An official website of
Authors: Audrey Miles Cherney, Ch’aska Huayhuaca, Esther Duke, and John Sanderson
The creation of the Colorado Forest Collaboratives Network (CFCN) was inspired by successes at past Forest Collaboratives Summits, and Summit now represents the flagship annual event for the CFCN. The purpose of the CFCN is to benefit and support place-based forest collaboratives in Colorado by connecting them to information, resources, and each other, and by telling their stories to make their value and needs understood. The purpose of the Summit, the key annual event of the CFCN, is to connect place-based forest collaboratives from across the state and facilitate learning about issues most relevant to collaboratives. Attendees at the Summit include staff from place-based collaboratives across Colorado, agency leaders and staff, funders, and industry. This year the Summit was in Golden, CO under clear sunny skies, September 17-18th, 2025.
To learn more about the CFCN, visit our webpage and/or join our mailing list.
In early 2025, when organizations were facing change and uncertainty about policy and funding, the CFCN Advisory Council met to discuss intentions for the 2025 CO Forest Collaborative Summit. The question was earnestly asked, “with so much uncertainty, should CFCN even host a Summit this year?” From thoughtful discussion, the answer became clear – yes, now, more than ever, we needed to have the Summit this year to provide an opportunity to gather and support one another and to keep things moving in positive and meaningful ways. From that, the theme was found: Designing for Uncertainty, Thriving in Community.
2025 has proven to be an uncertain and challenging year for many of us. We are grateful for the community and commitment found throughout the people and groups that make up the CFCN! This year’s Summit was a product of collaboration in its truest sense.
Several recent publications, meetings, and working groups informed the content of the Summit, including:
We received some incredible feedback regarding the value of the event! The content provided “real tools for my situation” and people “appreciated the funding focus.” One participant noted, “I’m always learning things to apply.”
When it comes down to it, the company makes the event. There were “great people here,” “great conversations, ideas, etc.,” and “it was nice to commiserate and feel seen/heard.”
One attendee summarized it well: “The 2025 Colorado Forest Collaboratives Summit was enlightening. It combined analysis of on-the-ground forestry projects with sharing solutions to pertinent problems currently plaguing collaboratives. It was also a great way to connect and network across boundaries.” ~Anonymous Attendee
Day one was filled with valuable discussions amid the field tour, a communications workshop, and a social celebration commemorating anniversaries of various collaborations and entities’ partnerships. Among some of the notable partnership anniversaries are 40 years of collaboration between Denver Water and the CO State Forest Service, 27 years of Trees, Water & People, 10 years of Fire Adapted CO, 10 years of Upper South Platte Partnership, and many more! Partnerships that demonstrate longevity are worth celebrating. They exemplify valuable trust, adaptability, resilience, and meaningful collaboration.
The 2025 Summit field tour was attended by 50 individuals representing 30 organizations. It consisted of a half-day tour with three stops in two different watersheds (Upper South Platte and Clear Creek). Field tour stops—and the organizations that guided the discussions at these stops—included:
At each stop, the field tour participants discussed the needs, opportunities, and challenges of forest health and wildfire mitigation treatment projects and the benefits to communities within, adjacent to, and downstream of project areas. The area consisted of public and private lands with treatments at different scales (i.e., a few acres up to hundreds of acres) in dry mixed conifer ponderosa pine forests, which originally evolved with frequent, low intensity fire.
After more than 100 years of fire suppression in these watersheds, the areas became overgrown with dense forest at great risk for devastating wildfire. Past fires in this area, such as the Buffalo Creek and Hayman Fires in the Upper South Platte watershed demonstrate how wildfires today put communities’ safety at risk, threaten to eliminate the forest entirely, and cause massive erosion into surface drinking water systems. Active forest management is a necessity to mitigate risks and improve community and forest ecosystems resiliency. It requires action where there are opportunities to treat the forests in the areas of greatest priority.
Forest managers actively thinned forest stands to help reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and increase forest health that benefits a variety of plant, animal, and beneficial insect species (such as pollinators). However, treatment costs are rising rapidly, faster than funding can keep up. Lack of adequate woody biomass industry along the Front Range is exacerbating the challenges.
Additional challenges include steep, rocky terrain, dense Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) with fractured privately owned landscape of small parcels, varied jurisdictional priorities, inconsistent funding sources, and reimbursement-only funding.
Communication is key for success – among collaborative partners and with residents impacted by the treatments. This stand-alone field trip event also provided examples for the power of storytelling that earned public trust and stakeholder buy-in needed to treat these areas. It helped to set the stage for the afternoon storytelling/communications workshop for those attending both events.
Effective communication is the first ingredient in effective leadership. Storytelling is a proven way to reduce polarization and bias, foster trust, and create space for conversations. Different from facts and figures, stories are memorable. They can shift perspectives and uncover common ground, creating opportunities for reconsidering perspectives.
Through quantitative research, this workshop demonstrated how to connect mitigation projects to the benefits that Colorado residents value most. The 2025 CFC Summit storytelling workshop was attended by 50 people representing more than 35 agencies from across CO. It was co-facilitated by Audrey Miles-Cherney and Izzy Sofio with an additional presentation by Jon Rosborough from Statler Nagle, Robert Scott from YIMBY Strategic, and Reid Armstrong, a communications specialist with the Arapaho Roosevelt NF/Pawnee Grasslands.
The workshop started with an icebreaker in which participants discussed in small groups communication opportunities and challenges they face in the work they do. From this, themes and topics were identified and used in the breakout session later in the workshop.
Following the report outs from the initial icebreaker discussion groups, presenters from the USFS Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest/Pawnee Grasslands, Statler Nagle LLC, and YIMBY presented a summary from the 2024 Forest Trends Values Study commissioned by the USFS. This study included nearly 3,000 online interviews in late July 2024 with people in USFS Regions 1-6.
Positive messages are more effective than fear-based messages.
Additional messaging guidelines:
There are many ways in which to tell stories and communicate information. Through a structured approach known as the 7-point story structure, we can tell stories with hooks, tension, plot twists, and resolution, transforming communication materials from information sharing into an opportunity for engagement and connection.
The 7-point story structure is a simple, effective framework that creates more compelling stories. It is a storytelling model developed by famed fiction-author Dan Wells (2013). Graduate students Izzy Sofio & Olivia Hemond, from the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at UC Santa Barbara, adapted Wells’s model as a communication tool for storytelling in ecological forest restoration as a part of their communications capstone project (spring 2025). Their project focused on dry ponderosa pine forest in CO, and their ecological relationship with high frequency, low intensity fires. It was developed in partnership with The Nature Conservancy in Colorado and the Upper South Platte Partnership. For the CFC Summit Workshop, Izzy Sofio presented the 7-point story structure with an example developed to communicate the need for prescribed fire for ecological restoration in Colorado’s ponderosa pine forests.
1. Hook – Introduce a character or idea in a situation that feels incomplete or makes you want to know more.
Prompts: True, attention-grabbing, &/or something that poses a challenge, question, or opportunity.
2. Plot Point 1 – Something changes; the character sets a goal.
Prompts: Introduce something that stirs up the status quo.
3. Pinch Point 1 – Pressure builds; an obstacle(s) &/or challenge(s) emerges.
Prompts: Introduce tension/conflict, or the antagonist (doesn’t need to be a person!). Keep the audience engaged.
4. Midpoint – Where the story switches from reactive to proactive.
Prompts: This is an opportunity to showcase a solution, a program, a shift in perspective, a new grant opportunity, etc. Now, highlight this throughout.
5. Pinch Point 2 – Conflict intensifies; the character, solution, program, etc., is tested.
Prompts: The original challenge is still a challenge, or something happens: wildfire, flood, drought, disease outbreak, etc.
6. Plot Turn 2 – A final piece of the puzzle falls into place.
Prompts: Option to highlight success stories or the discovery of something new that helps. This is the last point in which there is something to overcome.
7. Resolution – The conflict is resolved; transformation occurs.
Prompts: Wrap it up and tie a bow on it. The solution, program, grant, intervention, etc. made __X__ impact.
Following the presentations, workshop participants were encouraged to find topic themes identified during the event ice breaker in which to apply the 7-point structure to develop a story to fit the communication needs. They could choose to work in groups or solo.
Communication Themes identified during the workshop icebreaker activity included:
Challenges
Opportunities
The second day of the Summit featured highly interactive indoor sessions focused major current challenges and prospective solutions. This was the first year that a hybrid option was provided. Between in-person and virtual attendees, there were about 130 participants. John Sanderson, Director of the Center for Collaborative Conservation, provided the Summit welcome and helped set intentions for the day’s events. CSU land acknowledgement. Following the video, James Calabaza from Trees, Water & People and the Santo Domingo Pueblo asked: what are you going to do to move beyond land acknowledgments?
The morning session provided a space for Summit participants to discuss and synthesize their experiences and identify actionable strategies for navigating today’s uncertain landscape. This segment of the Summit connected key national trends (such as federal restructuring and funding instability, highlighted at the recent Future of the Forests Summit and 9th American Forest Congress) to on-the-ground challenges in Colorado. Participants engaged in deep-dive table discussions on seven critical themes, distilling their conversations into what is currently working, the remaining barriers, and ideas to advance statewide progress.
Co-designed and facilitated by Ch’aska Huayhuaca, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Jonathan Bruno, Coalitions & Collaboratives, Inc., and Laura Hickey, CDR Associates, the themes of the morning session were:
Summary of these sessions are below.
Tables explored the challenge of reaching beyond the “usual faces” and engaging new voices in forest and wildfire resilience work. Participants shared how place-based collaboratives that bring together agencies and diverse partners build trust by creating a “chain of collaboration” where community members interact with local champions rather than “the government.”
Successful strategies centered on meeting people where they are—through field tours, school programs, community-hosted events, and one-on-one conversations that invite dialogue rather than deliver decisions. Participants emphasized that trust is built face-to-face and over time: showing up consistently, following through on feedback, and recognizing the contributions of community members are the foundations of lasting relationships. Creative outreach approaches included “lunch and learn” events with realtors, radio messaging, youth field trips to burn scars, and neighborhood ambassador programs that empower trusted local voices. Collaboratives are exploring community ambassador or bilingual outreach positions to strengthen ties in high-risk or historically excluded neighborhoods.
Participants highlighted the importance of flexible funding, shared best practices, and meeting people’s capacity and interests; ensuring there are meaningful opportunities to engage, but not expecting everyone to show up to every meeting. Still, persistent barriers include limited capacity in general and outreach capacity specifically, disinformation, apathy, and the challenge of aligning local priorities (like backyard risk) with landscape-scale objectives (like USFS priority areas). Participants called for greater investments in facilitation and outreach capacity to bridge divides and identify opportunities where priorities overlap. They urged leaders to strengthen the Good Neighbor Authority, provide forward funding, and support conservation finance.
This theme centered on moving beyond symbolic inclusion toward authentic co-stewardship rooted in sovereignty, reciprocity, and shared decision making. Building trust requires time, humility, and commitment– not one-off consultations, but intentional, sustained relationships that create space for Indigenous leadership. Progress is visible where capacity is being built, such as through dedicated Tribal liaison positions (like DNR’s), but participants stressed that leadership across all levels must prioritize and invest more seriously in these relationships.
Practical and institutional barriers remain. Small nonprofits and collaboratives often lack the time and staffing to prioritize these efforts, while larger entities face layers of procedural and legal barriers that can make partnerships difficult. Participants called for a shift towards true co-creation of systems, rather than directly incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into existing Western frameworks. Participants emphasized investing in Indigenous leadership, and Indigenous-led burning and stewardship programs.
Bold ideas included supporting cultural burning without Red Card certification and changing or expanding “Agricultural” burning exemptions at the state level to include “Cultural” exemptions to facilitate Native burning. Participants urged partners to be hopeful, creative, proactive, and brave in creating opportunities for partnership, even when federally funded entities cannot lead the charge.
Discussions focused on integrating climate-smart planning and practices into forest and watershed management, and how to adapt metrics for success to reflect long-term resilience rather than short-term outputs. Participants emphasized that both managers and the public are increasingly ready for climate-informed decision-making, creating momentum that leadership must match with clear policy support and resources. Frameworks like Resist–Accept–Direct (RAD) are helping managers think beyond restoration toward adaptation, while programs such as the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Wildfire Ready Watersheds demonstrates what success looks like: it offers nimble, cross-sector planning that links pre-fire to post-fire recovery, integrates risk across watersheds, and provides a clear structure for funders and partners to rally around.
Participants shared how they are already applying climate-smart practices like cone collection, protecting climate refugia, and snowpack modeling. Key challenges included limited capacity, uneven coordination across jurisdictions, and enduring human attachment to forests “as they were.” Some participants encouraged shifting performance metrics from acres treated to acres planned, recognizing that intentional restraint in where not to treat can demonstrate planning for climate trade-offs to support resilience goals. Another group recommended experimenting with Potential Operational Delineation (POD) line treatments as climate adaptation pilots.
One group emphasized that prescribed fire—essential to ecological integrity and wildfire resilience—must be supported at the state level, urging that the Department of Fire Prevention and Control receive the resources and staffing needed to lead this work on private lands rather than relying on small, under-resourced partners for that role. Participants also pointed to Colorado’s 2055 Vision for Forest Health as a roadmap to align efforts across local, state, and federal levels, emphasizing that implementation at scale will require shared funding, capacity, and advocacy.
Participants discussed how forest health and local economies are deeply interconnected, emphasizing the need to make biomass utilization both feasible and profitable. Emerging markets for biochar, mass timber, wood straw, and small-diameter wood goods show promise for demonstrating that byproducts of forest management can become valuable materials that also advance wildfire mitigation and carbon goals. Other examples of what is currently working included loans for wood utilization, mass timber expansion, and large-scale contracting models that provide longer-term stability for loggers.
At the same time, high transportation costs, diesel prices, equipment and land costs, limited processing infrastructure continue to limit utilization. Participants also cited air-quality permitting challenges and lack of local outlets for biomass as ongoing challenges, particularly for small businesses that struggle to compete or bridge seasonal funding gaps. To address these challenges, participants suggested a variety of policy and funding ideas, including a Colorado-made forest products tax credit, low-interest loans, state-funded value-added producer grants, and sustained contracting approaches to help mills and contractors weather funding fluctuations. They also pointed to flame-cap kilns and small-scale biochar production as technologies that could reduce emissions and create new local business opportunities if supported by regulatory flexibility.
Overall, participants agreed that sustained investment in processing capacity, workforce training, and equitable access to funding, coupled with innovative state policy, will be key to transforming biomass from a disposal challenge into a cornerstone of Colorado’s forest and climate resilience strategy.
Amid funding uncertainty and the rapidly shifting federal and state landscape, groups described how recent turbulence and staff transitions have strained capacity, yet also revealed the strength of Colorado’s collaborative culture. Discussions underscored that collaborative resilience and adaptability depends on trust, shared accountability, and shared decision making—which often requires organizations to cede some control within their own decision spaces.
Successful collaboratives are those that show up consistently, empower local partners, and maintain momentum even amid uncertainty, as momentum is often what attracts continued investment and confidence: “momentum is rewarded and funded.” Participants emphasized that the biggest barriers are not always financial, but procedural and structural.
Administrative bottlenecks—ranging from slow approval processes and short-term funding cycles to limitations in contracting and coordination—can stall locally driven projects even when money is available. TABOR and other state-level constraints were cited as obstacles that restrict flexibility and access to funding. The emotional toll of uncertainty was also acknowledged: partners are managing increased workloads, shortened contracts, and the anxiety of “the rug being pulled out.”
Still, participants pointed to many bright spots. Collaborative networks have become more deliberate in supporting each other through change, with agencies and nonprofits alike recognizing the value of communication, transparency, and grace. Local empowerment—when communities and collaboratives take initiative and share accountability with agencies—was described as both a goal and a strategy for weathering change. Some tables called for exploring new funding mechanisms such as regional taxes, volunteer programs, and upfront investment in collaborative capacity to maintain momentum when budgets tighten. Others challenged the framing of “bold ideas” and cautioned against silver bullet solutions, stating that real progress comes from doubling down on what already works: building trust, sustaining partnerships, and focusing on collective action over quick fixes.
Participants agreed that local storytelling is a powerful tool for changing perceptions around fire and resilience. Collaboratives are leveraging trusted local voices such as landowners, educators, and fire professionals to bridge divides between science and lived experience.
However, participants noted a lack of statewide champions and media reach beyond the wildland–urban interface. Expanding storytelling to engage all Coloradans was seen as key to deepening public understanding of proactive forest management. Indeed, communication is the vital link for activating and demonstrating leadership at all levels. As discussed in the day 1 workshop, effective storytelling is what makes a memorable connection to the desired audience.
Participants emphasized that a well-supported, well-trained, and retained workforce is fundamental to sustaining progress in forest and wildfire management. Recognition and camaraderie were highlighted as key drivers of retention, alongside the importance of supportive work environments that value people as much as production. Experience—built through time in the field and relationships of trust—was described as irreplaceable and central to collaborative success.
Yet persistent barriers such as pay disparities, limited benefits, burnout, insufficient funding, and a lack of affordable housing continue to erode workforce stability. Participants called for flexible staffing models, improved benefits, and investments in well-being to enhance quality of life and long-term engagement. A recurring theme was the need for career continuity mechanisms that create clear pathways from training to employment to leadership roles, ensuring that the state’s growing investment in workforce development translates into sustained capacity on the ground.
One bold idea (offered with a touch of humor but rooted in real concern) was a temporary moratorium on job transfers, underscoring that continuity and stability in personnel are just as critical to forest resilience as continuity in funding.
The morning of day 2 closed with insights from three key leaders shaping Colorado’s forest and wildfire resilience landscape:
Each shared updates and reflections on collaboration, adaptation, and leadership amid a changing policy and funding environment.
Troy Heithecker emphasized the current relevance of “cooperative federalism,” deepening federal, state, and local partnerships to solve shared problems and implement policies. He noted that while the Forest Service and state agencies face similar resource limitations, combining strengths through mechanisms like Shared Stewardship and Good Neighbor Authority agreements is proving to be one of the most effective ways to sustain progress despite turbulence. Heithecker encouraged organizations to participate in current comment opportunities as the Forest Service undergoes significant reorganization, and to help shape policies that will affect how agencies work together for years to come. With all agencies facing cuts to funding and capacity, he urged participants to “figure out how do we work together…how do we allocate the resources that we have in the best way to make sure that we’re getting the right work done, in the right place, with the right resources?”
Alison Lerch shared a vision of collaboration that bridges across natural resource priorities. She highlighted the Colorado’s Outdoor Strategy as DNR’s “North Star” for cross-sector partnership, connecting recreation, wildlife, water, forest health, and climate resilience under a unified framework. Lerch encouraged partners to engage in Regional Partnership Initiatives (RPIs), now backed by a $50 million GOCO commitment over five years. She also underscored the DNR’s growing focus on Tribal engagement, led by new Assistant Director Stacy Coleman, and celebrated legislative progress such as free state park access for Ute Tribes, small but meaningful steps towards deeper co-stewardship. Echoing report-outs from table discussions, Lerch called for stronger links between wildfire mitigation and watershed protection, citing programs like Wildfire Ready Watersheds and COSWAP as models of how integrated planning and nimble funding can translate vision into action.
Matt McCombs closed the panel by reflecting on leadership, capacity, continuity, and momentum. “The most important thing we can invest in… is leadership and relationships,” he said, emphasizing that Colorado’s natural resource leaders are as aligned and collaborative as they’ve ever been. McCombs described how the influx of federal funding from 2022–23 has made its way through collaborative and traditional planning and has now transitioned into a period of full-scale implementation, with all CSFS field offices “cranking” to put projects on the ground. He reported early data show that as staffing and throughput increase, costs are beginning to decrease, suggesting efficiency gains and economies of scale. Looking ahead, McCombs spotlighted reforestation policy as a missing link in Colorado’s resilience strategy and pointed to initiatives like the Colorado Mass Timber Coalition as examples of innovation connecting forest management to local economies. He was encouraged by the increasing dialogue around “raising resources equal to the amount of management we know is necessary.” He ended with a challenge and a warning: the next wave of beetle outbreaks and drought-stressed forests will demand a united, well-funded response. “That stimulus is upon us,” he said. “How we respond—as a people, as a community—is the question.”
The Summit team partnered with Wildfire and Watershed Initiative for a Resilient Colorado (WWIRC) on this session. WWIRC is a statewide initiative that advances sustainable funding and strategies to accelerate wildfire risk reduction and watershed resilience. It brings together dozens of partners across sectors to coordinate efforts, catalyze funding, and support large-scale forest and watershed health projects. WWIRC is coordinated by the Keystone Policy Center and Conservation Investment Management, with support from Denver Water and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. The session localized the exploration of WWIRC funding strategies and provided a throughline between the WWIRC state-level effort and local forest collaboratives.
Table topics in this World Cafe style session mostly mirrored WWIRC priority strategies, with a few additions. Each table was hosted by a subject matter expert or two who provided an overview of the funding strategy and facilitated input from the attendees. Participants joined table discussions based on topics of interest for about 25 minutes per topic. There was time to rotate through three topics of choice.
The afternoon session, co-designed and facilitated by Esther Duke from Coalitions & Collaboratives, Inc., and Ben Guillon from Conservation Investment Management, focused on the topics list here. The topics are followed by the names of the individuals who led the discussions and their organizations.
For each of these topics, discussion prompts elicited insights and questions about current practice, scaling potential, and enabling conditions. These table topic conversations were predicated on WWIRC’s assumptions that about 10% of Colorado’s 24 million acres of forest need urgent attention to address critical issues of wildfire risk, watershed protection, and forest health, with an estimated cost of $4.2 billion (2020 Colorado Forest Action Plan).
The Colorado State Forester currently estimates that approximately $150 million to $200 million per year over the next 25-30 years is needed to address forest and watershed treatment needs for the top 10% of priority acres. This factors in increased treatment costs (e.g., cost per acre) compared to the 2020 estimate.
This $200M need is not comprehensive of all wildfire mitigation, resilience, response, and recovery needs in Colorado. Rather, it is focused on the forest and fuels treatment components of the Colorado Forest Action Plan. These are part of a broader suite of wildfire resilience needs as articulated in the goals, strategies, and approaches of:
The full costs and capacity required for this broader suite of needs have not been quantified.
Participants in this table topic breakout explored how a model like the RESTORE Colorado Program could be replicated or expanded to include more forest/wildfire work. RESTORE Colorado is administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and pools public and private funds to support at-scale habitat restoration and stewardship projects on public and private conservation lands in Colorado that have the greatest benefit for wildlife and local communities. A participant shared how in Utah, a similarly pooled fund for watershed restoration initiatives leverages federal and state grant funding.
Other ideas circulated and discussed included state-wide ballot initiatives, enterprise fees, a backpack tax, an outdoor recreation tax, OHV registrations, camping or campground fees (rec.gov collected funds), a state-wide tourist tax, and a ski pass tax. The general approach under consideration was to add a small fee on the use and enjoyment of the resource to build a funding mechanism to return funding to manage the resource. Sin taxes like Proposition DD, the 2019 Colorado ballot measure that legalized sports betting and dedicated tax revenue from it to fund the state’s Water Plan, were also discussed. Some participants suggested that having a strong connection between the problem and the funding could bring more support. One way to make the tie more direct in the case of a sin tax could be to tax cigarettes, since discarded cigarettes can ignite wildfires.
Participants discussed the graduated income tax [Bell Policy] as something that, if passed, could generate a lot of money and could create space in the state general fund for wildfire mitigation. Participants acknowledged that there is some institutional distrust regarding equity issues and how those funds will be applied, who gets them, and who benefits. These include statewide challenges related to district types and income levels within counties.
Enabling conditions, including addressing TABOR limits and figuring out how to better provide upfront (non-reimbursement-based) funding to accelerate project timelines, were additional topics of conversation.
Participants discussed opportunities and challenges related to how local jurisdictions, such as counties, municipalities, Water Districts, and Forest Improvement Districts (FIDs), can raise funds internally to be leveraged against other public and private sources. The facilitator suggested that attention should be given both to opportunities for measures set to expire soon or up for renewal, as well as new communities interested in pursuing local and regional mechanisms.
Both the facilitator and participants shared examples of jurisdictions that have experienced success with a variety of funding models, most of which have been realized through some type of ballot initiative/ taxable districts. Participants generally all agreed that county-level local public funding initiatives make sense in most cases, unless we can get better at using special districts like the FIDs (discussed in more detail in a separate table topic summary). Some participants brought up concerns about inherent inequities between counties, with some carrying significant wildfire risk, but with low (and/or low-income) populations with an insufficient tax base to cover costs. It was suggested that local-level Recreational Service Taxes could be a more equitable option for counties if the state government allows them.
“Water Funds” (where downstream water users pay) have not seen significant success in Colorado, but they have been successful in some other parts of the country. Flagstaff, Arizona, was one example shared by a participant. The idea that we should look to examples of what has worked well outside our geography and try to apply something similar in Colorado gained some traction with the group. Others suggested that Forests to Faucets, Peaks to People, and the Yampa River Water Fund are examples of Water Funds in Colorado operating respectively to invest in water security and quality for the Denver metro area and Northern Colorado communities. The Peaks to People Water Fund is investing $67M over 10 years.
Trust for Public Lands (TPL) is working with WWIRC on a toolkit to help communities explore local public funding opportunities for wildfire and watershed risk reduction. The toolkit includes 1) a Colorado Local Wildfire-Watershed Funding Opportunity Analysis; and 2) a Colorado Wildfire–Watershed Public Finance Guide/Handbook. These are voluntary tools to support interested communities and partners. Jason Swann shared the survey that he/TPL is circulating to help inform the development of these tools.
Some participants suggested that local public funding is more effective and receives more public approval when it is clearly demonstrated how it leverages state and federal public funding and private-public funding opportunities. Others brought up how it is important to look beyond taxes when considering how local investment can be realized. They suggested that leveraging workforce development opportunities in support of forest health and wildfire resilience is also valuable.
Forest Improvement Districts (FIDs) are one public funding mechanism that can enable local governments and partners to coordinate and finance activities like forest restoration, fuels reduction, and prescribed fire implementation that the summit organizers decided to break out for dedicated exploration. FIDs (CRS Title 32, Article 18) are a type of special (taxing) district established in 2007 to plan, fund, and implement forest health and wildfire mitigation projects—especially within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). However, to date, FIDs have not gained traction and are generally considered to be overly complicated. This table topic group brought together folks interested in learning more about this mechanism and making it more viable.
Participants in this breakout learned about the governance requirements to stand up an FID. They also learned that all the funding is from sales tax, which spreads out funding across residents and visitors. One concept underpinning the FID is the need to raise revenue in one county or municipality that can support work within the same watershed or fireshed, but potentially outside a given county or municipality. Some participants questioned the basic assumption that community members are willing to fund work in another area outside their immediate community. Others suggested that people could be convinced and see the benefit, but that this was best done by pushing for a FID right after a catastrophic fire.
Participants pointed to how successful Boulder County was in passing a sales tax ballot measure immediately after the Marshal Fire to fund two watershed groups and six full time foresters for five years (renewal is TBD). Everyone seemed to agree that engaging county commissioners as champions is key to success and that going bigger geographically is more cost effective to cover the cost of campaigning, etc.
Some participants suggested that a statewide FID might be a viable option. This brought up questions of if a statewide FID could even be something allowable with a change the current language or if it would be best to create a new article to enable that. The current language only includes counties and municipalities. Current language also indicates that FID votes need a majority to approve it in each municipality or county included in the FID and that all municipalities or counties included need to pass it to enact it. Otherwise, the formation fails. This risk has caused some to be hesitant in pursuing at FID, so participants suggested changing this to allow an entity whose voters do not pass the FID in their area to just be carved out of the FID with the rest of approved entities still able to move forward with formation.
Other topics of discussion included how to better work with Fire Departments/Districts on combined tax opportunities to support both equipment/staff and mitigation. The idea expressed was that we should work together instead of competing.
Attendees joined this table topic to discuss the ways in which private philanthropy (foundations) and the private sector (corporations) invest in forest health and wildfire mitigation and where and how there might be opportunities to increase, improve, and better leverage those investments. Topics discussed included pooled funds, grants, community and statewide foundations, and direct public-private partnerships.
One potential growth opportunity for private funding discussed was to provide bridge and match funding leveraged against public funds. Another was the opportunity for private sector partners to be champions for public funding for wildfire resilience. Large corporations often have a great deal of influence with both elected officials and community members (especially their employees).
Participants generally agreed that there is not enough private/corporate funding to pool to address the magnitude of the need. Thus, we should be talking more about pooled resources, shared staffing, match etc.
Participants in this breakout were tasked with exploring how wildfire mitigation costs can be offset through the development of new and expanded wood products markets and the infrastructure and policy needed to support them. They were prompted to discuss opportunities to increase the efficiency of forest product supply chains.
One example provided by facilitators to stimulate this discussion was the Colorado Mass Timber Coalition. The focus of the Coalition is to use biomass from Colorado forests to make dimensional lumber and to incentivize the use of structural timber produced in this way to address Colorado’s housing crisis. Timber Age Systems is Colorado’s only mass timber manufacturer. Adding just one new full scale mass timber manufacturing facility would use two times the supply of all dimensional 2x6s produced in the state. Challenges discussed include a chicken and egg type quandary – we want mass timber manufacturing investments in Colorado, but mills want a guaranteed supply of lumber before they will invest. Also, mass timber is cheaper from Europe than any domestic manufacturer. Moreover, Colorado doesn’t have the tree farms like other states, and we are trying to do this in name of forest health which can be at odds with consistency of supply standards. Mass timber relies on Douglas fir 2x6s, but there are examples of using non-standard dimensional lumber – a facility in Quebec uses 1x3s, for example. There are also examples of using different wood types such as yellow poplar.
A co-facilitator from Colorado Timber Industry Association, which represents industry loggers and mills suggested that part of what is needed in Colorado is to shift meaning of “logging”_ it’s not a dirty word, it represents forest health and solving our housing crisis and economy.
Participants discussed outlets for less desired wood, such as ponderosa. Some shared that they have a hard time finding contractors for specific projects often because the funding that they have access to is not enough to pay at a rate that is profitable from a small business perspective. Another challenge is that there is not enough consistent work to supply small business contractors to operate in a given service area.
This breakout ended up mostly identifying challenges and bottlenecks and ran out of time for solution sourcing.
Revolving loan funds are a practical way for groups working in forest restoration, watershed resilience, and wildfire mitigation to get work moving. Most grants that support the sector only reimburse after the work is done. A revolving fund changes that by giving organizations the upfront capital they need, then reusing that same capital again and again to jumpstart and support projects as loans are repaid. Essentially one injection of capital to the fund can support an endless number of projects when deployed appropriately. It’s a structure that lets the same dollars support multiple projects over time, which matters a lot for groups constantly waiting on reimbursement checks.
In the session, people discussed the roadblocks small nonprofits face with traditional loans: high interest rates, uncertainty around how they’d pay the loan back, and collateral requirements that sometimes put an Executive Director in the position of personally guaranteeing debt. Many groups are running with thin cash reserves, doing everything they can to keep payroll steady, retain crews, and keep projects moving. A few participants talked about Directors skipping their own paychecks just to keep their teams funded, or losing out on major grant opportunities because they simply couldn’t afford the upfront costs.
The revolving loan model is built to take on this issue. These loans come in at low interest rates that cover administration costs of the loans without profit and are tied directly to approved grant awards, which mitigates repayment risk even during times of systemic volatility. Organizations building these tools, including Coalitions & Collaboratives (COCO), have built guardrails into their funding model which accounts for the swings and keeps the capital steady when reimbursements lag. These bridge loans help cover costs such as contractor expenses and materials before reimbursements are paid. Because repayment comes from confirmed grant dollars, borrowers don’t carry the burdens that come with traditional commercial lending. One example discussed was COCO’s nearly finalized Forest & Water Renewal Revolving Loan Fund, launching with $1 million of capitalization in Colorado and designed to scale nationally. The “Renewal Fund” is a strategically designed, below-market interest rate bridge tool that gives nonprofits and collaboratives the upfront capital they need to keep projects moving and avoid the cash-flow squeeze that comes with reimbursement grants. Another example came from Blue Forest, which highlighted their Forest Resilience Bond facility that has supported work on roughly 30,000 acres since 2018.
A theme throughout the conversation was the value of having a clean process, predictable steps, and a lending approach that supports the organizations doing the work rather than capitalizing on the borrower for profit. Relationship-based support came up a lot, especially for smaller nonprofits that don’t have a full financial team behind them.
These revolving mechanisms offer dependable, low-cost capital that helps organizations bridge cash-flow delays and keep forest and watershed projects moving forward.
Conservations in this breakout out centered on what is needed to build new markets to increase the scope and scale of biomass utilization in Colorado. Barriers discussed included the fact that some counties have land use regulations preventing building out biomass market infrastructure and the delay between investment and return.
Participants all agreed that improving our ability to forecast what biomass is going to be available is a key enabling factor. It was suggested that we need to look 20 years down the line for sustainable investment.
A landscape scan of markets in Colorado summarized it as follows: there are only three large mills in Colorado. They produce dimensional lumber. Currently, there is a glut of Canadian lumber that came into Colorado pre-tariffs. This negatively impacts pricing for local mills. Two-thirds of Colorado’s marketable timber is on Federal lands, and we need more stability in our federal land management to increase. Participants also flagged that the current state sales tax exemption for using beetle-kill wood is set to expire in 2026.
One topic that gained traction was the potential to develop biomass “campuses,” so mill owners don’t have to find something to do with every piece of wood. This would allow for the collection of materials for specialist businesses to use. Some advocated that we need to develop facilities closer to harvest sites because the transportation costs change the economic viability of many projects. One challenge identified is that we need industry to get the work done, but we first need outside investment to build industry.
Other opportunities discussed included biofuel, wood innovations programs, loan guarantees for mills, and the Colorado State Forest Service loan program for producers to finance equipment. It was generally agreed that with the EPA renewable fuel standard subsidy going away, it doesn’t make sense to make/invest in biofuel.
Some participants suggested that the challenge comes down to figuring out how to get the low diameter stuff out of the woods (subsidized by larger diameter extraction), then we can find ways to support economically viable biomass products. This led to discussion of the potential for a co-op model—there are all these loggers/contractors working at a small scale to market their products. Participants suggested the development of a centralized operation (e.g., sort-yard) like what waste/ recycling brokers use. It was suggested that the Larimer County woody biomass strategy could provide a starting place.
In conclusion, no one funding source can address the multi-billion-dollar forest treatment need in Colorado. Private funding sources (water providers, industry, philanthropy) are insufficient to meet the funding need–public funding sources are essential, likely as the majority funding source. Together, enhanced state and local public funding, enhanced coordination and leveraging of public and private funding efforts, and more attention to developing sustainable forest restoration economies can address priority needs. Federal funding will also continue to play a critical role in addressing wildfire risk reduction and forest health.
To pull this all together, a reframing of the issue could prove helpful. Forest and wildfire issues are still mostly seen as local issues; we need more statewide participation and leadership, and we need engagement across more impacted sectors. This Summit, like most forest and fire events, is attended primarily by forest health and wildfire resilience practitioners. How do we get more elected officials and corporate partners—defense industry, insurers, builders, hospitals, etc.—involved? Perhaps we need to convene something like Water Congress but focused on wildfire—a statewide Wildfire Congress.
As noted above, planning and executing the 2025 Colorado Forest Collaboratives Summit was a highly collaborative affair. We want to say a huge THANK YOU! to:
