How to Invest a Dollar

United by Fire is a nine-part narrative podcast series that takes you inside the harrowing 2020 wildfire season in Colorado through the voices of those who witnessed it firsthand. Hear from firefighters and residents who found themselves in the path of the flames, as well as ecologists, land managers, community planners and entrepreneurs who are working to build a more wildfire-resilient future. 

The series is hosted by Kristan Uhlenbrock, Executive Director of the Institute for Science & Policy. For more information and resources from this episode, check out the episode summary page. Enjoy the transcript, and to listen to the audio version visit institute.dmns.org/united-by-fire.

 

Drag Some Slash  

KRISTAN UHLENBROCK: I’m walking along a trail in Genesee, Colorado, about 20 feet below a curvy two-lane road. If you’re familiar with the foothills along the Front Range, I’m about 4 miles west of the well-known Red Rocks Amphitheater. 

In the distance, I can hear the low hum of chainsaws. I cut across a steep hillside that slopes down to a small creek to meet up with a crew from the Mile High Youth Corps. About ten young people, decked out in heavy workwear, are standing in a circle. 

KRISTAN (OFF MIC): You guys are doing your prep for the day? 

AIDAN THATCHER: Yeah, we’re just in our safety circle. It’s something we do every morning to make sure the crew’s warmed up and ready for a long workday. 

KRISTAN: Aidan Thatcher is part of the crew. Their morning ritual seems to blend safety with camaraderie.  

AIDAN: So, for the stretch, guys, let’s just do the Michael Phelps...  

KRISTAN: As they go around the circle, each crew member leads a different warm-up activity. I join in too, all while trying to keep my recording mic in a good position.  

AIDAN: We like to have a mixture of dynamic stretching, like this. Right now, we’re just flapping our arms while bent forward, sort of like a swimmer’s stretch. We also do some isometric stuff as well, like planks. 

KRISTAN: Next up is Maria Racine.  

MARIA RACINE: We also discuss a different safety concern each morning. So, everyone goes around, does a stretch, and talks about a safety item they’re a little concerned about for the day. My stretch will be high kicks, and my safety concern for the day is definitely footing, since we’re on a very steep hill. There’s a lot of duff and pine needles, and it’s a little damp right now, which makes things more slippery. So, we’ll need to really watch our footing, communicate, and walk slowly. 

KRISTAN: The Mile High Youth Corps is out here clearing debris and thinning brush. They’re using chainsaws and pulley systems to remove what they cut, helping make the community around here safer from fire. 

AIDAN: A lot of the trees and forests are very dead from pine beetles, so about half of the trees are just skeletons. They clump together, creating a lot of ladder fuel beneath the canopies, which can lead to larger fires. We’re out here trying to make some course corrections.  

KRISTAN: This is United By Fire, a podcast exploring hard truths about our landscapes and ourselves. In this episode, we look at policy and funding levers, and what happens when we have to make tough choices about every dollar we spend. 

My name is Kristan Uhlenbrock. From the Institute for Science and Policy, this is episode seven in our series. 

 

Levers and Pulleys 

KRISTAN: The Colorado Youth Corps spans the entire state through 8 regional programs. The Mile High Youth Corps section covers the Denver Metro Area and extends across to the southeast corner of the state. Their goal is to engage young adults between 18 and 24, offering opportunities to earn money while developing skills and experience in energy, water, land conservation, construction, or healthcare. 

These young people bring a diverse range of backgrounds and passions. 

ANNE: I'm Anne, and I'm from Boulder, Colorado. I've lived here my whole life. I joined Mile High Youth Corps because I was really interested in doing fire mitigation and conservation work, and this is a great first step for that. 

BENNY: I'm Benny, I'm 21, and I'm from East Colfax, Denver. I started here because it was actually the only place that would hire me. My life was in a pretty rough place at the time, but when I got hired here, everything started getting better. I finally felt like I had some purpose. So, yeah, that's pretty cool. 

LIAM: I'm Liam, 18, and a college student at CSU. I'm a forestry major, and I just finished my freshman year. I'm home for the summer and joined Mile High because I love the idea of working outdoors. I like the idea of gaining technical skills, like doing chainsaw work. It’s a really positive environment with a great crew. 

KRISTAN: Sitting on the ground are piles of tools the crew has learned to use and will need for the job: heavy-duty chainsaws, a chipper, and ropes. 

Team member Eliot explains that they’re essentially here to clean up after a professional chainsaw crew from the Genesee Foundation did some work. They left behind what’s called "slash"—a combination of branches, bark, and other debris. 

ELIOT: All the slash you see over here, we've pulled up. The Genesee forestry crew came through with a large tractor that has a winch, and they pulled up the large logs. But for the smaller stuff, it’s not worth it for them to spend the time rigging a tractor to pull up a light pile of debris versus a massive log. That’s why we get to do it. 

KRISTAN: I watch as the crew works together to rig a system, discuss a strategy, and then use their bodyweight to haul slash up a steep hill.   

TEAM: Three, two, one, pull!  

 

What To Do With the Stuff?  

KRISTAN: It’s easy to talk about thinning forests and cutting trees to reduce fire risks. But once those trees are down, the question becomes: what do we do with all the leftover material? 

You could burn it, leave it, or chop it up and scatter it. However, there’s another option—one that might have greater climate benefits.   

MAGGIE DAVIS: There’s a growing recognition of the need to manage our landscapes better, and that biomass from our forested landscapes can help contribute to some of our decarbonization goals in the U.S. and beyond. 

I’m Maggie Davis from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I’ve been with Oak Ridge for about a decade or more, and throughout that time, I’ve been interested in and working on the sustainability of biomass systems.  

KRISTAN: Biomass, all of that leftover organic material, is rich in carbon. After trees and bushes are cut, the leftover biomass can either decompose, releasing some of that stored carbon back into the atmosphere, or be burned, which also releases carbon. 

However, there’s another option—putting this material to better use. Proponents of biomass energy emphasize that it's not about growing trees just to cut them down, but about using the material that’s often considered waste, whether from forestry, agriculture, or even leftover food. This renewable energy source can be burned in boilers, turned into pellets for heating and electricity, and even scaled up for industrial energy needs. 

The capture, storage, and use of biomass carbon is one tool that some are exploring to help decarbonize our society. 

MAGGIE: We can convert that biomass into sustainable aviation fuels or marine fuels. Additionally, biomass can be utilized near the source to produce biochar, which serves as a soil amendment and a way to sequester carbon in soils. Many scientists highlight the potential of long-term soil carbon sequestration as a contributor to achieving climate goals. 

KRISTAN: According to Maggie’s research, there’s a lot of biomass out there. 

MAGGIE: We’ve shown that there are 19 million dry tons of forest-based biomass residues available across the landscape in the continental United States. Many believe this is a conservative estimate, and that there are actually far more residues out there across the landscape than what’s reported in the study. 

KRISTAN: Maggie is referencing the 2023 Billion Ton Report, released by the Department of Energy earlier this year. The report identifies the availability of biomass, ways it could help decarbonize various sectors, and potential markets for it. 

While the potential for biomass is significant, there are still major challenges when it comes to removing and using it. First, the demand for the material is limited. Second, the supply can be seasonal or episodic. Third, the collection, transport, and processing costs could exceed the value of the material itself. 

MAGGIE: Biomass removal can be expensive, so markets that help remove woody biomass can play a crucial role in making these landscapes more resilient. Many industry representatives want to do more, but they’re limited by the current economic situation. 

KRISTAN: The Forest Service has grant programs to help cover the costs of removing and processing biomass. But there are hurdles. 

MAGGIE: I’ve recently spoken with industry representatives who have told me that utilizing woody biomass for energy faces many policy challenges, mainly due to the ambiguity around what qualifies for the different programs. 

KRISTAN: Getting a robust bioenergy market off the ground isn’t easy. Like any evolution in an energy system, it takes time. Maggie suggests we should view it as an alternative clean energy source for hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like shipping or heavy manufacturing. 

MAGGIE: I think a good way to think about using biomass is to consider local conditions. For Western forests, which are often dry and facing climate change, the case for participating in a woody-fueled bioeconomy can be strong. A couple of prompts I’ve seen for communities to consider are whether they want to be more climate-conscious, how they can contribute to climate goals, and whether they have woody-based resources that could play a role in that. 

KRISTAN: But to make this happen, there needs to be the right infrastructure, policy support, and sufficient market demand to drive it forward. Maggie points to initiatives like the Forest Service's wildfire crisis strategy as an example of the federal government testing the waters of a biomass market. 

MAGGIE: They’re looking to see how they can leverage some of the fire resiliency and silvicultural treatments that landscape managers want to implement, and whether those efforts can produce any biomass. 

KRISTAN: The wildfire crisis is a costly issue, which is why people are trying to look at all kinds of options. 

MAGGIE: The future is promising. We need resources to become available, the infrastructure in place to harvest those resources, and the right incentives to make it economical. 

 

Thinking Big 

KRISTAN: As we consider ways to tackle the wildfire crisis, new markets could be one piece of the solution. But it’s just as critical to think about how we allocate the resources we already have. Brian Kittler spends a lot of time navigating that complexity.  

BRIAN KITTLER: I’m Brian Kittler, and I lead the Resilient Forest Program at American Forests. We’re a national nonprofit organization focused on forest restoration and forest policy. In fact, we’re the oldest conservation organization in the country, dating back to 1875. We helped establish the U.S. Forest Service and were involved in getting the Civilian Conservation Corps off the ground. 

KRISTAN: Brian and his organization take a climate-informed approach to reforestation and forest management strategies. This includes playing a key role in passing two landmark federal funding bills.  

BRIAN: In the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we played a key role in advocating for policies related to forests and climate change. 

KRISTAN: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also established a federal Wildland Fire Management and Mitigation Commission. Brian was part of this Commission, which consisted of 50 diverse representatives from across sectors. Their goal was to build consensus and provide recommendations to Congress. 

BRIAN: It was a pressurized environment where we had to work together to think through the entire wildfire system and the policy fixes needed. As a group, we concluded that we can’t approach wildfire and our response to it as distinct issues—such as wildfire suppression, response and recovery, and landscape restoration. These must be viewed as interconnected. This is a massive problem, and it’s not something you can just put a band-aid on. We need a holistic, comprehensive policy framework to address the entire wildfire problem. 

KRISTAN: The Commission laid the groundwork for a strategy that can be used not only by the federal government but also by states and local communities. 

BRIAN: It’s an exercise in the democratic policy process—it’s hard to do things by consensus. But we came up with 148 recommendations, some of which are tactical and actionable now, while others are more visionary, outlining where we need to go in the future.  

KRISTAN: Having read the report, I found it comprehensive and candid. Here's a line from the report: “Also critical is the need to shift our approach toward proactive actions aimed at better preparing for wildfire impacts, reducing those impacts, and building resilience for the future. For too long, we have relied on a reactionary system that has led to growing costs and losses without effectively addressing overall wildfire hazard and risk.” 

BRIAN: I suspect we’ll be dealing with those recommendations and issues for the next 10, 20, maybe even 30 years. It was a roadmap—that’s really what we set out to create. And now, we have it.  

KRISTAN: In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2021 and 2022, respectively, there was about $24 billion allocated for wildfire-related issues. Brian acknowledges that this was a positive step, but he worries about what will happen once that money runs out. 

BRIAN: We know that we need to invest roughly at that level going forward. If we, as a country, choose not to, the consequences will be paying for it through disaster response funding, degraded watersheds, displaced communities that may not return, lost economic productivity—all these factors. For every dollar spent on mitigating wildfire risk, we save about six dollars. That’s the real economic framing we need to grapple with as a country. It’s a choice—we can choose to create a more resilient future for ourselves, or we can choose not to. The stakes are high. 

KRISTAN: Our government’s strategy has been to put out fires wherever we find them, but that’s come at a steep price. It’s like treating the symptoms while ignoring the underlying disease. Brian says this approach has often come at the expense of fire prevention and forest health. 

BRIAN: Over the last hundred years, we’ve built up a large sector focused on wildfire response and suppression. For instance, well over 50 percent of the Forest Service’s annual budget has historically gone to that in recent decades. I think it’s time for the country to adopt a more balanced approach. We need to invest more in pre-fire resilience treatments—whether that’s prescribed fire, thinning, or a combination of both—to make our forests more resilient. We also need to invest much more in creating fire-adapted communities and in recovering from these large, high-severity fires when they occur, both in our communities and in the natural environment. 

KRISTAN: Whether it’s reinvesting current dollars or adding new ones, many argue that our wildfire funding has not adapted to the times we live in. 

BRIAN: My hope is that we reach a point where, as a country, our policymakers and leaders truly recognize the need for complementary investments across the entire system. 

KRISTAN: Building resilient forests and communities requires a true understanding of the trade-offs we face today—balancing the risks with the benefits and finding a way to course-correct. 

BRIAN: The goal is to make the best possible decisions about when and where to apply suppression activities and when and where to let fires burn. That’s the critical question. There are times when the best possible outcome is to let a fire burn, and I know that can be controversial because of the potential risks. Suppressing all fires has really been a disaster for this country, so creating better ways to make those decisions is what we really need to focus on. 

 

The Trick with Suppression 

KRISTAN: Our government’s approach to wildfire has always leaned heavily on suppression, not just at the federal level but also at the local and state levels. No one wants to see a disaster strike. Yet, we know that letting some fires burn can be beneficial. It’s a difficult tension. 

One person who feels the pressure is Mike Morgan, the Director of Colorado's Division of Fire Prevention and Control. 

MIKE MORGAN: A lot of people say, "Well, you want fire on the landscape, but you keep putting them out." The answer is: right time, right place, right conditions, right resources. As for the structure of how it works, that’s where it gets complicated. What the statute says is that when a fire occurs, the fire chief is responsible for suppressing it until it exceeds their capabilities. 

KRISTAN: The Division of Fire Prevention and Control (DFPC) oversees a complex system of fire management across the state, including fire response and investigation, as well as training and certification for firefighters. While most wildfires occur on local or federal lands, DFPC steps in when a fire occurs on state land or when it exceeds local capacity. 

MIKE: There are 375 fire departments and 64 counties. The metro-area fire departments are fairly well-resourced, but when you look at about 325 of those 375 fire departments across the state, they’re struggling to get by. The concept of ordering a large air tanker, costing 40 or 50 thousand dollars, is simply something they can’t afford. 

KRISTAN: How we allocate resources is both a political question and a clear indicator of where we’re headed. Take emergency response funding, for example. Mike explains that when a fire response exceeds a million dollars, his division asks the Governor to declare a disaster and release additional funds. And these requests have been happening more often. 

MIKE: One thing I want to point out about the emergency fire fund is that it started in 1967. I think this paints a clear picture of where we’re at and the complexity of the challenges we face. Between 1967 and 1979, there was one qualifying fire. From 1980 to 1989, there were eight qualifying fires. From 1990 to 1999, there were 15. Between 2000 and 2010, there were 63 qualifying fires. From 2010 to 2019, there were 74. And then, of course, we have the 2020 fire season. If you look at the 20 largest fires in Colorado’s history, all five of those happened in 2018 or 2020. When you look at these numbers and statistics, what it screams to me is: stop doing things the way you’ve been doing them for the last 40 years. 

KRISTAN: As more people have moved to Colorado, particularly to the wildland-urban interface, the cost of living and the value of assets have increased. Add to that our history of suppression and a changing climate that’s fueling larger, more intense fires, and we have a recipe for more costly disasters. Mike says that’s why we need to rethink our strategy. 

MIKE: Now, when you look at fires like Cameron Peak or East Troublesome, which burned 100,000 acres overnight at over 8,000 feet in October in Colorado—just unheard of. That was the moment of realization: What are we doing to change the outcomes of these fires? 

KRISTAN: Over the past decade, Colorado has been scaling up its firefighting resources. The state has built a roadmap for mutual aid, set up a dispatch center for fire coordination, and boosted its fleet of equipment, including purchasing two Firehawk helicopters at about $26 million each. Mike says these dollars are worth it. 

MIKE: I'm sure you're familiar with economic studies that show suppression costs typically account for 7 to 12 percent of the overall costs. So, you’re looking at it and thinking, well, okay, 90 percent of the costs are in other areas—economic impacts like recovery, homes lost, mudslides, and all the aftermath. But when you catch unwanted fires early, attack them aggressively, and prevent them from becoming large conflagrations, those numbers change significantly. 

KRISTAN: He says suppression is still important because lives and homes are at risk. But there’s still a significant gap in support for prevention work, such as thinning trees, clearing brush, and conducting prescribed burns. 

MIKE: The wildfire programs in the state of Colorado were designed solely to put fires out. That’s what they were created for. The resources weren’t provided to support more prescribed fire work. We could do it here and there and try to help out with different things, but we’re very resource-challenged in our ability to do that kind of work. 

KRISTAN: He says that’s slowly starting to change, and that we shouldn’t view our situation as a dichotomy. 

MIKE: It’s not a question of whether we invest in mitigation or suppression. We have to invest in both. There’s a common belief that if we do enough fuels work, we won’t have fires, but that’s just not true. We’ll always need to respond. We’re still going to have to do that. 

KRISTAN: He points to one of the tools that sparks a lot of debate: prescribed burns. 

MIKE: The threat is wildfire, yet fire can be part of the solution to help us get out of the situation we're in. It’s kind of ironic. You have wanted fire and unwanted fire, right? Wanted fire is when it’s the right time, the right place, the right conditions, and we have all the right resources available in case something goes wrong. That’s the wanted fire. It takes a lot of preparedness, planning, and resources. But how do we get that to the right level to make a difference and do it safely? 

KRISTAN: As we discussed in the last episode, prescribed burns are useful but come with challenges—whether it’s public perception or liability. In 2012, a prescribed fire called the Lower North Fork Fire escaped during an unexpected high-wind event, killing three people and destroying dozens of homes. This led Colorado to implement stricter burn rules on non-federal lands for a time. 

While I won’t be unpacking the legalities around liability in this episode, it is an important part of the conversation.    

MIKE: We have to find a way to do this safely because even if we change a law or allow for more liability, something will still go wrong. And that private landowner won’t have the protections they need. So, what’s the balance?  

KRISTAN: Mike doesn’t pretend to have all the answers. Instead, he’s pushing for conversations about where we need to be. 

MIKE: I don’t want to focus on what the rules or laws are today. I want to talk about what they should be, and let’s build for an "A+" approach to utilizing more fire in the ways we need. We need to reduce the restrictions or barriers to doing that, but still ensure we do it safely. Then, let’s present that to the legislature and say, here’s how we think this should work. 

KRISTAN: In 2021, the Colorado legislature asked the Department of Natural Resources, the State Forest Service, and DFPC to take a closer look at how the state handles wildfire prevention and improve coordination across missions. They identified some overlaps and gaps in the system. It was a good opportunity to think critically about how to invest our money most strategically. 

So, I asked Mike: If he had one dollar of the state’s budget for wildfire, how would he spend it? 

MIKE: I’m sure the stereotypical answer would be that if you ask the suppression guy, he’d say, "Go buy some suppression gear." And if you ask the forest person, they’d say, "Go do some thinning." I think that’s part of the challenge. Let’s get in a room, like the federal fire commission does, and ask the same question. Let’s push people out of their comfort zones, make them a little red-faced, and that’s where the solid decisions are going to come from. 

KRISTAN: As we’ve heard from many, a comprehensive wildfire strategy requires a holistic approach. Everyone needs to be aware of the gravity of the situation. 

MIKE: I think there are still a lot of people who don’t understand the threat they’re facing. If you look at what we call the five E’s of community risk reduction—education, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, and economic incentives—and apply that five-point model to a particular community or area, you can identify what’s missing the most in terms of investment. That’s what we need to focus on to truly reduce and mitigate risk. 

As humans, our nature is to look for short-term solutions. We want a one-year, two-year, maybe five-year fix to solve this problem. But there isn’t one. It’s taken us decades to get here, and it’s going to take us decades to get out of it. 

 

Harnessing Data 

KRISTAN: With so many different strategies, agencies, budgets, and goals involved in land management, how do we find a path forward that serves the diverse range of interests and makes progress? 

Balancing all these priorities—environmental protection, community safety, economic costs—is an uphill battle. 

That’s why there are people working on tools to help decision-makers navigate this tough terrain.  

SCOTT CONWAY: My name’s Scott Conway, and I’m the Chief Resilience Officer for Vibrant Planet, which is just a fancy term for a crusty old forester. 

KRISTAN: Vibrant Planet is a public benefit corp startup made up of applied scientists, land managers, and computer experts. Their goal is to help build wildfire resilience at both the community and ecosystem levels. 

Scott attended Colorado State University, focusing on forestry and GIS. He later worked with the Forest Service, first in Colorado, then in California. In California, he worked on a forest management collaborative in the Sierra Nevada area, where the goal was to bring together people who had traditionally been at odds to find solutions to the growing wildfire issue. 

SCOTT: That project was successful in many ways, but it took a long time to get there. It took almost 12 years before they cut a single tree. The idea was that efficiencies would be gained and lessons learned, but we eventually hit a plateau. 

KRISTAN: Scott diagnosed it as an information issue. The data they were using wasn’t standardized – and sometimes wasn’t even accurate.  

SCOTT: I saw an opportunity to work with the private sector and see if we could become a partner with the Forest Service and other multi-jurisdictional entities to work through these planning processes. We needed to build a strategic framework that everyone could buy into in order to get ahead of this problem—one that is too big for any single landowner to handle. 

KRISTAN: But it wasn’t until 2014 that Scott started making moves. That year, the King Fire broke out in California and burned nearly 100,000 acres, tearing through pine and oak woodlands. 

SCOTT: I remember being in Truckee, California, and there are no oak trees anywhere near there. Yet, a burnt oak leaf landed on the hood of my car. That’s when I realized something has got to change. 

KRISTAN: He left the Forest Service in 2020 to be a co-founder of Vibrant Planet. They set about developing what he calls “a common operating picture” for land managers.  

SCOTT: So we built a data platform that can incorporate a lot of disparate information. But more importantly, we built it at a resolution that serves, in my view, the most important person consuming that data: the manager on the ground making decisions about which trees to cut and which trees not to cut. By serving them, we can then scale that information up so that everyone with a role in the environment is working with the same level of truth. 

KRISTAN: The platform, called Land Tender, is a cloud-based tool that makes it easier to create scenarios focused on wildfire and ecosystem resilience. To do all this, it pulls in publicly available data and enhances it with algorithms.  

SCOTT: We’re a very data-rich country. I mean, you throw a stick, and you’ll find data that shows where it landed. But we’re a very insight-poor country, especially at scale. When you’re a forester standing in a stand of trees, you don’t need a lot of information to make decisions because it’s all right in front of you. But when you're working at a 2 million, 5 million, or even a billion-acre scale, collating all that information so it isn’t overwhelming, and presenting it in a usable way that can be communicated, is a significant challenge. 

KRISTAN: When I spoke with Scott, he was eager to show me Land Tender in action. When he pulled up the program, it greeted us with a high-resolution, interactive map of Colorado Springs and all the surrounding forested areas. 

SCOTT: Yeah, the good news is I can create a community wildfire protection plan scenario around Colorado Springs in about three minutes. So let’s do that. First, we bring in all the socio-ecological values. I’m going to zoom in here around Western Colorado Springs and the Air Force Academy, where we map all the structures, utilities, hospitals, cell phone towers—basically all the information we have access to. Then we bring in the modeled fire hazard. 

KRISTAN: The program has many layers. A user can view current wildfire and drought risk, then layer in infrastructure and other assets like water, biodiversity, or recreation. They can also add different treatment options or scenarios based on budgets or time constraints. Scott says its speed is what sets it apart. 

SCOTT: We don’t have 1 to 3 years anymore. If you do a 3-year process and then print the report, it’s stale the moment it’s printed. So it’s not just about specificity, but also about maintaining current information. 

KRISTAN: The nice thing about the tool is that it helps break down silos. Users can create scenarios from different perspectives and then see the trade-offs that come with each decision. 

SCOTT: This is my favorite part: Even though two people may come to this with completely different approaches, we can actually see where their approaches overlap. The light orange and light green represent areas where we didn’t agree, but the dark green shows where we do agree. 

KRISTAN: Scott says the tool could help people move past self-interest. 

SCOTT: By its very nature, it brings people together. Whether they ultimately sing Kumbaya is probably dependent on the actual situation. We’re not pretending that it dissolves all conflict, but it at least grounds the conversation in objective analytics instead of pure emotion. What I’ve seen in collaborative environments is that it takes so long to build rapport and get past egos and emotions. You don’t get to those hard conversations until a year or two in. With this approach, we’re saying, let’s skip the mud-making and get straight to the hard issues. Let’s set up those tough conversations as quickly as possible. 

KRISTAN: Land Tender is being used by the Forest Service, other land management agencies, and nonprofits, primarily in the West. Vibrant Planet hopes to continue scaling it. So, I asked Scott what success might look like. 

SCOTT: I'm tired of our communities burning down. I'm tired of breathing unhealthy amounts of smoke. I'm tired of people dying and losing their insurance. I know this won’t stop overnight, but even if we can save one community and one life, I think we’ll be successful. We're not going to solve this problem in a day, but we have to start taking forward-thinking approaches because what we’re doing now isn’t working. We’re losing. And it doesn’t take a research scientist to see that. 

 

Training the Next Workforce 

ALISON LERCH: Every time we get to work with the Youth Corps, it reinvigorates the purpose and the "why" behind everything we do here. 

KRISTAN This is Alison Lerch. She and I are watching the crew from the Mile High Youth Corps work in small groups to help the community of Genessee be better prepared for fire. They’re hauling limbs up the side of a steep hill. 

Alison is the Forestry and Wildfire Mitigation Policy Advisor for Colorado’s Department of Natural Resources and runs a program called COSWAP, which provided grant money to support this project. 

ALISON: The Colorado Strategic Wildfire Action Program, or COSWAP as we like to call it, was born out of the really tough fire year we had in 2020 in Colorado. The legislature at the time decided to make significant investments in the state to reduce wildfire risk. There isn’t enough money to treat every acre that needs attention in Colorado, so what we really have to do is be strategic. 

KRISTAN: COSWAP funds two critical areas: landscape resilience and workforce development. Since it launched in 2021, COSWAP has awarded more than $20 million for landscape resiliency projects and over $10 million for workforce development training. 

ALISON: Part of the drive behind what we do here at DNR and with this program is to focus our investments on the areas that need it the most. The vision is to prepare our forests for the future impacts of climate change and how it’s affecting our natural resources both in the state and across the world. That’s really what we’re aiming to do here. 

KRISTAN: As wildfires intensify, Colorado is grappling with what it means to be prepared and what to do with its limited resources.  

ALISON: One thing we want to avoid now is doing random acts of mitigation or conservation. We want to be more holistic in our approach, as we know wildfires don’t recognize political, landowner, or watershed boundaries. We really need to reimagine how we view our state, where we allocate our money, and where we focus our energy.  

KRISTAN: One critical gap in being prepared is ensuring there’s a workforce in place. This is a challenge not just for Colorado, but for the entire U.S. 

The forestry workforce is aging, creating a gap that younger generations can’t fill fast enough. There’s a shortage of people with the right skills, whether that’s the ability to manage fire on the ground or knowledge of technologies like drones and GIS. There are also challenges related to the seasonal nature of some jobs, pay that can’t keep up with the cost of living in certain areas, and the physical demands of the work.  

ALISON: We still need to recruit people who want to do this work. It’s not the easiest work all the time. It’s obviously wonderful to be outside, breathing clean air, and being in nature, but it’s hard work. We want people to understand that their value is recognized too.  

KRISTAN: COSWAP partners with the Colorado Youth Corps Association, which gives young people hands-on experience, creating pathways into careers like firefighting and land management. 

ALISON: That training piece is really at the forefront. Before you get out there to use a chainsaw or a chipper, it’s about providing those essential tools so people can work safely, work smartly, and feel empowered. Whether or not you have a forestry or wildfire background, there are many other avenues to get into this field, and a Youth Corps experience is one of those pathways. What we’re really hoping is that many members of these youth corps decide to stick with it, find more than just seasonal employment within our state, and eventually become part of our full-time workforce. 

KRISTAN: Without a healthy workforce, projects get delayed, maintenance is deferred, and our forests become more vulnerable to devastating fires. We need programs that invest in both landscapes and people. That’s what the COSWAP program is doing. For many of these young people, it might be their first experience working in nature or their first time working as part of a team. 

Take it from Matt, the crew coordinator, who is 23 and has been doing this for a few years. 

MATT: I think people join the Youth Corps at many different points in their lives. It’s really cool to see how they grow over the course of their time here. It’s amazing to watch them start off as mostly strangers and then develop really close bonds over the course of those couple of months, or the whole year, or however long it might be. 

ANNE: I'm Anne. It’s definitely a mindset you have to have. You have to be willing to do the work and deal with a little discomfort because you’re going to feel tired. You also have to know how to get along with people and be friendly. It’s definitely a learning opportunity. It expands your worldview and helps you understand more about what others are experiencing. It makes you more empathetic. 

KRISTAN: They’re not just earning a paycheck—they’re gaining confidence, building leadership skills, and discovering career paths they might not have known existed. 

BRIAN: My name is Brian. I have an interest in land conservation, zoology, and more. This project gives me more experience than that, allowing me to work with more experienced people and really learn. 

KRISTAN: They’re gaining impactful experiences that are shaping their worldviews. And their place in it.   

LIAM: I'm Liam. I’m 18. Through the management practices we’re doing, we can actually improve the way we’re living all across Colorado. 

ELIOT: Hi, I’m Elliot. I’m also 18. I really want to give back. I have family in California who have been devastated by wildfires. My family had a cabin up in Grand County that was destroyed by fire. I want to help with the intense fire mitigation practices that have been damaging forests and communities. People often focus on themselves, but we need to focus on the forest and everyone around us and how it impacts all of us. 

ALYSSA: Hi, my name is Alyssa. I joined Mile High to find a job that actually creates change. I feel like most jobs today don’t really make a difference, but joining this group has given me a purpose to help change the environment and the community.  

KRISTAN: This is United by Fire. Up next, we look at the future of our landscapes in a warming world.   

CAMILLE STEVENS-RUMANN: I think we’re getting to a point in some locations across the Western U.S. where the question isn’t, “Should we do something, and if we don’t, will it still be okay or still be a forest?” The real question is, “If you want a forest, what are you going to do to keep it there?” 

Credits

KRISTAN: Laws of Notion is a production of the Institute for Science and Policy at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. To learn more visit lawsofnotion.org. 

I’m your host Kristan Uhlenbrock. This episode was produced by me, Carson Frame, and Tricia Waddell with support from Nicole Delaney, and fact-checking by Kate Long. Sound design by Seth Samuel. Original music by Ryan Flores. For a full list of credits, check out the show notes.  

To listen to the audio version, or for more information and additional resources on wildfires in Colorado, please visit institute.dmns.org/united-by-fire.

Check out all the seasons of the Laws of Notion podcast at lawsofnotion.org. 

  

Previous episode: Managing the Flames

Next episode: The Forest of the Future