State and federal wildfire grants draw praise and spotlights on capacity and match hurdles

At a Colorado Forest Health Council meeting, Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) staff reviewed state and federal wildfire grant programs and answered questions about program rules, monitoring and implementation challenges.

CSFS Forestry Program Specialist Kayla Montrose described the state FOREWRM grant program (a consolidation of the former Colorado Forest Restoration Grant and a Department of Natural Resources wildfire risk‑reduction grant). She said FOREWRM supports two project types—fuels and forest health projects and capacity‑building projects that fund planning, staffing or equipment—and requires a 50% match for most projects with reduced match opportunities in areas identified as higher need using the Colorado Forest Atlas social vulnerability layer. Montrose said proposals receive preference for additional financial leverage, adoption of local risk‑reduction measures such as community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) or Firewise USA participation, partnerships with youth or veterans groups, and projects that protect water supplies.

“We allow two different project types,” Montrose said, describing how the program funds both on‑the‑ground fuels work and up‑front capacity that helps communities prepare projects for implementation.

Wildfire Mitigation Program Specialist Chad Julian summarized the federal Community Wildfire Defense Grant (CWDG) program, created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Julian said CWDG offers two primary tracks: planning (CWPP development, with a maximum award of $250,000) and implementation (projects drawn from a CWPP, with requests of up to $10,000,000). He described three priority scoring questions that allocate points in the federal review: whether the project benefits a low‑income community (10 points), whether the community experienced a qualifying severe disaster in the last 10 years (10 points), and whether the project area has high wildfire hazard potential (20 points). Julian said applicants for implementation typically must score about 87 out of 100 to be competitive.

“Does it benefit a low‑income community? If it does, that’s 10 points,” Julian said, explaining the federal scoring approach.

Julian also outlined recent competition metrics: round 2 received 40 applications, of which nine were awarded about $28,000,000 in total, and match waivers were used for eight of the nine awards in that round. For round 3, CSFS supported application development and received about 30 submissions requesting roughly $67,000,000; Julian said CSFS expected 10–15 awards in the next round and sought to increase implementation‑focused proposals.

CSFS staff emphasized monitoring and reporting. Montrose described a long‑term monitoring program tied to FOREWRM that collects pre‑ and post‑treatment data and follows selected projects for roughly five years post‑treatment; because monitoring staff are limited (about two full‑time staff plus seasonal help), CSFS selects roughly five to 10 projects per year for intensive follow‑up. Julian said CSFS is also setting up reporting materials and photographic records for CWDG projects and intends to track outcomes and post‑fire effectiveness when treatments are later exposed to wildfire.

Council members and guests raised several recurring concerns. Commissioner Jody Shattuck McNally said Larimer County’s awards had briefly been frozen and described direct outreach to congressional offices to keep funds flowing; she also asked whether CSFS would assemble photos and post‑implementation reporting. Julian said CSFS would prepare higher‑quality reports and images for congressional and public review and would coordinate post‑fire effectiveness assessments when relevant.

Several participants emphasized the financial strain created by reimbursement‑only grant structures and the complexity of matching funds across state and federal sources. Julian and others noted that smaller organizations and many community groups struggle to front project costs and to staff the application and administration tasks required by large federal grants. CSFS and committee members suggested solutions including capacity‑building grants, local credit‑union loans or conservation finance tools, clearer timelines to avoid overlapping federal and state application periods, and potential legislative changes to simplify program requirements and advisory‑panel mandates.

Brett Wong, a participant with long experience in the field, described how capacity grants have increased project velocity in his area but noted the limits of grants for very small projects and the administrative burden of multi‑owner projects.

The meeting closed with a pledge to share slides and follow up on action items; a motion to adjourn was made and seconded and the group ended the session.

What’s next: CSFS said it will share the presentation slides, continue work on application support for future CWDG rounds, and coordinate with committee members on assembling photos and monitoring records for funded projects.