Four Mile Fire Protection District
Wildland Urban Interface
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Prepared for:
Four Mile Fire Protection
District
Boulder, Colorado
Submitted By:
Anchor Point
Boulder, Colorado
October 2006
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT ........................................................................................................................1
THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN .........................................................................................................................................2
PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................................3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................................................................3
OTHER DESIRED OUTCOMES ......................................................................................................................................4
COLLABORATION: COMMUNITY/AGENCIES/FIRE SAFE COUNCILS .....................................................5
STUDY AREA OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................6
VALUES.......................................................................................................................................................................9
LIFE SAFETY AND HOMES ..........................................................................................................................................9
COMMERCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE .........................................................................................................................10
RECREATION AND LIFE STYLE..................................................................................................................................10
HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS & ENVIROMENTAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................11
CURRENT RISK SITUATION ...............................................................................................................................12
FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS....................................................................................................................16
FIRE BEHAVIOR POTENTIAL ............................................................................................................................18
SOLUTIONS AND MITIGATION..........................................................................................................................20
ESTABLISHING AND PRIORITIZING FIRE MANAGEMENT UNITS (FMUS)...................................................................20
ADDRESSING, EVACUATION ROUTES AND SHELTER-IN-PLACE FMU .......................................................................20
Addressing...........................................................................................................................................................20
Evacuation Routes ...............................................................................................................................................21
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................26
Shelter-in-Place ...................................................................................................................................................27
PUBLIC EDUCATION EFFORTS FMU .........................................................................................................................30
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................30
LOCAL PREPAREDNESS AND FIREFIGHTING CAPABILITIES .......................................................................................31
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................31
HOME MITIGATION FMU .........................................................................................................................................33
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................35
FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS FMU ....................................................................................................................37
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................37
Existing and proposed cross boundary projects...................................................................................................38
Proposed fuels reduction projects for FMFPD ....................................................................................................40
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................40
WATER SUPPLY FMU ..............................................................................................................................................49
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................51
GLOSSARY ...............................................................................................................................................................52
RECOMMENDED REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................55
WEBSITE RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................................58
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. TYPICAL AREA..............................................................................................................................................6
FIGURE 2. STUDY AREA COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................................7
FIGURE 3. PERCENT SLOPE ...........................................................................................................................................8
FIGURE 4. ELEVATION ..................................................................................................................................................8
FIGURE 5. LOCAL FIRE STATISTICS .............................................................................................................................14
FIGURE 6. ARNF RANGER DISTRICTS.........................................................................................................................15
FIGURE 7. CONDITION CLASS MAP .............................................................................................................................16
FIGURE 8. FIRE BEHAVIOR POTENTIAL (AVERAGE WEATHER CONDITIONS) ..............................................................19
FIGURE 9. FIRE BEHAVIOR POTENTIAL (EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS) ..............................................................19
FIGURE 10. EVACUATION ROUTES OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................22
FIGURE 11. EVACUATION ROUTE 1 – POORMAN ROAD ................................................................................................23
FIGURE 12. EVACUATION ROUTE 2 – CAMINO BOSQUE DRIVE ....................................................................................23
FIGURE 13. EVACUATION ROUTE 3 – SWITZERLAND TRAIL (NORTH) ..........................................................................24
FIGURE 14. EVACUATION ROUTE 4 – SWITZERLAND TRAIL (SOUTH)...........................................................................24
FIGURE 15. EVACUATION ROUGE 5 – LOGAN MILL......................................................................................................25
FIGURE 16. SADDLE & RIDGE TOP DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................34
FIGURE 17. DEFENSIBLE SPACE ZONES ........................................................................................................................35
FIGURE 18. FIREBRANDS ..............................................................................................................................................36
FIGURE 19. CONVECTIVE & RADIANT ENERGY ............................................................................................................36
FIGURE 20. OTHER AGENCY PROJECTS IN AND ADJACENT TO THE STUDY AREA............................................................39
FIGURE 21. EAST SIDE FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS..............................................................................................44
FIGURE 22. ARROYO CHICO AREA FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS ...........................................................................45
FIGURE 23. LOGAN MILL AREA FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS................................................................................46
FIGURE 24. MELVINA HILL AREA FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS ............................................................................47
FIGURE 25. WEST SIDE FUELS MODIFICATION PROJECTS.............................................................................................48
FIGURE 26. WATER SOURCES .......................................................................................................................................49
FIGURE 27. FOUR MILE CREEK.....................................................................................................................................50
FIGURE 28. FOUR MILE CREEK 2..................................................................................................................................50
ii
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. CWPP DEVELOPMENT TEAM .........................................................................................................................5
TABLE 2. HAZARD RANKING OF COMMUNITIES IN THE STUDY AREA............................................................................7
TABLE 3. CONDITION CLASS DESCRIPTIONS................................................................................................................17
TABLE 4. RECOMMENDED TREATMENT DISTANCES FOR MID-SLOPE ROADS..............................................................26
TABLE 5. HAZARD RATINGS BY COMMUNITY..............................................................................................................33
TABLE 6. WATER SOURCES .........................................................................................................................................49
iii
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
SUMMARY OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document incorporates new and existing information relating to wildfire for citizens, policy
makers, and public agencies in the Four Mile Fire Protection District (FMFPD), Boulder, CO.
Wildfire hazard data is derived from the community wildfire hazard rating system (WHR) and the
analysis of fire behavior potential, which is extensive and/or technical in nature. As a result,
detailed findings and methodologies are included in their entirety in appendices rather than the
main report text. This approach is designed to make the actual plan more readable while
establishing a reference source for those interested in the technical elements of the FMFPD wildfire
hazard and risk assessment.
The FMFPD Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is the result of a community-wide fire
protection planning effort including extensive field data gathering, compilation of existing fire
suppression documents, a scientific analysis of the fire behavior potential of the study area, and
collaboration with various participants including homeowners, FMFPD officials, the Four Mile Fire
Department (FMFD), and the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). This plan was initially
compiled in 2003 and revised in 2006 in response to a contract from the FMFPD to quantify, clarify
and manage their wildland urban interface (WUI) responsibility. This project meets the
requirements of the federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 for community fire
planning.
The CWPP meets the requirements of HFRA by:
1. Identifying and prioritizing fuels reduction opportunities across the landscape;
See section Fuels Modification Projects beginning on page 37 of this document.
2. Addressing structural ignitability; and
See pages 33-36 and Appendix B.
3. Collaborating with stakeholders.
See Appendix E.
1
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The National Fire Plan
In 2000, more than eight million acres burned across the United States, marking one of the most
devastating wildfire seasons in American history. One high-profile incident, the Cerro Grande fire
at Los Alamos, NM, destroyed more than 235 structures and threatened the Department of Energy’s
nuclear research facility.
Two reports addressing federal wildland fire management were initiated after the 2000 fire season.
The first was a document prepared by a federal interagency group entitled "Review and Update of
the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy” (2001), which concluded among other points
that the condition of America’s forests had continued to deteriorate.
The second report issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) - "Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on
Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of
2000” - would become known as the National Fire Plan (NFP). That report, and the ensuing
congressional appropriations, ultimately required actions to:
1. Respond to severe fires
2. Reduce the impacts of fire on rural communities and the environment
3. Ensure sufficient firefighting resources
Congress increased its specific appropriations to accomplish these goals. 2002 was another severe
season, with more than 1,200 homes destroyed and seven million acres burned. In response to
public pressure, congress and the Bush administration continued to obligate funds for specific
actionable items, such as preparedness and suppression. That same year, the Bush administration
announced the HFRA initiative, which enhanced measures to restore forest and rangeland health
and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. In 2003, that act was signed into law.
Through these watershed pieces of legislation, Congress continues to appropriate specific funding
to address five main sub-categories: preparedness, suppression, and reduction of hazardous fuels,
burned-area rehabilitation, and state and local assistance to firefighters. The general concepts of the
NFP blended well with the established need for community wildfire protection in the study area.
The spirit of the NFP is reflected in the FMFPD CWPP.
2
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
PURPOSE
The purpose of the fire behavior analysis, WHR and the resulting CWPP is to provide a
comprehensive, scientifically-based assessment of the wildfire hazards and risks within the
FMFPD.
The assessment estimates the risks and hazards associated with wildland fire in proximity to
communities. This information in conjunction with values-at-risk defines "areas of concern” for
the community and allows for prioritization of mitigation efforts. From this analysis, solutions and
mitigation recommendations are offered that will aid homeowners, land managers and other
interested parties in developing short-term and long-term fuels and fire management plans.
For the purposes of this report the following definitions apply:
Risk is considered to be the likelihood of an ignition occurrence. This is primarily determined
by the fire history of the area.
Hazard is the combination of the WHR ratings of the WUI communities and the analysis of
fire behavior potential, as modeled from the fuels, weather and topography of the study area.
Hazard attempts to quantify the severity of undesirable fire outcomes to the values at risk.
Values at Risk are the human and intrinsic values identified as important to the way of life of
the study area by its inhabitants, such as life safety, property conservation, access to recreation
and wildlife habitat. (See pages 11-13 for a comprehensive overview).
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals for this project include the following:
1. Enhance Life Safety for Residents and Responders
2. Mitigate Undesirable Fire Outcomes to Property and Infrastructure
3. Mitigate Undesirable Fire Outcomes to the Environment and Quality of Life
In order to accomplish these goals the following objectives have been identified:
1. Establish an approximate level of risk (the likelihood of a significant wildfire event for the
study area)
2. Provide a scientific analysis of the fire behavior potential of the study area
3. Group values-at-risk into "communities" that represent relatively similar hazard factors
4. Identify and quantify factors that limit (mitigate) undesirable fire effects to the values at risk
(hazard levels)
5. Recommend specific actions that will reduce hazards to the values at risk
3
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Other Desired Outcomes
1. Promote community awareness:
Quantification of the community's hazards and risk from wildfire will facilitate public
awareness and assist in creating public action to mitigate the defined hazards.
2. Improve wildfire prevention through education:
Awareness, combined with education, will help to reduce the risk of unplanned human
ignitions.
3. Facilitate and prioritize appropriate hazardous fuel reduction:
Organizing and prioritizing hazard mitigation actions into Fire Management Units (FMU)
can assist stakeholders in focusing future efforts from both a social and fire management
perspective.
4. Promote improved levels of response:
The identification of areas of concern will improve the accuracy of pre-planning, and
facilitate the implementation of cross-boundary, multi-jurisdictional projects.
4
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
COLLABORATION:
COMMUNITY/AGENCIES/STAKEHOLDERS
Representatives involved in the development of the FMFPD CWPP are included in the following
table. Their names, organization, and roles and responsibilities are indicated in Table 1. For more
information on the collaborative process that led to the development of this CWPP see Appendix E
FMFPD CWPP Collaborative Effort.
Table 1. CWPP Development Team
Name Organization Roles / Responsibilities
Local information and expertise,
including community risk and value
Bret Gibson assessment, development of community
Four Mile Fire Department
Chief protection priorities, and establishment of
fuels treatment project areas and
methods.
Facilitation of planning process and
Colorado State Forest Service approval of CWPP process and minimum
Alan Owen (CSFS) standards; input and expertise on
District Forester forestry, fire and fuels, and FireWise
concepts.
Development of CWPP and decision-
making, community risk and value
Chris White Anchor Point Group LLC assessment, development of community
Project Manager Consultants protection priorities, and establishment of
fuels treatment project areas and
methods.
5
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
STUDY AREA OVERVIEW
The Four Mile Fire Protection District is located in Boulder County, immediately west of Boulder,
Colorado. The district is bordered to the east by the City of Boulder, to the south by the Cherryvale
and Sugarloaf Fire Districts, to the west by the Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forest and to the
north by Sunshine Canyon Fire Protection District
Figure 1: Typical Area and the town of Gold Hill. Four Mile Canyon covers
an area of 20 square miles, and has approximately
2,200 residents. The primary access to the district is
via Colorado Highway 119.
For the purposes of this report, communities have
been assessed for the hazards and risks that occur
inside the district boundaries. Some of these
communities continue into other fire districts, and
GIS work for this project has been extended to a
project boundary beyond the district boundaries.
Unless noted otherwise, rankings and descriptions of communities, as well as hazard and risk
recommendations, pertain only to the portions of those areas that lie within the boundaries of the
Four Mile Fire Protection District.
The area is considered to be in the Montane zone (6,000’-10,000’) of the eastern slope of the
Northern Colorado Front Range. The predominant vegetation is ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)
and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The area also contains dense stands of mixed conifers
primarily on north facing slopes. Dense riparian shrub corridors and open canopy woodlands
broken by large grass meadows also exist in the district.
Figure 2 and Table 2 show the communities that define the WUI study area. As a part of this
project the most populated areas were divided into 16 communities. Each community represents
certain dominant hazards from a wildfire perspective. Fuels, topography, structural flammability,
availability of water for fire suppression, egress and navigational difficulties as well as other
hazards both natural and manmade are considered in the overall hazard ranking of these
communities. The methodology for this assessment uses the WHR community hazard rating system
that was developed specifically to evaluate communities within the WUI for their relative wildfire
hazard.1 The WHR model combines physical infrastructure such as structure density and roads and
fire behavior components like fuels and topography, with the field experience and knowledge of
wildland fire experts. For more information on the WHR methodology please see Appendix B.
For reference to the rest of this document, Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the general topography of
the area. These graphic representations of the landforms of the study area (elevation and slope) will
be helpful in interpreting other map products in this report.
1 C. White, "Community Wildfire Hazard Rating Form” Wildfire Hazard Mitigation and Response Plan, Colorado
State Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO, 1986.
6
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 2: Study Area Communities
Table 2: Hazard Ranking of Communities in the Study Area
ExtremeVery High High Moderate Low
1. Rim Road Area 9. Lower Four Mile Canyon
2. Logan Mill 10. Melvina Hill
3. Wallstreet 11. Canon Park
4. Summerville 12. Salina
5. Emmerson Gulch 13. Canyonside
6. Arroyo Chico 14. Red Lion Area
7. Sunset 15. Crisman
8. Camino Bosque 16. Poorman
7
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 3: Percent Slope
Figure 4: Elevation
8
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
VALUES
Life Safety and Homes
There are approximately 495 homes in FMFPD. The most populated areas were divided into 16
communities. The areas within each community represent certain dominant hazards from a wildfire
perspective. Fuels, topography, structural flammability, availability of water for fire suppression,
egress and access difficulties, as well as other hazards both natural and manmade, are considered in
the overall hazard ranking of these communities. The hazard assessment identified 6 of the 16
communities in the study area to be extreme or very high hazard areas. Under extreme burning
conditions, there is a likelihood of rapid increases in fire intensity and spread in this area due to
steep topography, fast burning or flashy fuel components and other topographic features that
contribute to channeling winds and promotion of extreme fire behavior. This area may also
represent a high threat to life safety due to poor egress, the likelihood of heavy smoke, heat, and /or
long response times.
With tens of thousands of people moving to Colorado each year, building in the once inaccessible
mountain areas has become a growing concern. Most of Boulder County is vulnerable to some form
of natural disturbance. Recent national disaster events have focused increased attention at both
local and state government levels on the need to mitigate such events where possible and to prepare
to cope with them when unavoidable.2
Boulder County recognizes the wildland urban interface as an area particularly at risk to wildland
fires. Fire should be recognized as a natural and/or human-caused occurrence with certain benefits
to the ecosystem. The county should strive towards balancing the natural processes of the
ecosystem with development concerns so that residents may co-exist in a fire-dependent
ecosystem.3
The population of Boulder County is growing at an average rate of 3% per year, and has increased
29% between 1990 and 2000, with increased mountain development and recreational pressures
following this increase in population. Over 154,000 people in the county live in wildfire hazard
areas, and the county experiences an average of 100 fire starts per year. Over the past 15 years the
county has seen a number of major wildland fires, and until 2001, held the Colorado record for
structural losses from wildland fires. This was due largely to the 1989 Black Tiger fire, which
claimed 44 homes and the 1990 Old Stage fire, which took 10 homes. The culture of Boulder
County emphasizes environmental values and outdoor recreation. Boulder County has intermixed
land ownership. Approximately 60% of the land is owned publicly with 40% owned privately.
2 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan - Boulder County Land Use Department
(http://www.co.boulder.co.us/lu/bccp/introduction.htm)
3 Ibid.
9
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Public land is divided among a variety of local, state and federal managers including the United
States Forest Service, Boulder County Open Space, the City of Boulder and Colorado State Parks.4
Commerce and Infrastructure
Another significant component in both the county Comprehensive Plan and a majority of the
municipal plans and programs is recognition of the importance of environmental factors, natural
and cultural amenities, or "quality of life" issues to the health of the economy. The Boulder County
economy has benefited from its legacy of careful land use decisions and its open space lands
including national and state parks, national and state forests as well as city and county open space
and parks.5
There are some commercial properties (lodging, restaurant and office buildings) but these are
primarily concentrated along Highway 119 and the east end of the district. Although commercial
property and retail business are limited within FMFPD, residents maintain a variety of home-based
businesses. The economy of the area is based largely on the quality of life that attracts professionals
to establish residences. Wildfire, therefore, has the potential to cause significant damage to the
local economy.
Recreation and Lifestyle
The idea of a county open space program was initiated in the mid-1960s by Boulder County
citizens who were interested in parks and recreation needs of the unincorporated area and in
"preserving open space land in the face of rapid county development". This was at a time when
Boulder County’s 750 square miles were home to a population of fewer than 130,000 people. The
1995 population was almost 260,000.6
In 1978 the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The plan included goals and
policies for preserving open space, protecting environmental resources (including both natural and
cultural resources) and developing a county-wide trail system. The implementation of the open
space plan has been based both on private cooperation and on the county’s financial ability to
acquire an interest in these lands.
By the beginning of 1998 the county open space program comprised more than 52,000 acres of
preserved land scattered throughout the county, along with 70 miles of trails. The majority of this
land is open for public use. The remainder is under agricultural lease or conservation easements,
which do not include public access. Most of the properties are well-suited to passive recreation
(recreation development is limited to trails, parking areas/trailheads, picnic areas/shelters,
outhouses, and simple boat docks or fishing piers where necessary).
Residents who currently live in the study area have a keen appreciation for their natural
environment. They like to be in the mountainsit’s the context of their quality of life. Recreation
4 "Community Responses to Wildland Fire Threats in Colorado” – T. Steelman, D. Bell, Dept. of Forestry, NCSU
(http://www.ncsu.edu/project/wildfire/Colorado/boulder/b_reduce.html)
5 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan – Boulder County Land Use Department
(http://www.co.boulder.co.us/lu/bccp/introduction.htm)
6 Ibid.
10
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
and the natural beauty of the area are frequently quoted as reasons local residents have chosen to
live in the study area.
Habitat Effectiveness & Environmental Resources
Residents are clear that the preservation of wildlife and the environment is important to the quality
of life of the area. Habitat effectiveness is defined as the degree to which habitat is free of human
disturbance and available for wildlife to use. Effective habitat is mostly undisturbed land area,
which is buffered (at least 300 feet in essentially all situations) from regular motorized and non-
motorized use of roads and trails (11 or more people or vehicle trips per week). It is felt that habitat
effectiveness should not fall below 50%, and the best wildlife habitats have a much higher
percentage.7 Wildfire, specifically severe wildfire, can have significant adverse effects on habitat
effectiveness.
The environmental character of Boulder County is due in large measure to the abrupt altitudinal
variation within a 20-mile east-west gradient. The dramatic landform changes sharply define the
native ecosystems and their associations of plant and animal species.
The county’s environmental heritage includes non-renewable resources such as natural areas,
historic/archaeological sites and natural landmarks. As irreplaceable resources, they warrant
preservation from destruction or harmful alteration. Wetlands are a critical environmental resource
that function variously as wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge areas, linkages in the overall county
wildlife system, and aids for smog control.
The goal of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan is to maintain and monitor the forests on open
space in accordance with ways that benefits the ecosystem and the public by:
• Assessing overall forest conditions through forest inventories and surveys
• Implementing prescriptions based on the results of these inventories and surveys
• Taking action to change or increase the individual tree's health and vigor
• Reducing fire danger
• Improving or maintaining wildlife habitat
• Maintaining and preserving the aesthetic and ecological value of the forest
The FMFPD CWPP process is in concert with these guiding comprehensive plan principles.
Through public involvement, local support and a regional perspective, the fuels reduction elements
described in this document can and should enhance and protect the values of the study area.
7 Peak to Peak Community Indicators Project 2003 Presented by Peak to Peak Healthy Communities Project
©Copyright 2003 Peak to Peak Healthy Communities Project
11
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
CURRENT RISK SITUATION
For the purposes of this report the following definitions apply:
Risk is considered to be the likelihood of an ignition occurrence. This is primarily determined
by the fire history of the area.
Hazard is the combination of the wildfire hazard ratings of the Wildland Urban Interface
(WUI) communities and fire behavior potential, as modeled from the fuels, weather and
topography of the study area.
The majority of the district is at a moderate risk for WUI fires. This assessment is based on the
analysis of the following factors.
1. The city of Boulder is listed in the Federal Register as a community at high risk from
wildfire (http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/351-358-en.pdf).
2. The area is shown in the Colorado State Forest Service WUI Hazard Assessment map to be
an area of high Hazard Value (an aggregate of Hazard, Risk and Values Layers).
3. FMFPD historically has not had a significant fire history, but in the last few years wildland
fires have increased in frequency. The Four Mile Fire Department responded to only 5
wildland fires from 1998 to 2002, but responded to 18 confirmed wildland fires from 2003
to 2005 (2003- eight wildland fires and eight smoke reports, 2004- three wildland fires and
ten smoke reports, 2005- seven wildland fires and five smoke reports). It is important to
note that none of these fires exceeded two acres in size. Major fires occurred near the
district in 2000 (the Walker Ranch Fire) and again in 2003 (the Overland Fire).
4. No major fires (fires greater than 100 acres) have burned in the district since 1989 (the
Black Tiger Fire). However, it is important to note that there are over 20 fire departments in
Boulder County, and many mutual aid agreements are in place. The Boulder area has a large
number of well-trained resources. Ignitions in this area attract a rapid, professional response
and are generally extinguished quickly.
5. The USDA Forest Service fire regime and condition class evaluation of forest stands in the
study area shows that historic fire regimes have been moderately to substantially altered.
Please see the Fire Regime and Condition Class section of this report for details.
6. The surrounding federal lands report an active, but far from extreme, fire history. Fire
occurrences for the Boulder and Clear Creek Ranger Districts of the Arapahoe-Roosevelt
National Forest (see Figure ) were calculated from the USDA Forest Service Personal
Computer Historical Archive for the ten-year period from 1994-2004. These areas represent
federal lands adjacent to the study area, but do not include any data from state, county or
private lands. The data have been processed and graphed using the Fire Family Plus
software program and are summarized below.
12
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 5a shows the number of fires (red bars) and the total acres burned (blue hatched bars) in the
two ranger districts each year. While the number of annual fires ranges from approximately 9 to
over 30 fires per year, there is little year-to-year pattern to the variation. Acres burned are by far the
greatest in 2003 primarily, due to the Overland fire in the Boulder Ranger District. Of the 4,571
acres reported burned in these two ranger districts between 1994 and 2004, 3,869 were burned by
the Overland fire. Between 1994 and 2004 the only other fire to burn more than 100 acres in the
two ranger districts was the Bear Tracks fire in 1998.
Figure 5b shows the percentage and number of fires between 1994 and 2004 occurring in each
month of the year. July had the greatest number of fires followed by June and August. The fewest
fires occurred between the months of November and April, which reflects the climate conditions
for the area.
Figure 5c shows the size class distribution of fires. Approximately 96% of the reported fires (184
of 191) were less than 10 acres in size. These statistics reflect the widely held opinion that
throughout the western US the vast majority of fires are controlled during initial attack.
Figure 5d shows the number of fires caused by each factor. As shown in this graph, the most
common cause of ignitions is lightning (41%); however, the next most common cause is campfires
(26%). If we remove the miscellaneous cause category, natural causes still represent the majority of
ignitions (54% natural and 46% human caused), but it should be noted that these numbers are for
national forest areas which lack the concentrated development and many other risk factors present
in the portions of the study area where private land is dominant.
Figure 5e shows the number of fire starts for each day that a fire start was recorded. Most fires
(153) occurred on days that only had one fire start. Approximately 8% (16) of fire days had two fire
starts recorded and days with three or more fire starts represent approximately 1% of all fire start
days. The statistics suggest that multiple start days are a rare occurrence compared to fire days with
a single ignition.
13
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 5. Local Fire Statistics
A
A B
C D E
Size F
Class A B C D E G
(in 1000 -
< ¼ ¼ - 9 10 – 99 100-299 300-999 5000 +
acres) 4999
5
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9
Debris
Causes Lightning Equipment Smoking Campfire Railroad Arson Children Misc.
Burning
14
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 6: ARNF Ranger Districts
Development is increasing in the study area. As the density of structures and the number of
residents in the interface increases, potential ignition sources will multiply. Unless efforts are made
to mitigate the potential for human ignition sources spreading to the surrounding forest, the
potential for a large wildfire occurrence will undoubtedly increase.
15
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS
The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a landscape evaluation of expected fire behavior as it
relates to the departure from historic norms. The data used for this study is from a national level
map. The minimum mapping unit for this data is 1 square kilometer. FRCC is not to be confused
with BEHAVE and FlamMap fire behavior models, detailed in the fire behavior section, which
provide the fire behavior potential analysis for expected flame length, rate of spread and crown fire
development.
The FRCC is an expression of the departure of the Figure 7. Condition Class Map
current condition from the historical fire regime. It
is used as a proxy for the probability of severe fire
effects (e.g., the loss of key ecosystem
components - soil, vegetation structure, species, or
alteration of key ecosystem processes - nutrient
cycles, hydrologic regimes). Consequently,
FRCC is an index of hazards to the status of many
components (e.g., water quality, fish status,
wildlife habitats, etc.). Figure 7 displays
graphically the return interval and condition class
of the study area.
Deriving fire-regime condition class entails
comparing current conditions to some estimate of
the historical range that existed prior to substantial
settlement by Euro-Americans. The departure of
the current condition from the historical baseline
serves as a proxy to likely ecosystem effects. In
applying the condition class concept, it is assumed
that historical fire regimes represent the
conditions under which the ecosystem
components within fire-adapted ecosystems evolved and have been maintained over time. Thus, if
it is projected that fire intervals and/or fire severity has changed from the historical conditions, then
it would be expected that fire size, intensity, and burn patterns would also be subsequently altered if
a fire occurred. Furthermore, it is assumed that if these basic fire characteristics have changed, then
it is likely that there would be subsequent effects to those ecosystem components that had adapted
to the historical fire regimes. As used here, the potential of ecosystem effects reflect the probability
that key ecosystem components may be lost should a fire occur within the FMFPD. Furthermore, a
key ecosystem component can represent virtually any attribute of an ecosystem (for example, soil
productivity, water quality, floral and faunal species, large-diameter trees, snags, etc.).
16
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The following categories of condition class are used to qualitatively rank the potential of effects to
key ecosystem components:
Table 3. Condition Class Descriptions8
Condition Condition Class Description
Class
Fire regimes are within their historical range and the risk of losing key ecosystem
components as a result of wildfire is low. Vegetation attributes (species
1 composition and structure) are intact and functioning within an historical range.
Fire effects would be similar to those expected under historic fire regimes.
Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of
losing key ecosystem components as a result of wildfire is moderate. Fire
frequencies have changed by one or more fire-return intervals (either increased or
2 decreased). Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their
historical range. Consequently, wildfires would likely be larger, more intense,
more severe, and have altered burn patterns than that expected under historic fire
regimes.
Fire regimes have changed substantially from their historical range. The risk of
losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have changed by two
or more fire-return intervals. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered
3 from their historical range. Consequently, wildfires would likely be larger, more
intense, and have altered burn patterns from those expected under historic fire
regimes.
The study area is dominantly classified under Condition Class 2 and 3. By definition, historic fire
regimes have been moderately to substantially changed. Consequently, Wildfires are likely to be
larger, more severe and have altered burn patterns from those expected under historic fire
regimes.
8 Fire Regime Condition Class, website, http://www.frcc.gov/, July 2005.
17
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
FIRE BEHAVIOR POTENTIAL
From the Wildfire Hazard-Risk analysis carried out as a part of this study (see Appendix A and B),
the fire behavior potential of the study area was modeled. This model can be combined with
structure density and values at risk information to generate current and future "areas of concern”.
Figure 5 shows the fire behavior potential map for the analysis area given the average weather
conditions existing between May 1 and October 31. Weather observations from the Boulder
Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) were averaged for a ten-year period (1992-2002) to
calculate these conditions. Figure 6 shows the fire behavior potential map for the analysis area
given ninetieth percentile weather data. That is to say the weather conditions existing on the
eighteen most severe fire weather days in each season for the ten-year period were averaged
together to provide the weather data for this calculation. It is a reasonable assumption that similar
conditions may exist for at least eighteen days of the fire season during an average year. In fact,
during extreme years such as 2000 and 2002, such conditions may exist for significantly longer
periods.
Weather conditions are extremely variable and not all combinations are accounted for. These
outputs are best used for pre-planning and not as a stand-alone product for tactical planning. This
model can be combined with the WHR and values-at-risk information to generate current and
future "areas of concern”, which are useful in the prioritizing of mitigation actions. This is
sometimes referred to as a "values layer". It is recommended, that when this information is used for
tactical planning, fire behavior calculations be done with actual weather observations during the
fire event. For greatest accuracy, the most current Energy Release Component (ERC) values
should be calculated and distributed during the fire season to be used as a guideline for fire
behavior potential. For a more complete discussion of the fire behavior potential methodology,
please see Appendix A.
18
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 8: Fire Behavior Potential (Average Weather Conditions)
Figure 9: Fire Behavior Potential (Extreme Weather Conditions)
19
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
SOLUTIONS AND MITIGATION
Establishing and Prioritizing Fire Management Units (FMUs)
An efficient method of prioritizing work efforts is to create FMUs. These units reflect a particular
function, like developing an effective public outreach program, or a geographic treatment area, like
an area with related fuel reduction projects, FMUs are created prior to initiating management
projects and mitigation activities. Unique activities and objectives are recommended for each unit.
Local land and fire management agencies, with the input of the citizen’s advisory council or fire
safe council, must determine priority actions.
The following FMUs have been identified for the FMFPD; recommendations are provided for each.
FMUs are NOT ranked by priority, however priority recommendations have been provided for
specific tactical mitigation actions where appropriate within FMUs.
• Evacuation Routes, Safety Zones and Addressing FMU
• Public Education FMU
• Local Preparedness and Firefighting Capabilities FMU
• Home Mitigation FMU
• Fuels Modification Projects FMU
• Water Supply FMU
Addressing, Evacuation Routes and Shelter-in-Place FMU
Addressing
One difficulty with rapid response in this area is inconsistent street signage and addressing of
properties. In an area like Four Mile with its labyrinthine mountain roads and driveways, we
consider proper reflective signage to be critical to effective response. The time saved, especially at
night and in difficult conditions, is not to be underestimated. Knowing at a glance the difference
between a road and a driveway (and which houses are on the driveway) cuts down on errors and
time wasted interpreting maps. This is especially true for volunteer operators who do not have the
opportunity to train on access issues as often as career departments.
In the Logan Mill neighborhood symbols that are referenced to fire department maps have been
used to indicate major junctions. While this is a great backup system, it should not be considered a
replacement for proper street signage and addressing. The symbols require the operator to either
memorize their meanings or constantly refer back to the map. This system is not as intuitive as
street names and address numbers. It is also unlikely that citizens calling in directions to an ignition
will be familiar with the symbols. Recommendations for address markers can be found in
Appendix D.
In the Four Mile Emergency Response Guide there is a set of maps covering some of the more
challenging areas of the district. On these maps some turnarounds for trucks are indicated. Along
20
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
with the GIS package for this project a new set of maps is being generated. It is our
recommendation that these maps be used to locate areas where turnarounds are not possible or
other access safety issues are present. These hazards should be indicated on the map set used in all
apparatus and incorporated into future updates of the map set printing.
In some areas of the district, such as lower Four Mile Canyon and Wallstreet, there are many
untested bridges apparatus must cross to access structures. FMFD has a partial database of bridges
that have been deemed safe for access based on their use by propane trucks. Where bridges are
known to be safe for apparatus, and where they are known not to be, markings should be provided.
This should be done both on the bridge itself and in the map set. Considering the serious
consequences of a bridge failure, it would be advisable to investigate the possibility of obtaining a
grant to test, mark, and record all of the bridges in the district.
Evacuation Routes
Four Mile Canyon Drive and Gold Run Road are the major transportation corridors in the study
area. Highway 119, Sugarloaf Road and Sunshine Canyon Drive are major arteries that could also
be useful for access and evacuation. Five roads have been identified that would be good evacuation
routes connecting communities with these major roads. In dry conditions these routes are passable
by two-wheel drive vehicles with reasonable clearance. They may become impassable or require
four-wheel drive when wet or snowy. The routes are represented graphically by Figures 10-15.
1. Poorman Road: Poorman Road connects with Sunshine Canyon Drive about two miles
north of the district boundary.
2. Camino Bosque: Camino Bosque connects with Sunshine Canyon Drive by continuing on
private land past the gate.
3. North Switzerland Trail: This portion of the Switzerland Trail connects Sunset with Gold
Hill Road (an extension of Sunshine Canyon Drive) three miles west of the town of Gold
Hill.
4. South Switzerland Trail: This portion of the Switzerland Trail connects Sunset to
Highway 119.
5. Logan Mill: This escape route runs south out of Logan Mill and connects with Sugarloaf
Road via the Arkansas Mountain Road.
21
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 10: Evacuation Routes Overview
22
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 11
Figure 12
23
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 13
Figure 14
24
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 15
25
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
ACCESS ROUTE FUELS MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to developing these additional escape routes, a fuel modification project for primary
access corridors should be implemented. Four Mile Canyon Drive and Gold Run Road constitute
the primary transportation corridors through the district. In general, these roads have adequate
openings. However, many of the communities in the study area would benefit from fuels reduction
along their principal access routes.
Thinning along primary access roads into communities should include an area of at least 100' on
either side of the centerline of the access routes, where practical. This distance should be modified
to account for increased slope and other topographic features that increase fire intensity (see Table
4). This is especially important in communities with steep, narrow roads and few turnouts. In these
areas, safer access for firefighters would make an impact on the number of structures that could be
defended in a wildfire. Existing and natural barriers to fire should be incorporated into the project
dimensions.
Table 4: Recommended Treatment Distances For Mid-Slope Roads
% Slope Distance Above Road Distance Below Road
30 70 feet 145 feet
35 65 feet 153 feet
40 60 feet 160 feet
45 55 feet 168 feet
50 50 feet 175 feet
The communities that should be considered highest priority for fuels reduction along access
corridors include:
o Rim Road
o Logan Mill
o Melvina Hill
o Emerson Gulch
o Some of the multi-home driveways in Camino Bosque
In addition to the escape routes suggested on page 21, other possibilities should be defined and
similar fuels reduction projects employed. If other routes exist, consider preplanning the use of one
primary access for mutual aid agencies and one primary escape route for citizens.
The cooperation of adjacent, contiguous landowners should be secured. If this is not possible, more
intensive thinning may need to occur within the road easement. Landowner participation allows the
project to be more flexible in selecting trees for removal. It allows greater consideration for the
elements of visual screening and aesthetics. Enlarging the project dimensions allows more options
for tree selection while still protecting the access/egress corridor.
26
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
• Elements of the fuels modification space for access and egress routes should include:
o Tree crown separation of at least 10' with groups of trees and shrubs interspersed as
desired.
o Tree crown separation greater than 10' may be required to isolate adjacent groups or
clumps of trees.
o Limb all remaining trees to a height of 8' or 1/3 of the tree height (whichever is
greater).
o Clean up ground fuel within the project area.
o Post placards clearly marking "fire escape route". This will provide functional
assistance during an evacuation and communicate a constant reminder of wildfire to
the community. Be sure to mount signage on non-combustible poles.
OTHER ACCESS ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS
• In order to reduce conflicts between evacuating citizens and incoming responders, it is
desirable to have nearby evacuation centers for citizens and staging areas for fire resources.
Evacuation centers should include heated buildings with facilities large enough to handle
the population. Schools and churches are usually ideal for this purpose. Fire staging areas
should contain large safety zones, a good view in the direction of the fire, easy access and
turnarounds for large apparatus, a significant fuel break between the fire and the escape
route, topography conducive to radio communications, and access to water. Local
responders are encouraged to preplan the use of potential staging areas with property
owners.
• Identify and pre-plan alternate escape routes and staging areas.
• Perform response drills to determine the timing and effectiveness of fire resource staging
areas.
• Educate citizens on the proper escape routes, and evacuation centers to use in the event of
an evacuation.
• Utilize a reverse 911 system or call lists to warn residents when an evacuation may be
necessary. Notification should also be carried out by local television and radio stations. Any
existing disaster notification systems, such as tornado warnings, should be expanded to
include wildfire notifications.
• Emergency management personnel should be included in the development of preplans for
citizen evacuation.
Shelter-in-Place
The communities of Emerson Gulch, Rim Road, Melvina Hill, Logan Mill, Camino Bosque,
Arroyo Chico, and the portion of the Red Lion Area north of Highway 119 could be easily cut off
by ignitions in drainages below homes. In addition to improved access/egress, consideration should
be given to developing "shelter-in-place” areas that are designed as alternatives to evacuation
through hazardous areas.
27
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
There are several ways of protecting the public from an advancing wildfire. One of these methods
is evacuation and involves relocation of the threatened population to a safer area. Another is to
instruct people to remain inside their homes or public buildings until the danger passes. This
concept is new to wildfire in the United States, but not to hazardous materials incident response
where time, hazards, and sheer logistics often make evacuation impossible. This concept is the
dominant modality for public protection from wildfires in Australia where fast moving, non-
persistent fires in light fuels make evacuation impractical. The success of this tactic depends on a
detailed preplan that takes into account the construction type and materials of the building used,
topography, depth and type of the fuel profile, as well as current and expected weather and fire
behavior.
Shelter–in-place should only be considered when the structure is determined to be "stand alone” in
structural triage terms. In order to be stand alone, homes need to be of ignition resistant
construction and have defensible space. Depending on the fuel type and fuel bed depth, it may be
necessary to continue treatment beyond the minimum recommended defensible space boundaries in
order to make the home stand alone. For a list of defensible space recommendations please see the
"General Recommendations” section of Appendix B.
Ignition resistant construction is also necessary for shelter-in-place tactics. Wooden roofs and old
structures with untreated wooden sidings are particularly hazardous and should not be considered.
It is preferable to have metal or asphalt roofs and ignition resistant materials such as stucco or
concrete, especially close to the ground. Heavy timber constructions, such as log homes, are also
resistant to surface fires. When combined with a metal, or some other ignition resistant type roof,
heavy timber may be acceptable. Eaves should be enclosed. Any holes in the foundation, siding, or
eves should be covered to prevent embers from entering.
Threats to residents remaining in structures include heat, smoke, and ignition of the structure itself.
Several steps can be taken by residents to mitigate the effects of heat exposure. The following list
highlights some of the important concepts:
o If there is adequate time and water, consider plugging downspouts and filling any
gutters with water. The sand bags that mountain residents commonly have are good for
this purpose.
o If a sprinkler that will reach the roof is available, it should be set up so that it covers as
much of the roof as possible, paying particular attention to the direction from which the
fire is approaching.
o Fill all of the tubs and sinks, and any buckets that are easily handled, with water.
o Remove any lightweight or highly flammable window coverings. Heavy drapes or
blinds should be closed in case the windows break.
o Move furniture away from windows, and be sure to remove flammables, such as
gasoline and propane, to a safe distance away from the structure. Tanks containing
propane or other volatile compressed gas may rocket as high as ½ mile, so they are best
removed to an area cleared of fuels, such as a concrete driveway or pad.
o Wear clothes of fire resistant natural fibers such as wool or cotton. Be sure to cover as
much exposed skin as possible, and keep water with you for personal protection.
28
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
o When the fire arrives retreat to the room in the house farthest away from the flaming
front.
o Take drinking water with you and drink often to avoid dehydration.
o Even if it becomes uncomfortably hot and smoky do not run outside while the fire is
passing.
Fires consume oxygen and produce toxic gasses and smoke. Many studies have been performed in
the hazardous materials field on the infiltration of toxic gasses into structures. Average homes
under average weather conditions may experience indoor concentrations of smoke and
contaminants of 45 to 65 percent of the outdoor concentrations in 30 minutes. In two hours the
concentrations may reach 60 to 65 percent of the outdoor levels.1 These numbers are for homes
with all doors and windows closed and ventilation systems turned off. Buildings with open
windows, doors, or operating ventilation systems will experience contamination levels close to the
outdoor levels in minutes. Residents can further slow contamination by blocking gaps around doors
and windows with wet towels.
After the fire has passed, the main danger to residents is the home igniting from embers and sparks
that entered during the flame front passage. Systematically patrol inside and outside looking for
embers and spot fires. Be sure to include attics and other roof spaces. Houses may catch fire several
hours after the fire has passed if embers are not found and extinguished. For more information on
structural triage and preparation please see Appendix C.
1 FEMA, Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures, Washington D.C. 1990
29
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Public Education Efforts FMU
The area around Boulder is experiencing continuing development. Spiraling property values and a
limited number of building sites have resulted in recently constructed high value residences mixed
in with older seasonal cabins, rental properties and historic buildings in various states of decay.
There is likely to be a varied understanding among property owners of the intrinsic hazards
associated with building in these areas. An approach to wildfire education that emphasizes safety
and hazard mitigation on an individual property level should be undertaken, in addition to
community and emergency services efforts at risk reduction. Combining community values such as
quality of life, property values, ecosystem protection and wildlife habitat preservation with the
hazard reduction message will increase the receptiveness of the public.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Visit these web sites for a list of public education materials, and for general homeowner
education:
o http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/pubs.htm
o http://www.firewise.org
o http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CSFS/fire/interface.html
• Provide citizens with the findings of this study including:
o Levels of risk and hazard
o Values of fuels reduction programs
o Consequences and results of inaction for ignitions within the community
• Create a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) citizen advisory council to provide peer level
communications for the community. Too often, government agency advice can be construed as
self-serving. Consequently, there is poor internalization of information by the citizens. The
council should be used to:
o Bring the concerns of the residents to the prioritization of mitigation actions
o Select demonstration sites
o Assist with grant applications and awards
30
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Local Preparedness and Firefighting Capabilities
Four Mile Fire Department (hereafter referred to as FMFD) provides suppression services for the
study area. The district has four fire stations: Lodge, Logan, Salina, and Wall Street. Mutual aid is
available from the Gold Hill, Sunshine, Boulder Rural, Sugar Loaf, Cherryvale, and Boulder fire
districts. FMFD maintains two type-two CAFS engines, one type-two engine, three water tenders
(2,200, 1,500, and 1,000 gallons) and one type-six engine.
FMFD adheres to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) curriculum for training. Of
FMFD’s 33 members, 20 are firefighters with NWCG S-130/190 training (basic Wildland fire
fighting and weather). Approximately 8 firefighters are qualified at the Crew Boss/Engine Boss
level or higher.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Provide continuing education for all firefighters including:
o NWCG S-130/190 for all department members.
o Annual wildland fire refresher and "pack testing” (physical standards test).
o S-215 Fire Operations in the Urban Interface
o S-290 Intermediate Fire Behavior
o I-200 and I-300 – Basic and Intermediate ICS
• Equipment:
o Provide minimum wildland Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for all firefighters.
(See NFPA Standard 1977 for requirements).
o Provide gear bags for both wildland and bunker gear to be placed on engines
responding to fire calls. This will help ensure that firefighters have both bunker gear
and wildland PPE available when the fire situation changes.
o Provide and maintain a ten-person wildland fire cache in addition to the tools on the
apparatus. The contents of the cache should be sufficient to outfit two squads for
handline construction and direct fire attack. Recommended equipment would
include:
Four cutting tools such as pulaskis or super pulaskis
Six scraping tools such as shovels or combis
Four smothering tools such as flappers
Four backpack pumps with spare parts
Two complete sawyer’s kits including chainsaw, gas, oil, sigs, chaps,
sawyer’s hard hat, ear protection, flies, file guides, spare chains and a spare
parts kit
MREs and water cubies sufficient for 48 hours
• Communications:
o Surveys of FMFD officers revealed three areas where radio communications are
poor or nonexistent:
Near the tunnels in Boulder Canyon
31
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Four Mile Canyon Road between Poorman Road and the Lodge Station
(approximately 1000-1900 Four Mile Canyon Road)
Four Mile Canyon Road west of the Wallstreet Station
Due to the restrictions of terrain, it is unlikely that more powerful base stations or
portable radios would make any impact on this problem. Some areas might see slight
improvements in base station reception by increasing the height of the base station
antenna above average terrain. However, the best solution is to increase the number
of repeaters in the district. If landowners are a barrier to fixed repeater sites, another
solution is to construct one or more mobile repeaters in engines or command
vehicles. Mobile repeaters allow the vehicle to be positioned for optimum
communication for each incident. Repeaters are expensive, but considering the fact
that cell phone communications are non-existent in most of the study area, grants
and other sources of funding should be pursued in order to solve this critical
operational problem. If it is not possible to obtain a repeater frequency, which is
likely, satellite phones may be a reasonable solution for emergency-only
communications.
32
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Home Mitigation FMU
Community responsibility for self-protection from wildfire is essential. Educating homeowners is
the first step in promoting shared responsibility. Part of the educational process is defining the
hazard and risks both at the mid-level and parcel level.
The mid-level assessment has identified six of the sixteen communities in the study area to be at
extreme or very high risk. There is a likelihood of rapid fire growth and spread in these areas due to
steep topography, fast burning or flashy fuel components and other topographic features that
contribute to channeling winds and promotion of extreme fire behavior.
Table 5 illustrates the relative hazard rankings for communities in the study area.
o A rating of 5 or less indicates an area of extreme hazard.
o A rating of 6 to 10 indicates a very high hazard.
o A rating of 11 to 19 indicates high hazard.
o A rating of 20 or greater indicates moderate hazard.
The communities with extreme and very high hazard ratings should be considered an FMU where a
parcel level analysis should be implemented as soon as possible. Please see Appendix B for more
detailed information. Table 5
Hazard Ratings by Community Extreme
Very High
High
0
Moderate
5 1 2
3 4
10 5
g 6
n 7 8
15 9 10 11
Rati 20 14 12 13
15
25 16
30
Neighborhood
1. Rim Road Area 9. Lower Four Mile Canyon
2. Logan Mill 10. Melvina Hill
3. Wallstreet 11. Canon Park
4. Summerville 12. Salina
5. Emmerson Gulch 13. Canyonside
6. Arroyo Chico 14. Red Lion Area
7. Sunset 15. Crisman
8. Camino Bosque 16. Poorman
33
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The most important element for the improvement of life safety and property preservation is for
every home in the study area to have compliant, effective defensible space. This is especially
important for homes with wood roofs and homes located on steep slopes, in chimneys, saddles, or
near any other topographic feature that contributes to fire intensity.
Figure 16. Saddle & Ridge Top Development
9
An aggressive program of evaluating and implementing defensible space for homes will do
more to limit fire-related property damage than any other single recommendation in this
report.
There is no question that any type of dense/flammable vegetation should be removed from around a
home in order to reduce the risk of structural ignition during a wildfire. The question is how much
to remove. The basic rule is to eliminate all flammable materials (fire-prone vegetation, wood
stacks, wood decking, patio furniture, umbrellas, etc.) from within 30 feet of the home. Then for
structures near wildland open space, an additional 70 feet should be modified in such a way as to
remove all dead wood from shrubbery, thin and trim trees and shrubs into "umbrella" like forms
(lower limbs removed), and prevent the growth of weedy grasses. Steep slopes and/or the presence
of dangerous topographic features as described above may require the defensible space distances to
be increased.
9 FireWise Construction, Peter Slack, Boulder Colorado
34
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 17: Defensible Space Zones
10
The term "clearance” leads some people to believe all vegetation must be removed down to bare
soil. This is not the case. Removing all vegetation unnecessarily compromises large amounts of
forested terrain, increases erosion, and will encourage the growth of weeds in the now disturbed
soil. These weeds are considered "flashy fuels,” which actually increase fire risk because they
ignite so easily.
Defensible space must be ecologically sound, aesthetically pleasing and relatively easy to maintain.
Only then will the non-prescriptive use of fuels reduction around homes become commonplace.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Conduct a parcel level wildfire hazard analysis for the homes in the study area. Starting
with homes in communities rated as extreme, very high and high will ensure that the most
critical homes are evaluated first. Completing this process will facilitate the following
important fire management practices.
Establish a baseline hazard assessment for homes in these communities
Education of the community through the presentation of the parcel-level hazard-risk
analysis at neighborhood public meetings
Identification of defensible space needs and other effective mitigation techniques
Home inspection for likely areas of ember intrusion and collection
10 A Homeowner’s Guide to Fire Safe Landscaping(2005) www.FireSafeCouncil.org
35
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Identification and facilitation of "cross-boundary" and "cross-lot” projects
Home inspection for likely areas of ember intrusion and collection
Improve access roads and turnarounds on driveways to create safer access for firefighting
resources. (See Four Mile FPD Emergency Access and Water Supply Appendix D).
Eliminate the use of cedar shakes or other flammable materials for roofs and sidings.
Add reflective address signs at each driveway entrance to all homes (See Appendix D for
recommendations).
Encourage and or mandate the use of ignition resistant construction for all re-modeled and
new construction.
As stated above, the most effective wildfire mitigation technique for property conservation will be
the widespread utilization of defensible space in combination with ignition resistant construction.
Until appropriate construction can be retrofitted on existing homes, defensible space will at least
reduce radiant heat energy (see Figure 19) and therefore structure ignition from direct flame
contact or radiant heat. Firebrand generation (see Figure 18) will need to be mitigated by a very
refined inspection of each structure for any openings or areas of likely ember collection. These
areas should be identified and mitigated as part of every defensible space inspection.11
Figure 18. Firebrands
Figure 19. Convective & Radiant Energy
11 FireWise Construction, Peter Slack, Boulder, Colorado
36
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Fuels Modification Projects FMU
Introduction
One of the most effective forms of landscape scale fuels modification is the fuelbreak (sometimes
referred to as "shaded fuelbreak”). A fuelbreak is an easily accessible strip of land of varying
width, depending on fuel and terrain, in which fuel density is reduced, thus improving fire control
opportunities. Vegetation is thinned, removing diseased, fire-weakened, and most standing dead
trees. Thinning should select for the more fire resistant species. Ladder fuels, such as low limbs and
heavy regeneration, are removed from the remaining stand. Brush, dead and down materials,
logging slash, and other heavy ground fuels, are removed and disposed of to create an open park-
like appearance. The use of fuelbreaks under normal burning conditions can limit the uncontrolled
spread of fires and aid firefighters in slowing the spread rate. Under extreme burning conditions,
where spotting occurs for miles ahead of the main fire, and probability of ignition is high, even the
best fuelbreaks are not effective. That said, fuelbreaks have proven to be effective in limiting the
spread of crown fires in Colorado. Factors to be considered when determining the need for
fuelbreaks in mountain subdivisions include:
o The presence and density of hazardous fuels
o Slope
o Other hazardous topographic features
o Crowning potential
o Ignition sources
With the exception of Aspen, all of Colorado’s major timber types represent a significant risk of
wildfire. Increasing slope causes fires to move from the surface fuels to crowns more easily, due to
preheating. A slope of 30% causes the fire-spread rate to double compared with the same fuels and
conditions on flat ground. Chimneys, saddles, and deep ravines are all known to accelerate fire
spread and influence intensity. Communities with homes located on or above such features as well
as homes located on summits and ridge tops would be good candidates for fuel breaks. Crown fire
activity values for Four Mile were generated by the FlamMap model and classified into four
standard ranges. In areas where independent and dependent crown fire activity is likely to exist,
fuelbreaks should be considered. If there are known likely ignition sources (such as railroads and
recreation areas that allow campfires) present in areas where there is a threat of fire being
channeled into communities, fuelbreaks should be considered.
Fuelbreaks should always be connected to a good anchor point like a rock outcropping, river, lake,
or road. The classic location for fuelbreaks is along the tops of ridges, in order to stop fires from
backing down the other side or spotting into the next drainage. This is not always practical from a
WUI standpoint, because the structures firefighters are trying to protect are usually located at the
tops of ridges or mid-slope. Mid-slope positioning is considered the least desirable for fuelbreaks,
but it may be easiest to achieve as an extension of defensible space work or of existing roads and
escape routes. One tactic would be to create fuelbreaks on slopes below homes located mid-slope
and on ridge tops, so that the area of continuous fuels between the defensible space of homes and
the fuelbreak is less than ten acres. Another tactic that is commonly employed is to position
fuelbreaks along the bottom of slopes. Due to the topographic nature of Four Mile Canyon, this
already exists in the form of clearings around the major access roads. It would make sense to locate
fuelbreaks mid-slope below homes to break the continuity of fuels into the smaller units mentioned
37
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
above. Even though this position is considered the least desirable from a fire suppression point of
view, it would be the most effective approach in the study area.
Fuelbreaks are often easiest to locate along existing roadbeds (see the description of the fuels
modification project for primary access corridors on page 11 of this report). The minimum
recommended fuelbreak width is usually 200 feet. As spread rate and intensity increases with slope
angle, the size of the fuel break should also be increased, with an emphasis on the downhill side of
the roadbed or centerline employed. The formulas for slope angles of 30% and greater are as
follows: below road distance = 100’ + (1.5 x slope %), above road distance = 100’ – slope % (see
Table 3). Fuelbreaks that pass through hazardous topographic features should have these distances
increased by 50%. Since fuelbreaks can have an undesirable effect on the esthetics of the area,
crown separation should be emphasized over stand density levels. In other words, isolating
groupings rather than cutting for precise stem spacing will help to mitigate the visual impact of the
fuelbreak.
In Appendix B we noted that some communities have done mitigation work and not removed the
resulting debris. It is important to note that in Colorado’s dry climate slash decomposes very
slowly. One consequence of failing to remove slash is to add to the surface fuel loading, perhaps
making the area more hazardous than before treatment. It is imperative that all materials be
disposed of by piling and burning, chipping, physical removal from the area, or lopping and
scattering. Of all of these methods lopping and scattering is the cheapest. However, it is also the
least effective, since it adds to the surface fuel load.
It is also important to note that fuelbreaks must be maintained to be effective. Thinning usually
accelerates the process of regenerative growth. The effectiveness of the fuelbreak may be lost in as
little as three to four years if ladder fuels and regeneration are not controlled.
One of the most difficult issues in establishing and maintaining fuelbreaks is securing the
cooperation and participation of landowners. Ownership maps of the area indicate that
implementation of fuels reduction projects recommended here and in the Escape Routes, Safety
Zones, and Addressing FMU section would require the approval of several public land management
agencies as well as private landowners. These entities include the City of Boulder Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department, the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
and possibly others.
Existing and proposed cross-boundary projects
The Gold Hill Fire Department is in the final stages of completing a CWPP for their response area.
Many of the treatments that are recommended in the Gold Hill plan extend into FMFPD or connect
with treatments proposed in this document. Public land managers including CSFS, USFS, BLM and
the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) also have existing and
proposed treatments that extend into or have an impact on treatments recommended for FMFPD. A
summary map of these projects is shown in Figure 20. The summary map shows the following
treatment areas.
• Gold Hill priority and long-range treatments as described in the Gold Hill Fire
Department CWPP
• USFS prescribed burns planned as part of their Environmental Assessment (EA)
• USFS mechanical fuels reduction treatments planned as part of their EA
38
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
• CSFS completed grant treatments from 2004-2006 (not all inclusive)
• CSFS currently planned treatments (not all inclusive)
Some, but not all of these projects are also shown in the detail maps of FMFPD recommended
projects. Some of these other-agency projects have been omitted from the detail maps for the sake
of intelligibility. For a complete discussion of the projects recommended in the Gold Hill CWPP
please refer to the draft CWPP on the Gold Hill Fire Department website at
http://goldhillfire.org/cwpp/.
Figure 20: Other agency projects in and adjacent to the study area
39
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Proposed fuels reduction projects for FMFPD
The following recommendations are in addition to, not in place of, the fuels reductions mentioned
in the Escape Routes, Safety Zones and Addressing FMU. It is important to note that the boundaries
shown on the maps in this document are only approximate. Exact boundaries will be determined
when treatment agreements are negotiated with the involved land owners and/or land managers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Wild Turkey Trail/Evening Star Road Treatment (Approximately 38 Acres). Priority
level – High. (see Figure 23) This project focuses on limbing and thinning along Wild
Turkey Trail and Evening Star Road from the intersection of Wild Turkey Trail and Logan
Mill Road to the intersection of Evening Star Road and Logan Mill Road. Limbing and
thinning should be continued from the intersection of Evening Star and Logan Mill south
along Logan Mill to the dead end at 1310 Logan Mill and along Fred Road from the
intersection with Wild Turkey Trail to the dead end at the driveway for 822 Fred Road.
Thinning should be conducted to conform to the shaded fuelbreak guidelines described in
the Access Route Fuels Modification Recommendations section. If combined with
defensible spaces for all homes, this project will help protect a critical access route, as well
as breaking the continuity of fuels in the hazardous Logan Mill Community.
B. Alaska Road Treatment (Approximately 29 Acres). Priority level – High. (see Figure
23) This project focuses on limbing and thinning along Blue Ribbon Road and Alaska
Road. Limbing and thinning should be continued along the unpaved 4WD road that
connects the end of Alaska and Wendelyn Road with Logan Mill Road. Thinning should be
conducted to conform to the shaded fuelbreak guidelines described in the Access Route
Fuels Modification Recommendations section. If combined with defensible spaces for all
homes, this project will help protect a critical access route, as well as breaking the
continuity of fuels in Sunshine Gulch.
C. Southwest Chrisman Fuelbreak (Approximately 9 Acres). Priority level - High. (see
Figure 23) This project area is southwest of the Chrisman community and is anchored to
Four Mile Canyon Road. Thinning to reduce ladder fuels and to interrupt the crown
continuity of fuels is recommended for a distance of at least three times the flame lengths
predicted by the extreme weather scenario fire behavior model. This project is designed to
reduce fire intensity and improve defensible space for homes in the Chrisman community.
This fuelbreak also serves to slow the spread of ignitions from Sunshine Gulch into Camino
Bosque.
D. Puma Walk/Escape Route Road Treatment (Approximately 17 Acres). Priority level –
High. (see Figure 23) This project focuses on limbing and thinning along Puma Walk and
the southern escape route from the dead end of Puma Walk in the north to the intersection
of the escape route and Boulder Canyon (Hwy 119). Thinning should be conducted to
conform to the shaded fuelbreak guidelines described in the Access Route Fuels
Modification Recommendations section. If combined with defensible spaces for all
homes, this project will help protect an important escape route, as well as providing a
critical fuelbreak between the heavy fuels in the Arkansas Mountain area and the Logan
Mill community.
40
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
E. Alpine Gulch Fuelbreak (Approximately 15 Acres). Priority level – High. (see Figure
24) This project area is south of the Wallstreet community and is anchored to Four Mile
Canyon Drive on both ends. Thinning to reduce ladder fuels and interrupt the crown
continuity of fuels is recommended for a distance of at least three times the flame lengths
predicted by the extreme weather scenario fire behavior model. This project is designed to
reduce fire intensity and slow the spread of ignitions from Logan Mill and Alpine Gulch.
This project is rated as high priority because the additive effect of slope and prevailing
winds is likely to make defensible space alone inadequate to protect homes in Wallstreet.
F. Melvina Hill Road Treatment (Approximately 35 Acres). Priority level – High. (see
Figure 24) This project focuses on limbing and thinning along Melvina Hill Road. Limbing
and thinning should be continued along the unpaved 4WD road east of Melvina Hill Road
to provide a buffer to homes in Salina. Thinning should be conducted to conform to the
shaded fuelbreak guidelines described in the Access Route Fuels Modification
Recommendations section. If combined with defensible spaces for all homes, this project
will help protect a critical access route, as well as breaking the continuity of fuels between
Melvina Hill and Salina. This project is rated as high priority because it protects the only
access into (or out of) the Melvina Hill community.
G. Rim Road Treatment (Approximately 25 Acres). Priority level – High. (see Figure 24)
This project focuses on limbing and thinning along Rim Road from the intersection with
Dixon Road to the dead end at 508B Rim Road. Thinning should be conducted to conform
to the shaded fuelbreak guidelines described in the Access Route Fuels Modification
Recommendations section. If combined with defensible spaces for all homes this project
will help protect the only access route into (and out of) the most hazardous community in
the study area.
H. Nancy Mine Road (Approximately 45 Acres). Priority level – High. (see Figure 24)
This project connects the Rim Road treatment with the Alpine Gulch Treatment by limbing
and thinning along the Nancy Mine Road. The Nancy Mine Road is a rough four-wheel-
drive road that is not recommended for citizen evacuation, but could be used operationally
by firefighters and could complete an east-west fuelbreak between Rim Road and Alpine
Gulch. This project has also been identified in the Gold Hill CWPP.
I. Canyonside Drive Road Treatment (Approximately 24 Acres). Priority level – High.
(see Figure 21) This project focuses on limbing and thinning along Canyonside Drive and
using the access thinning to link existing defensible spaces. Thinning should be conducted
to conform to the shaded fuelbreak guidelines described in the Access Route Fuels
Modification Recommendations section. If combined with defensible spaces for all homes
this project will help protect the primary access route into (and out of) the Canyonside
community. This project ties in with the Anemone Hill project proposed by OSMP.
J. Salina Fuelbreak (Approximately 17 Acres). Priority level – Moderate. (see Figure 23)
This project area is southwest of Salina and is anchored to Four Mile Canyon Road on the
south and Gold Run Road to the north. Thinning to reduce ladder fuels and interrupt the
crown continuity of fuels is recommended for a distance of at least three times the flame
lengths predicted by the extreme weather scenario fire behavior model. This project is
designed to reduce fire intensity and slow the spread of ignitions from Melvina Hill. This
41
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
project is rated as moderate priority because it provides a secondary buffer between
Melvina Hill and Salina.
K. Northeast Chrisman Fuelbreak (Approximately 11 Acres). Priority level – Moderate.
(see Figure 23) Thinning to reduce ladder fuels and interrupt the crown continuity of fuels
is recommended for a distance of at least three times the flame lengths predicted by the
extreme weather scenario fire behavior model. The project area is northeast of the Chrisman
community and is anchored to Four Mile Canyon Road. This project is designed to reduce
fire intensity and slow the spread of ignitions from Sunshine Gulch into Camino Bosque.
L. Switzerland Trail Road Treatment (Approximately 261 Acres). Priority level –
Moderate. (see Figure 25) This project focuses on limbing and thinning along the
Switzerland Trail from Sunshine Canyon to Sugarloaf. Thinning should be conducted to
conform to the shaded fuelbreak guidelines described in the Access Route Fuels
Modification Recommendations section and is currently planned for 200 feet below and
100 feet above the road. This project will be a joint effort with the USFS and is useful both
for firefighter access and for escape from the western portion of the district.
M. Arroyo Chico Fuelbreak (Approximately 52 Acres). Priority level – Moderate. (see
Figure 22) Thinning should be conducted to conform to the shaded fuelbreak guidelines
described in the Access Route Fuels Modification Recommendations section from the
intersection of Arroyo Chico and Four Mile Canyon Drive and extending along the private
driveway leading to 500 Arroyo Chico. Thinning will also continue into the heavily loaded
drainages to the south of the road. This would help protect both Arroyo Chico and Camino
Bosque from fires moving up the steep, heavily loaded drainages from Short Cut Gulch.
N. Bald Mountain Fuelbreak (Approximately 23 Acres). Priority level – Moderate. (see
Figure 22) Thinning should be conducted to conform to the shaded fuelbreak guidelines
described in the Access Route Fuels Modification Recommendations section along a trail
starting from the hairpin turn due east of 1243 Arroyo Chico to a four-wheel drive road that
crosses Bald Mountain Open Space and connects with Sunshine Canyon Road. When
combined with the Arroyo Chico Fuelbreak (project L) this project completes and east-west
fuelbreak between Four Mile Canyon Drive and Sunshine Canyon Road.
O. Betasso Fuelbreak (Approximately 13 Acres). Priority level – Low. (see Figure 21)
Thinning to reduce ladder fuels and interrupt the crown continuity of fuels is recommended
for a distance of at least three times the flame lengths predicted by the extreme weather
scenario fire behavior model. The project area links defensible spaces along the private road
in the northern end of the Red Lion community and extends into the heavy fuels between
the Red Lion Community and the Betasso Water Treatment Plant. This project is rated as
moderate priority because all of the existing homes have defensible space and the water
treatment plant also has a significant existing clearing.
P. Poorman Fuelbreak and Safety Zones (Approximately 18 Acres). Priority level – Low.
(see Figure 21) Although the portion of Poorman that lies within the Four Mile Fire
Protection District received a moderate hazard rating for this study, the portion north of the
district has much greater fuel loadings and more hazardous terrain. A fuelbreak east of the
homes on Poorman Road would help reduce the intensity and slow the spread of slope
driven fires originating on the slopes below. This project is given a low priority rating
because the area in need of treatment is not within FMFPD and is currently under
42
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
consideration for fuels reduction by Boulder Rural Fire Department. However, a
cooperative effort should be considered between FMFD, Boulder Rural Fire Department,
and the landowners, to best utilize large grassy openings in this area for the creation of a
fuelbreak, and potential safety zones for firefighters.
There are many areas mentioned in Appendix B that have a large amount of standing dead and
diseased trees. In particular, the portions of the district west of Emerson Gulch and Arroyo Chico
have very high tree mortality. Cooperating with the landowners—especially the USFS— to reduce
this material is recommended.
43
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 21: East Side Fuels Modification Projects
44
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 22: Arroyo Chico Area Fuels Modification Projects
45
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 23: Logan Mill Area Fuels Modification Projects
46
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 24: Melvina Hill Area Fuels Modification Projects
47
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Figure 25: West Side Fuels Modification Projects
48
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Water Supply FMU
In the study area, like many of the mountainous areas of Colorado’s front range, water is a critical
fire suppression issue. The water supplies currently used by FMFD are shown in Figure 26.
Table 6 gives a brief description of these water sources.
Figure 26: Water Sources
Table 6
Water Source Name Address / Location Capacity Type Delivery
(Gallons)
1. Sunset Pond 10571 Four Mile Canyon Dr. 50,000 Pond Draft
2. Emerson Gulch First Switchback 5,000 Mine Shaft 2 1/2' Draft
3. Nancy Mine Cistern Brian Mygatt's house 8,000 Cistern 4" Draft
4. Summerville Cistern East of 1693 Gold Run Rd. 10,000 Cistern 4" Draft
5. Melvina Cistern Right side of junction, 1385 Melvina Hill 10,000 Cistern 4" Draft
6. Wallstreet Station (Ponds) Below 5931 Four Mile Canyon Dr. 20,000 Pond Draft
7. Wallstreet Station (Creek Weir) Behind Wallstreet Fire Station 6,000 Dry hydrant 4" Draft
8. Wallstreet Station (NCAR Tank) Just east of Wallstreet Fire Station 5,000 Seasonal cistern 2 1/2' Male / Gravity
9. Salina Station Just west of Salina Station 10,000 Cistern 4" Draft
10. Logan Mill Cistern Upper Wendelyn Road junction 12,000 Cistern 4" Draft
4451 Four Mile Canyon Dr. (just
11. Beebe's Pond upstream) 5,000 Small Stream Pond Portable Pump
12. Logan Station (Creek Weir) 9 Logan Mill Rd. 2,000 Small Stream Pond Draft
13. Camino Bosque Cistern 304 Camino Bosque (Lock Code=3000) 10,000 Cistern Draft
14. Arroyo Chico 301 Arroyo Chico Dr. 20,000 Cistern Draft
15. Poorman & Fourmile (Pond) 1685 Four Mile Canyon Dr. 30,000 Pond Draft
49
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
16. Poorman & Fourmile
(Pump Station) 1690 Four Mile Canyon Dr. 10,000 Deep Well 100 GPM Pump
17. Poorman Cistern 823 Poorman Rd. 8,000 Cistern 4" Gravity
18. Poorman Boulder Rural Cistern 474 Leonards Rd. (Lock Code = 3000) 40,000 Cistern 4"/6" Gravity
19. Lodge Station
(Creek Dry Hydrant) 91 Four Mile Canyon Dr. 5,000 Seasonal Pond 4" Draft
20. Lodge Station (Cistern) 91 Four Mile Canyon Dr. 5,000 Cistern 4" Draft
21. Canyonside Cistern Above 357 Canyonside Dr. 20,000 Cistern 4" Draft
22. 38411 Hwy 119 (Mailboxes) Lock Code = 3000 40 GPM City Water Line 1 1/2" Male
23. Red Lion Across lawn behind the road E side. Unlimited Stream Draft
24. Pullout on Hwy 119 Picnic Pullout (200 yds. W of Red Lion) Unlimited Stream Draft
25. Boulder Creek Draft Point 2 Unlimited Stream Draft
Nine of the twenty-five water sources listed could be dry or too low to be effective during at least
part of the fire season. These include ponds, dry hydrants, seasonal cisterns, and drafting from Four
Mile Creek. Four Mile Creek experiences large fluctuations in its flow. In the spring it may
overflow its banks by as much as a few feet, whereas by late July or early August it may be
completely dry, especially in the lower canyon. During drought years it may be unusable for
drafting during the entire fire season. Even in normal years dams are usually required. Figure 27
shows Four Mile Creek between Sunset and Emerson Gulch taken in mid-August of an average
moisture year. At this same time the creek was dry in most of the lower canyon (see Figure 28).
Figure 27
Figure 28
50
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The mid-level assessment revealed several communities in the study area that are a considerable
distance from reliable water sources for fire suppression. Improvement of the water supply in these
communities constitutes an important FMU. These communities include:
o Rim Road Area
o Emerson Gulch
o Red Lion Area (north of Hwy 119)
o Crisman
FMFD is equipped with a good supply of water tenders and portable tanks (See Fire Department
Involvement). However, firefighting efforts can be enhanced by improving water supplies in the
FMU and eventually throughout the study area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• A large (10,000-20,000 gal.) cistern is recommended for the Rim Road Area. This area is
not only extremely hazardous, but is also a long way from reliable water. This is the most
critical water supply need in the study area.
• The upper area of Summerville is in need of a water supply. The existing Summerville
cistern is a long way from this area. There are only four residences here currently, and they
are spread out. The best tactic may be to install individual cisterns of 1,500-2,000 gallons on
each property.
• The existing water supply for Emerson Gulch is a 45-foot deep mine shaft that may or may
not be useful, depending on conditions. There is a good water supply at Wallstreet, but this
area could easily be cut off. Our recommendation is for a large (10,000-20,000 gal.)
community cistern to be constructed in the upper area.
• The large ponds in Sunset are big enough and have good enough access to be considered a
reliable water source in all but the worst conditions. The addition of a dry hydrant to these
ponds is highly recommended.
• A large (10,000-20,000 gal.) cistern for the Lower Four Mile Canyon area is also
recommended. Although there are seasonal ponds in the area and a dry hydrant available at
the Lodge Station, Four Mile Creek is not a reliable water supply in this part of the canyon.
• The portion of the Red Lion Area north of Hwy 119 has a 1.5” low volume fill site at the
intersection of the highway. An additional midsized (2,000-5,000 gals.) cistern should be
constructed in the upper part of this area to supplement the water supply.
• There are different fittings employed throughout the district. A standard for new
construction and refitting of existing water supplies, where possible, is recommended.
Standardization would result in a smoother, faster, and more reliable connection. In most
areas the water district supplying service to the area specifies fitting sizes and types. Since
there is no water district servicing this area (with the exception of the lower canyon), a
standard should be adopted by the fire department. Our recommendation is to use the
construction standards proposed in the Summit County Dry Hydrant Manual. This manual
was developed specifically for rural fire protection in the mountains of Colorado. A copy of
the standards has been included with this report.
51
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
GLOSSARY
The following definitions apply to terms used in the Four Mile Fire Protection District Community
Wildfire Protection Plan.
1 hour Timelag fuels: Grasses, litter and duff; <1/4 inch in diameter.
10 hour Timelag fuels: Twigs and small stems; ¼ inch to 1 inch in diameter.
100 hour Timelag fuels: Branches; 1 to 3 inches in diameter.
1000 hour Timelag fuels: Large stems and branches; >3 inches in diameter.
Active Crown Fire: a crown fire in which the entire fuel complex – all fuel strata – become
involved, but the crowning phase remains dependent on heat released from the surface fuel strata
for continued spread (also called a Running Crown Fire or Continuous Crown Fire).
ArcGIS 9.x: Geographic Information System (GIS) software designed to handle mapping data in
a way that can be analyzed, queried, and displayed. ArcGIS is in its ninth major revision and is
published by the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI).
Crown Fire (Crowning): The movement of fire through the crowns of trees or shrubs, which may
or may not be independent of the surface fire.
Defensible Space: An area around a structure where fuels and vegetation are modified, cleared or
reduced to slow the spread of wildfire toward or from the structure. The design and distance of the
defensible space is based on fuels, topography, and the design/materials used in the construction of
the structure.
Energy Release Component: An index of how hot a fire could burn. ERC is directly related to the
24-hour, potential worst case, total available energy within the flaming front at the head of a fire.
Extended Defensible Space (also known as Zone 3): A defensible space area where treatment is
continued beyond the minimum boundary. This zone focuses on forest management with fuels
reduction being a secondary consideration.
Fine Fuels: Fuels that are less than ¼ inch in diameter such as grass, leaves, draped pine needles,
fern, tree moss, and some kinds of slash which, when dry, ignite readily and are consumed rapidly.
Fire Behavior Potential: The expected severity of a wildland fire expressed as the rate of spread,
the level of crown fire activity, and flame length. Derived from fire behavior modeling programs
using the following inputs: fuels, canopy cover, historical weather averages, elevation, slope, and
aspect.
52
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Fire Danger: Not used as a technical term in this document due to various and nebulous meanings
that have been historically applied.
Fire Hazard: Given an ignition, the likelihood and severity of Fire Outcomes (Fire Effects) that
result in damage to people, property, and/or the environment. Derived from the Community
Assessment and the Fire Behavior Potential.
Fire Mitigation: Any action designed to decrease the likelihood of an ignition, reduce Fire
Behavior Potential, or to protect property from the impact of undesirable Fire Outcomes.
Fire Outcomes (aka Fire Effects): A description of the expected effects of a wildfire on people,
property and/or the environment based on the Fire Behavior Potential and physical presence of
Values-at-Risk. Outcomes can be desirable as well as undesirable.
Fire Risk: The probability that an ignition will occur in an area with potential for damaging effects
to people, property, and/or the environment. Risk is based primarily on historical ignitions data.
Flagged Addressing: A term describing the placement of multiple addresses on a single sign,
servicing multiple structures located on a common access.
FlamMap: A software package created by the Joint Fire Sciences Program, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. The software uses mapped environmental data such as Elevation, Aspect, Slope,
and Fuel Model, along with fuel moisture and wind information, to generate predicted fire behavior
characteristics such as Flame Length, Crown Fire Activity, and Spread Rate.
Flame Length: The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base
of the flame (generally the ground surface)—an indicator of fire intensity.
FMU (Fire Management Unit): A method of prioritizing fire mitigation work efforts. Units can
be defined by function (e.g., public education efforts) or geography (e.g., fuel reduction projects in
a given area).
Fuelbreak: A natural or constructed discontinuity in a fuel profile used to isolate, stop, or reduce
the spread of fire. Fuelbreaks may also make retardant lines more effective and serve as control
lines for fire suppression actions. Fuel breaks in the WUI are designed to limit the spread and
intensity of crown fire activity.
ICP (Incident Command Post): The base camp and command center from which fire suppression
operations are directed.
ISO (Insurance Standards Office): A leading source of risk information to insurance companies.
ISO provides fire risk information in the form of ratings used by insurance companies to price fire
insurance products to property owners.
Jackpot Fuels: a large concentration of fuels in a given area such as a slash pile.
Passive Crown Fire: a crown fire in which individual or small groups of trees torch out (candle),
but solid flaming in the canopy fuels cannot be maintained except for short periods.
53
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Shelter-in-Place Areas: A method of protecting the public from an advancing wildfire involving
instructing people to remain inside their homes or public buildings until the danger passes. This
concept is new to wildfire in the United States, but not to hazardous materials incident response
where time, hazards, and sheer logistics often make evacuation impossible. This concept is the
dominant modality for public protection from wildfires in Australia where fast moving, short
duration fires in light fuels make evacuation impractical. The success of this tactic depends on a
detailed preplan that takes into account the construction type and materials of the building used,
topography, depth and type of the fuel profile, as well as current and expected weather and fire
behavior. For a more complete discussion of the application and limitations of Shelter-in-place
concepts see the Addressing, Evacuation, and Shelter-In-Place FMU section in the main report.
Slash: Debris left after logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting; includes logs, chips, bark,
branches, stumps, and broken understory trees or brush.
Spotting: Behavior of a fire producing sparks or embers that are carried by the wind and start new
fires beyond the zone of direct ignition by the main fire.
Structural Triage: the process of identifying, sorting, and committing resources to a specific
structure.
Surface Fire: a fire that burns on the surface litter, debris, and small vegetation on the ground.
Timelag: Time needed under specified conditions for a fuel particle to lose about 63 percent of the
difference between its initial moisture content and its equilibrium moisture content.
Values at Risk: People, property, ecological elements, and other human and intrinsic values within
the project area. Values at Risk are identified by inhabitants as important to the way of life of the
study area and are susceptible specifically to damage from undesirable fire outcomes.
WHR (Community Wildfire Hazard Rating. AKA Community Assessment): A fifty-point
scale analysis designed to identify factors that increase the potential for and/or severity of
undesirable fire outcomes in WUI communities.
WUI (Wildland Urban Interface): The line, area, or zone where structures and other human
development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Sometimes
referred to as Urban Wildland Interface, or UWI.
54
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
RECOMMENDED REFERENCES
Anderson, Hal E., Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior, National
Wildfire Coordinating Group, NFES 1574, April 1982.
At Home in the Woods – Lessons Learned in the Wildland/Urban Interface, FEMA, 2004.
Bachmann, Andreas and Britta Allgower, A Consistent Wildland Fire Risk Terminology is Needed!,
Fire Management Today (61,4), USDA Forest Services, Washington, DC, Fall 2001.
Dennis, Frank, C., Fuelbreak Guidelines for Forested Subdivisions, Colorado State Forest Service,
Colorado State University, 1983.
Developing a Cooperative Approach to Wildfire Protection, National Wildland-Urban Interface
Fire Protection Program.
Development Strategies in the Wildland/Urban Interface, International Association of Fire Chiefs
and Western Fire Chiefs Association, Billings, Montana, July 1991.
Firefighter Safety in the Wildland/Urban Interface – A Video Series (VHS Video - 60 Mins.),
National Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Program, 2003.
Fires that Changed the Fire Service – Wildlands (VHS Video – 84 Mins.), American Heat, March
2000.
FireSmart – Protecting Your Community from Wildfire, Partners in Protection, Edmonton, Alberta,
CANADA, May 1999.
Hirsch, K.G., M.M. Pinedo, and J.M. Greelee, An International Collection of Wildland-Urban
Interface Resource Materials, Information Report NOR-X-344, Canadian Forest Service –
Northwest Region – Northern Forestry Centre, 1996.
Home Improvement: A Firewise Approach (VHS Video – 15 Mins.), 2003.
55
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Introducing Firewise Communities Workshops (VHS Video– 6 Mins.), Firewise Communities,
Quincy, MA.
Mangan, Richard J., Improving Firefighter Safety in the Wildland-Urban Intermix, FE02P16 –
USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program, Missoula, Montana, February
2000.
National Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Protection Program Building a Fire wise Home (VHS
Video – 20 Mins.), Hearst-Argyle Television Productions, Needham, MA, November 1997.
P. Langowski, Fire and Fuels Analysis to Support Project Planning, November 2003.
Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan – a Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface
Communities, Sponsored by: Communities Committee, National Association of Counties,
National Association of State Foresters, Society of American Foresters, Western Governors’
Association, March 2004.
Queen, Phillip L., Fighting Fire in the Wildland/Urban Interface, Fire Publications, Inc.,
Bellflower, California, 1993.
Slaughter, Rodney (ed.), California’s I-ZONE – Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention & Mitigation,
Sacramento, California, January 1996.
Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, NFPA 299, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 1997.
Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, NFPA 1144(02) (Formerly NFPA 299)
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.
Urban-Wildland Interface Code™, International Fire Code Institute, Whittier, California, January
2000.
White, Christopher, Dry Hydrant Manual – A Guide for Developing Alternative Water Sources for
Rural Fire Protection, Developed for Summit County, Colorado.
56
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Wildfire! Preventing Home Ignitions! (VHS Video – 19 Mins.), Firewise Communities, Quincy,
MA.
Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Hazard Assessment Methodology, Developed by National
Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Protection Program.
Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Policy Action Report, Western Governor’s Association, February
1996.
57
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
WEBSITE RESOURCES
FireWise, http://firewise.org/, January 2005.
Fire Regime Condition Class, http://www.frcc.gov/, July 2005.
FRAMES -- Fire Research And Management Exchange System,
http://www.frames.gov/tools/, January 2005.
Interagency Wildland Fire Communications Group – Rocky Mountain Area,
http://www.rockymountainwildlandfire.info/grants.htm, January 2005.
NFPA 1710 summary, http://www.iaff.org/academy/content/online/modules/1710/summary.htm
National Database of State and Local Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Programs,
http://www.wildfireprograms.com, January 2005.
RAMS - (Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies), U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, National Interagency Fire Center, Wildland Fire Management Information,
http://www.nifc.blm.gov/nsdu/fire_planning/rams, January 2005.
Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, NFPA 1144,
http://www.normas.com/NFPA/PAGES/NFPA-1144(02).html, January 2005.
Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, NFPA 299,
http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/product.asp?sku=29997PDF, January 2005.
58
Four Mile Fire Protection District October 2006
Community Wildfire Protection Plan