Risk Mitigation Project Types from Pre-Wildfire Planning Study

Flood Risk Reduction

These projects focus on reducing flood risk near infrastructure. Most of these projects involve identified locations for increasing culvert capacity and, in rare cases, increasing channel capacity. These projects can be constructed quickly in a post‐fire scenario if proper planning is utilized. For example, following a fire, a quick hydrologic study using burn area can be completed and a culvert can be sized quickly. The construction of these projects is straight forward and can be completed by most contractors. Knowing which culverts or bridges to upsize before a fire is vital to protecting infrastructure.

Forest Management

Forest Management needs vary by primary ecological systems and fire mitigation activities will be determined based on the landscape type at project sites. The community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) for the various communities within the watershed can be consulted for more detailed information on forest management techniques. Forest management risk was based on a Colorado State Forest Service database of prior forest management activities.

Stream Channel Restoration

Aerial photos, as well as REMs, were used to determine where stream restoration would benefit the health and resiliency of the stream system and corresponding infrastructure. Restoration projects were identified by using aerials and REMs to identify unhealthy reaches of the stream, whether that was where the stream was degradational, aggradational, or disconnected from the floodplain. These stream restoration projects are most valuable when linked with high‐priority infrastructure, as healthy streams provide protection to the overall stream system and the infrastructure surrounding it. The project design phase determines the specific restoration projects that would best suit a stream system.

Stream Corridor Preservation

Preservation of the stream corridor is the most valuable, low‐cost solution for post‐fire debris flow control. Proper planning can lead to a massive return on investment. These areas were identified mainly using REMs, as they showed areas where there is healthy floodplain connectivity. Preserving these areas prevents future degradation and increases stream health. These projects are often adjacent to stream restoration projects that aim to help preserve the upstream or downstream reach. When considering both types of projects, it’s important to evaluate the health of the nearby reaches to determine whether a restoration project should be linked with a preservation area.

Water Quality/Debris Facility

Aerial photos, REMs, and location relative to infrastructure were used to determine ideal locations for both water quality and debris facilities. These locations were chosen to be the site of both larger water quality facilities that could act as debris flow facilities and for smaller debris flow facilities that could be constructed quickly in a post‐fire scenario. Smaller debris flow facilities should not just be located where projects have been identified but should also be constructed on tributaries to main stream systems. These projects are small and are relatively low cost compared to the benefit they provide. Further consideration using slope and tree cover should be accounted for when choosing the location of smaller debris flow facilities. The conceptual design toolbox provides tools that can help determine which type of debris facility to construct, which will be determined in project design steps.