Study reveals wildfire risk and resource mismatch in Colorado
Published: December 16, 2025 4:24 PM
Contact for reporters:
Jayme DeLoss
jdeloss@colostate.edu
(970) 491-8904
There is a mismatch between wildfire risk and mitigation resources across Colorado, Colorado State University researchers found in a study revealing the areas of the state most vulnerable to wildfire.
The CSU research is the first to map local capacity to reduce wildfire vulnerability. Wildfire mitigation resources, from people who can do the work to funding to complete the work, are concentrated in the northern Front Range, the study found, while northwestern and southern Colorado are at high risk of wildfire but lack resources.
The insights are important as wildfires increase in frequency and severity across Colorado and the West; when policymakers, forest managers and local stakeholders understand risk and resource discrepancies, they can make informed decisions to better protect communities.
“As recent wildfires in Colorado and across the West have demonstrated, wildfire risk and impacts are not just challenges for single communities or landscapes,” said Karissa Courtney, a wildfire social scientist with the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute who conducted the research as a graduate student at CSU.
Courtney developed an index outlining risk versus capacity using publicly available data to highlight areas of the state in need of support.
“Our research demonstrates not only where and how communities experience vulnerability, but it points to ways that broader efforts from the state and society can address wildfire in a coordinated and collaborative way,” she said.
Some of the counties impacted by the Lee Fire – the fifth-largest wildfire in Colorado history – were among the most at risk of wildfire but had fewer resources to reduce risk, respond to and recover from wildfire. The study identified Rio Blanco, Moffat and Garfield counties in far northwestern Colorado at high risk for wildfire but low capacity for mitigation. Other under-resourced counties at high risk are Huerfano, Archuleta, Conejos, Las Animas and Baca counties in southern Colorado.
Courtney said that although communities along the Front Range receive a disproportionate level of funding, wildfire risk is high in those communities – meaning risk and resources are aligned. The larger population and concentration of wealth in the Front Range equates to higher local capacity through successful grants, more staff and more training. These advantages, in turn, increase the likelihood of future funding.
However, money isn’t the only way to build capacity, she added. Research found that relationships and collaborations can be key, particularly in rural communities.
“Folks are able to rely on partnerships and borrow equipment from each other, for example, to get around not having enough money,” Courtney said.
Factors the researchers used to determine capacity included funding from the state Forest Restoration and Wildfire Risk Mitigation Grant Program (FRWRM), fire protection districts, forestry-related organizations, fire-focused collaboratives, past fuel treatments, Community Wildfire Protection Plans, homeowners associations and Firewise USA certification. Well-prepared areas around the state have achieved high capacity through different combinations of factors, showing there is not a single, prescriptive way to build capacity.
Courtney also is working with the Colorado State Forest Service to monitor how FRWRM funding is helping to increase capacity to mitigate wildfire in communities across the state. The Colorado State Legislature allows up to 25% of FRWRM funding to go toward capacity grants to cover new equipment for slash removal or increased staffing, for example, while 75% goes to fuel reduction and forest health projects.
“The most important aspect of Karissa’s research is highlighting areas where capacity is lacking, to give grant applicants from lower-capacity areas data that may increase their likelihood of funding,” said Ethan Bucholz, manager of the CSFS Forest Monitoring Program, adding that the results suggest ways the grant requirements could be adapted to account for capacity.
“Currently, socioeconomic factors are considered to ease the economic burden for accessing these funds, but including Karissa’s data may enable folks who score these grants to consider applicants’ local capacity context, serving as a starting point to bridge the gap in capacity across the state,” Bucholz said.
Courtney said it’s important to understand local context. She set out to do that in a related study in which she interviewed wildfire and forestry practitioners in 11 communities to learn how each community applied its specific resources to reduce wildfire risk and the outcomes from those efforts.
The second study is expected to be published soon and will offer recommendations to policymakers for reducing vulnerability.