization shown Terms end May 2013 Terms end or renew at end of June 2013 • Three seats are dedicated permanently to these leadership positions from these organizations shown • Two seats are dedicated to these stakeholder groups shown with the representing organization rotating each year, as desired • One seat is dedicated for the fiscal agent of the Roundtable, one seat is for each of the two main working teams: the Community Protection Team and the Landscape Restoration Team. One or two seats are open to additional or other stakeholder groups with the stakeholder type and/or representing organization rotating each year as desired among: Conservation, County Commissioner, Energy, Insurance, Local Government, Planning, Private, Recreation, Science / Academic, State Government, Timber, or Water • Membership size can very depending on the decisions of the Executive team and Roundtable needs / number of applicants

16. Front Range Roundtable Roles Propose strategic, organizational, and operational priorities for the Roundtable’s consideration at Quarterly meetings In between Quarterly meetings, make decisions on behalf of the Roundtable as needed Approve agendas for Roundtable Quarterly meetings (proposed by Facilitator) Meet once each quarter between Quarterly Roundtable meetings Executive Team Schedule, arrange, and facilitate Roundtable Quarterly meetings, Executive Team meetings, and working team meetings Support working teams in achieving their goals by providing organizational, administrative, and logistical support (e.g., keeping work plans) —not content or legwork Act as the central point of contact for all Roundtable internal and external communications (e.g., email distribution list, website maintenance) Facilitator Execute on the Roundtable’s strategic goals, according to work plans developed jointly by the teams Present progress updates at Quarterly Roundtable meetings Attend working team meetings as scheduled, typically two calls per month with some in person meetings as determined by the team Working Teams Attend quarterly Roundtable meetings and, when required, approve or change proposals by the Executive Team Share relevant announcements and updates to Quarterly Roundtable meetings; productively contribute to discussions, honoring the obligation to dissent when necessary Volunteer for working teams if able and/or want to see something done by the Roundtable Members

17. Front Range Roundtable Participants Through the Years ~190 people from ~80 organizations are currently subscribed to email list (to join, see www.frontrangeroundtable.org  “Sign Up”)

18. Front Range Roundtable 2012 Goals 2012 Goals Status as of Nov. 2012 Executive Team Lead in forming a coalition to recommend policy initiatives to limits fire risks in the WUI. Lead the Roundtable to agree on a collaborative adaptive management process Fundraise at least $50,000 Delegated to Community Protection team Delegated to Landscape Restoration Team Main goal and purpose This team has paid facilitation • IM Team’s 2012 goals are in question: • Develop a project plan and attract funding for a turn-key project around at least one of the highest priority landscape identified. • Update the Front Range 10-County map of completed treatments Community Protection (CP) Team Volunteer-led and facilitated Biomass Utilization and Slash Sites (BUSS) Team Volunteer-led and facilitated Share information about biomass utilization developments across the Front Range (via monthly calls) Serve as the Front Range CFLR project multi-party monitoring group Develop an adaptive management process and recommendations Revise the June 2011 CFLR monitoring plan Assemble and inventory GIS and other data to facilitate information sharing on Front Range forest research/fire history. On track (new findings and methods) On track (agreeing on narrative) Deferred due to lack of capacity, but posting “addendums” on website for now Deferred due to lack of capacity This team has paid facilitation Landscape Restoration (LP) Team Wildlife Team Just launched in Nov. 2012, will have paid facilitation Prioritizing an abridged list of species to monitor from the 2011 CFLRP Monitoring Plan, Setting population trends for each target species expected if forest restoration is achieved, and Recommending data collection and monitoring methods for each target species given funding constraints and monitoring methods in use.  calls)