People and Fire inWestern ColoradoFocus Group Attitudes, Beliefs, Opinionsand Desires Regarding Wildfire in theWildland-Urban Interface of Colorado’sWest Slope

A Working Report

Prepared by theOffice of Community ServicesFort Lewis CollegeDurango, Colorado

Sam Burns, Research Project CoordinatorMarsha Porter-Norton, Consultant/Research AssociateMarcella Mosher, Research AssistantTim Richard, Publication layout & design, editing

for theBureau of Land Management

in conjunction with theNational Fire Plan

April 2003

Office ofCommunity Services

2

PrefaceThis report on the People and Fire in Western

Colorado Project is a working document. It is filled withthe ideas and concerns of over 275 participants from 29community focus or discussion groups throughoutColorado’s western slope. The project’s staff andfacilitators with the Office of Community Services andpartners in the Colorado Bureau of Land Managementcall it a “working report” in order to encourage furtherdialogue about its contents and potential applications.

In its “working” form, this report provides a starting

point for communities, fire mitigation and preventionpersonnel, emergency management officials, fire andnatural resource managers, and policy makers, all ofwhom are playing critical roles in addressing catastrophicwildfire, particularly in the wildland-urban interface. The

People and Fire In Western Colorado Working

Report is not presented as a comprehensive answer forwhat any community must do to insure that it is becom-ing more “fire-adapted.”

What does it offer? Many opportunities, challengesand themes; among them the following:

• A snapshot of the many ways that people see fire,painting a clearer picture of the diversity of waysthat fire is viewed in western communities thatpossess high percentages of public lands. Thisgives those in similar situations a way to inventorysome of the contemporary human and socialdimensions of fire and fire management.

• Many suggestions for enhancing future actions inthe area of wildfire mitigation and preventioneducation through a more integrated and commu-nity collaborative approach. As suggestions, they

offer community members and fire mitigation andmanagement staff a menu of ways to strengthenworthwhile efforts already underway.

• Those of us who have worked on this communityparticipation effort thus far look forward tofurther discussions with those focused on improv-ing partnerships with communities. In this regard,we anticipate conducting further dissemination

of this working document in a variety of ways, toinclude further application-oriented interpretationsof these findings. This report is online at

www.southwestcoloradofires.org. Other

information is available at ocs.fortlewis.edu.

• The scope of this community involvement projectdid not permit us to carefully catalogue the manyefforts currently underway in western Coloradounder the auspices of the National Fire Plan andother fire mitigation and prevention processes.Our expectation is that the “working” ideaspresent here will enrich and strengthen the

current activities of rural fire departments,community firesafe councils, public-land managers,and community officials, who are the criticalfrontline resources for making our communitiesmore “fire-adapted.”

• In the most basic and essential terms, the focus ofthe People and Fire Project can hopefully be afirst step in a greater recognition of the

human and social dimensions of catastrophicwildfire mitigation and management. Whileaccepting it as a first step, we believe that openingthe door wider to the perspectives and collabora-tive actions of people and communities aboutwildfire will benefit our mutual efforts and resolve.

On behalf of the participants and staff of the People and Fire In Western Colorado Project, we presentthis working report in the hope that it will be of assistance in your efforts.

Sam Burns Ronald Hodgson

Project Coordinator Project Liaison OfficerOffice of Community Services Fire and Aviation ManagementFort Lewis College Colorado Bureau of Land ManagementDurango, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado

The People and Fire in Western Colorado Project was funded by the National Fire Plan through Cooperative AssistanceAgreement 1422 CAA010019 with the Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, September 2001

3

ContentsPeople and Fire in Western Colorado

Introduction............................................................................................. 4Fire and the Western Slope ...................................................................................... 4Historic Levels of Catastrophic Wildfire ........................................................................4Fire and Communities ...............................................................................................5

Understanding the Western Slope “Community” ...................................................... 6Social Background of the Western Slope ......................................................................6Descriptions of Five Study Areas .................................................................................7

Report of Findings .................................................................................. 15A Special Methodological Observation..................................................................... 15An Overview of Social Values ..................................................................................15Natural Cycles – Community Opportunity ............................................................... 17

Four Fundamental Questions ....................................................................................18Question #1: How Do Westerners Define the Problem of Wildfire? ......................... 18Apathy or Irresponsibility ........................................................................................ 18Taking Our Chances–Or How Fire Risks are Perceived................................................... 20Fire is Not a Problem to Some .................................................................................. 21Forest Health and Restoration .................................................................................. 23Growth and the Need for Public Policy ....................................................................... 26Limitations on Agency Ability to Manage .................................................................... 29The Need for Interagency Collaboration ..................................................................... 30Education & Communications Gaps ........................................................................... 32

Question #2: What Community Values are at Risk? ................................................35Question #3: What Ideas for Action did Western Coloradoans Provide? ................. 38Expand Community Capacity Through More Intensive Public Involvement ....................... 38Improving Community Dialogue about Fire ................................................................. 40Economic Incentives and Disincentives are Needed, and There Could Be “Some NeededRegulations” .......................................................................................................... 42

Question #4: How Can Fire Education Messages be Most Effective? ....................... 45Who are the Audiences for the Messages? .................................................................. 45What are the Messages? .......................................................................................... 46What are the Methods for Delivering the Messages? .................................................... 49

Summary Reflections ............................................................................. 58

AppendicesA—Map of Study Areas ............................................................................................66B—Research Methods ..............................................................................................67Previous Community-Oriented Fire Research .............................................................. 67Stakeholder Selection ............................................................................................. 68Focus Group Questions ............................................................................................ 69Engaging Stakeholders in a Context of Increased Collaborative Stewardship ................... 70

C—Community Locations of Focus Groups ...............................................................71D—Short Biographical Sketches of the Study Area Facilitators ................................ 72

References ............................................................................................. 74Books, articles, unpublished reports .......................................................................... 74Websites ............................................................................................................... 74

4

IntroductionThrough this report we will share the results of some initial

research on community perspectives about wildfire and fire manage-ment. We are hopeful that the perspectives and understandings ofmore than 275 persons in western Colorado, who participated in thegroup discussions hosted by this project, will raise awareness about theopportunities to engage local community resources and skills in firemitigation and prevention.

Fire and the Western Slope

Historic Levels of Catastrophic WildfireThe wildfire season in 2002 reached historic levels. In the United

States, 7.1 million acres burned, of which 5,450,932 acres occurred inthe eight western states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, NewMexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. In Colorado, major wildfires,including the Hayman, Missionary Ridge, Burn Canyon, Big Fish, andCoal Seam, burned over 915,000 acres, caused the evacuation of 85,000people, and burned 384 homes. While wildfire is expected to occurnaturally to some degree in healthy ecosystems, the intensity and scopeof wildland fire in recent years has become alarming.

One major difference in recent fire patterns is the scale of occur-rences in what has become known as the wildland-urban interface, orthat zone where human settlements adjoin forest or range lands. Thisfire pattern has caused higher levels of human evacuation. In mostcases, the wildlands are publicly owned and managed, while adjacent tothem are many new residences and commercial developments. Increas-ingly, growth in and around forested areas, in the mountains, along theFront Range urban corridor from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, andrural communities in western Colorado has increased the risk cata-strophic wildfire in this zone. (See Larry Swanson, “The West’s ForestLands: Magnets for New Migrants and Part-time Residents, 2001, onmigration to 251 non-metro counties during the 1990’s. Table 1 on p.20 of the article reports that of the total population increase in thesecounties of 713,900, 481,400 can be attributed to net migration.)

Southwest Colorado effort to build

awareness of fire prevention needs and

opportunites includes a series of

community workshops and field trips.

5

Fire and CommunitiesOver the past two years, efforts under what has become known as

the National Fire Plan (NFP) have sought to engage communities moreintensively in wildfire mitigation and education. The NFP involvesmany agencies of federal and state government in a range of activities,including community planning and goal-setting, fire suppression,reducing community fire risk, providing training and equipment to localfire districts, and encouraging private landowner awareness and steward-ship. A ten-year strategy has been adopted, endorsed by the WesternGovernors Association (WGA), entitled A Collaborative Approach for

Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment. (See WGAwebsite, www.westgov.org.) Four goals identified in this strategy are: “toimprove fire prevention and suppression; to reduce hazardous fuels; torestore fire-adapted ecosystems, and to promote community assistance.”

The intent of the NFP emphasizes the role of local communities.Briefing materials from the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC),chaired by US Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, emphasize that atthe local level “people from local government, state and federal agen-cies, tribes and landowners, and others who have direct knowledge,interest, or responsibility for local resources do the primary planning,priority setting, and resource allocation.” (WFLC fact sheet, 6/18/02)Accomplishing this mandate will depend upon the depth and scope ofcommunity collaboration in planning and action that can be generated.

We believe the relevance of this research, People and Fire in

Western Colorado, is that it addresses the potential for enhancing

community capacity to engage in collaborative fire mitigation

planning and prevention education in the wildland–urban inter-

face.

. . . there is increasing

awareness that the values,

attitudes, and knowledge

held by community mem-

bers about natural and

prescribed fire are key

components for successful

strategies to mitigate cata-

strophic wildfire.

Healthy Mountain Communities

6

Understanding the Western Slope“Community”

The first step in this process is to understand the community values and

perspectives about fire and ecosystem management, where mitigation and prevention

work needs to take place. This brings us to the need for the communityoriented inquiry undertaken by the People and Fire in Western Colorado

study.

Social Background of the Western SlopeAlong the western slope of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado lies

a distinctive social region comprised of 21 counties (see Appendix A,Office of Community Services Study Area Map). This region is oftenreferred to as the West Slope or western slope. It contains many smalltowns of about 500 to1000 residents, and several moderate sized citieslike Delta, Montrose, Durango, and Glenwood Springs with populationsof 6,400, 12,344, 13,922, and 7,736 respectively. Grand Junction, thelargest city at about 45,000 residents, is located in Mesa County with atotal population of 119,281. (See the five study areas described below.)

Scattered throughout the West Slope are millions of acres ofpublic lands. There is hardly a community that does not have profoundrelationships with an adjacent national forest, national park, or range-lands of the Bureau of Land Management. In many cases, the actualfounding of many communities occurred because of a mining, timber-ing or ranching history. Even today the relationships continue, althoughthe local economies have shifted in varying degrees towards outdoorrecreation, including skiing, hiking, fishing, and hunting.

While the western Slope can be described as a region in transition

from an economy based in agriculture, timbering, and mining to one

There is hardly a commu-

nity that does not have

profound relationships with

an adjacent national forest,

national park, or rangeland

of the Bureau of Land

Management.

Russ Brown

Tim RichardTim RichardRico, Colorado

7

linked to tourism, retirement communities, and recreation, there are vastareas of forest lands, wilderness, archaeological resources, rivers, mesas,and scenic vistas that are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. The uniquelandscapes and local attachments to wildlands underscore the need toassess the values and understandings of community members aboutfire, fire risk, and management over a wide array of local communities.

This western and largely public-land environment, with its charac-teristics of and values for natural places and communities, provides animportant starting point for any discussion about people and fire. Itprovides a cultural backdrop for community and citizen perspectivesabout catastrophic wildfire management and mitigation, especially withregard to the potential directions for expanding community involvementand action. Clearly, whatever future actions are taken to develop collaborative, well-

grounded fire mitigation and education strategies will need to take into account the

traditions and beliefs of communities on the Western Slope.

Descriptions of Five Study AreasArea One: The Northwest Study Area includes Routt, Moffat and

Rio Blanco counties. The western two-thirds of the area is largely highdesert with sparse grass and brush with minimal forest cover except inthe highest elevations, such as in the vicinity of Douglas Pass. East ofMeeker and northeast of Craig, the land begins to grade into heavierforest cover on the White River and Routt National Forests; however, awide zone of mixed farming and ranch lands persists along the YampaRiver, between Craig and Steamboat Springs. Heavily forested moun-tains border Steamboat Springs on the north, east and southeast

The area encompasses 10,344 square miles with total populationof approximately 40,000 people. Population has grown by roughly 25percent over the past decade; however, the distribution of growth ismixed, ranging from 15 to 20 percent in Rio Blanco and Moffat coun-ties, to approximately 40 percent in Routt County. Not surprisingly, themost rapid population growth has occurred in the forested, mountain-ous areas, especially around Steamboat Springs. Rio Blanco Countyexperienced a slight decrease in population from 6,061 in 1990 to 5,986in 2000, while Moffat grew from 11,354 to 13,184, and Routt grewfrom 14,172 to 19,690. The growth in Routt County, where SteamboatSprings is located, seems largely due to recreation activities, notablywinter sports, although the entire region is noted for its scenic, outdoorrecreation opportunities such as fishing, hunting, and camping.

While tourism is important throughout western Colorado, if onewere to further characterize the economic cultures of northwest areacommunities, Rangely and Craig might be considered mainly ranchingand energy (petroleum and coal) based. Agriculture and energy mayalso remain dominant around Meeker but there is an emerging sectorinvolving in-migrants drawn by the desire to live in the forested moun-

The unique landscapes

and local attachments

underscore the need to

assess the values and un-

derstanding of community

members about fire, fire

risk and management over

a wide array of local com-

munities.

8

tain slopes and canyons, east of town. In both Meeker and SteamboatSprings, fire managers have serious concerns about rapid developmentof high-value homes and businesses in interface zones with dense forestcover.

Citizens of Routt County actually refer to at least three separateregions of the county by different names, North Routt, South Routt,and Steamboat Springs. Part of these distinctions may be rooted inseparate fire protection districts; however, there is also an extremeeconomic contrast between the immediate Steamboat Springs area andthe rest of the county. Steamboat Springs has a four-lane dividedhighway, large conference-style hotels, many very expensive homes, andthe usual run of chain restaurants, high-end shops and other businessestypically found in destination ski areas.

Moffat and Routt counties have taken significant steps to establishcounty fire plans. Moffat has focused on working with the ranchingcommunity to establish agreements with regard to allowing fires to burnon private rangelands. Routt has emphasized fire planning in connec-tion with new subdivision development and county planning regula-tions.

One of the four joint fire management centers is located in Craig,Colorado. Public lands are a dominant feature in the northwestern area,with Dinosaur National Monument located just northwest of Rangely,and portions of the White River and Routt National Forests located onthe eastern side of the study area. All in all, the Northwest is a mixtureof ranching, energy production, public lands, and steadily growingrecreation communities. This social and economic continuum createsan array of interest in natural resources and fire management perspec-tives.

Area Two: The Northwest Mountain area consists of three counties,Jackson, Grand and Summit. Here also there are several communitytypes, ranging from ranching in and around Kremmling, to the rapidlygrowing recreation-based towns of Silverthorne, Dillon, Frisco,Montezuma, and Breckenridge. Because of their closeness to theDenver-metro region, the latter communities are weekend-recreationdestination points. In a little over an hour or two, these areas areaccessible to millions of people living along the Front Range from FortCollins to Colorado Springs. Because of this, the recreation-orientedcommunities in Summit County quite often experience the perspectivesof visitors from urban areas. While this has brought considerableeconomic growth, it has also created issues of growth management,transportation, and affordable housing for recreation industry employ-ees.

Rapid growth in portions of this region, alongside traditional ruralcommunities has produced some of the typical Old West-New Westperspectives. For some residents, there is a sense of the area changing

Moffat and Routt counties

have taken significant steps

to establish county fire

plans. Moffat has focused

on working with the ranch-

ing community to establish

agreements with regard to

allowing fires to burn on

private rangelands. Routt

has emphasized fire plan-

ning in connection with

new subdivision develop-

ment and county planning

regulations.

BLM

9

too rapidly, of traditional ranching practices being lost, and rural valuesbeing overwhelmed by urbanites. For others the public concerns ofproper planning, a functioning urban infrastructure, and economicsustainability are priorities.

Between 1990 and 2000, Summit County, in the heart of winter skicountry, grew in population from 12,939 to 23,548, or annual growthrate of 6.2 percent. In the same decade, Grand County increased itssize from 8,006 to 12,442 at an average rate of 4.5 percent. These arevery high rates of growth, with Summit County more than doubling itspopulation in 10 years. This was due in large measure to recreational-industry-driven growth, and second-home-related amenity growth. Incontrast, Jackson County, farther to north, and outside the I-70, moun-tain recreation-access corridor, declined very slightly in the 1990’s by 20residents from 1597 to 1577.

With regard to public lands and fire management, a memorandumof agreement between the White River National Forest has emergedwith many of the counties and municipalities in the area, under theleadership of the Northwest Council of Governments, located inlocated in Silverthorne, Colorado. In January of 2003, a fuel reductioninitiative was announced, to be coordinated through this community-public land partnership. This effort has significant potential for estab-lishing a framework for future collaboration regarding hazardous fuelreduction.

Area Three: The Central Mountain study area covers the countiesof Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin, an area of approximately 5,400 squaremiles running from the headwaters of the Continental Divide in centralColorado to the Utah boarder. These counties contain significantpublic lands, including much of the White River National Forest, whichis the fifth most visited national forest in the U.S. The forest containsmajor winter recreational areas (Aspen, Snowmass, Buttermilk, Vail,Beaver Creek), seasonal attractions (hunting, snowmobiling, crosscountry skiing) and summer attractions (fishing, backpacking, hiking,four-wheel driving, horseback riding, mountain biking, etc.). GarfieldCounty contains significant land managed by the Bureau of LandManagement. The western end of the county is experiencing a rapidincrease in natural gas drilling.

Resort development during the 1990’s, and the second homemarket fueled by this development, have resulted in significant growthin the region. Garfield County’s population grew approximately 45%during the last decade, while Eagle County’s population grew nearly90% over the same timeframe – making these two of the fastest grow-ing rural counties in the Intermountain West.

In the face of pressures from rapid growth and the resorteconomy, the rural landscape is changing quickly. The ranching andfarming areas that once separated communities and provided a buffer

Coal Seam Fire near Glenwood Springs

June 2002.

Bob Lockard

10

between residential areas and public lands are subdividing for develop-ment purposes. The development of multi-million dollar homes, oncelimited to close proximity to the resort communities, has spread fromthe valley floor to the mesas and hillsides adjacent to public lands. Infact, both Eagle and Garfield Counties have seen a significant increasein persons living outside towns and municipalities. Although thisincrease in unincorporated population is not all within the urban/wildland interface next to public lands, these numbers illustrate thepublic interest in living outside of town centers.

The increasing population in the wildland/urban interface hasmany community members concerned. Whether the concern is lack offire protection in certain areas of a county, lack of community under-standing of wildfire, or the effectiveness of wildfire mitigation, thisregion epitomizes the challenges of wildfire in western Colorado – agrowing number of people in high wildfire hazard areas and limitedcommunity adoption of wildfire mitigation measures.

Incorporated vs. UnincorporatedPopulation by County

1990 2000EagleIncorporated 11,291 20,087Unincorporated 10,637 21,572

GarfieldIncorporated 16,855 24,446Unincorporated 13,119 19,345

PitkinIncorporated 6,624 8,465Unincorporated 6,037 6,407

County Pop. 1980 Pop. 1990 Pop. 2000Garfied 22,514 29,974 43,791Eagle 13,320 21,928 41,659Pitkin 10,338 12,661 14,872

Area Four: The West-Central Valley area was settled because ofopportunities in ranching and mining. Many of the early settlers arrivedin the area shortly before the Utes were removed to Utah in 1881.Today there is still coal mining in the North Fork of the GunnisonValley, while all the uranium mining in what has been called theWestend has halted. Hard rock mining in Crested Butte and Telluride isnow non-existent, having been replaced by skiing and other mountainrecreation. As documented by the Painted Sky Resource and Conserva-tion District, the result has been a been a whole set of issues related toexponential growth:

In some instances, com-

munity perspectives reveal

a readiness to increase

local preparedness. In

others there are noticeable

resistances to any action

that might be perceived as

a “mandate or regulation.”

11

• No more boom and bust, just boom.

• Escalating real-estate values in resort areas and adjacent lower values.

• Lack of affordable worker housing.

• Narrow mountain valley commuting.

• Loss of cultural vitality, suffered on the both ends of a long commute.

• Family cohesiveness, childcare, and youth issues begin to emerge.

• And the economy, as in mining days, tends once again towards depen-dency on a single, major economic sector, tourism.

Residents have a great deal of concern about issues that affecttheir locality and traditional life style. They wish that growth would notoverwhelm their quality of life. While agriculture has historically been astabilizing influence on the economy, lately lower commodity prices,higher labor costs, and drought have created significant difficulties. Thenumber of people employed in agriculture dropped about 30 percentbetween 1990 and 1995.

In some circles it is understood that growth in tourism employ-ment is replacing commodity-oriented jobs, which have been dependenton natural resources. While this is true in sheer numbers of jobs, it isnot when it comes to wages. Commodity-based jobs–for example, inmining–approached $18-19 per hour, while tourism based jobs arecloser to $7-8 an hour.

Since public lands comprise nearly 70 percent of the total landbase of the west-central valleys, the sustainability of the communities inthis region is deeply tied to their future use and well-being. The land-scape is dominated by high-forested mesas and mountains, such as theGrand Mesa and the Uncompahgre Plateau, and by a series of water-sheds formed by the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and San Miguel rivers.As significant population growth occurs, everything within these physi-cal landscapes will be affected: ranch lands, water use and quality,public safety, open space, public service and infrastructure needs,housing costs, and a rural way of life that is over 125 years old.

From 1990-2000, the area’s seven counties have grown as follows: Annually

Delta 20,991 27,834 2.9%Gunnison 10,281 13, 956 3.1%Hinsdale 463 790 5.5%Mesa 93,577 116,255 2.2%Montrose 24,539 33,432 3.1%Ouray 2,315 3,742 4.9%San Miguel 3,732 6,594 5.9%

Census data obtained from the Colorado State Demographer’s Office.

With regard to county fire planning, the Painted Sky RC&D iscoordinating efforts in its service area, which includes most of the

For some residents there is

sense of the area changing

too rapidly, of traditional

ranching practices being

lost, and rural values being

overwhelmed by urbanites.

For others the public con-

cerns of proper planning, a

functioning urban infra-

structure, and economic

sustainability are priorities.

12

counties in Study Area Four. The Montrose Interagency Fire DispatchCenter is facilitating a coordinated fire mitigation and prevention effortamong the jurisdictions in this region.

Area Five: The Southwest Colorado area contains five counties insouthwest Colorado, namely Archuleta, Dolores, La Plata, Montezumaand San Juan counties. The region encompasses 6,584 square miles, 6.3percent of the total land area in the State of Colorado (104,247 sq.miles). Of the total 45 percent are public lands, 38 percent are privatelands and 17 percent are tribal lands. Geographically the area is locatedin a transitional zone between the southwestern edge of the RockyMountains and the eastern edge of the Colorado Plateau.

The population within the five counties (80,071 in 2000) hasgrown about 36 percent from 1990 to 2000. Much of this growth canbe attributed to what is being termed “amenity migration.” Newcomersare moving in to take advantage of the area’s unique natural resources,quality of life, and other amenities that the region offers. Many of thesenewcomers are retirees or second-home owners that bring along theirpensions and other retirement benefits. This “new” money affects thelocal economy as it is spent on new homes and goods and services.Also, many of these urban refugees are flocking to the urban interfacewhere rapid development is occurring.

Population growth has affected land use and fire planning as wellas the overall economic picture of the region. Most of the growth hasoccurred in unincorporated areas of the counties, reflecting the conver-sion of agricultural land to rural subdivisions. Almost 64 percent(50,953) of the total population lives in unincorporated areas. Popula-tion growth has also created a demand for municipalities to provideservices such as fire protection, water and sewer, and infrastructureimprovements such as new schools and transportation systems to newlyannexed commercial and residential areas. The local governments aresearching for ways to set spending priorities in the face of decreasingproperty tax revenues resulting from projected declines in oil and gasproduction (as resources are depleted).

Historically, industries such as mining, agriculture and forestryformed the base supporting the local economy. Currently, the historicmajor industries of mining, agriculture and forestry provide less thanfour percent of employment earnings in the regional economy. Thesebase industries have been replaced over time by tourism. Jobs relatingto tourism accounted for 24 percent (12,406 jobs) of total employmentin 2000. Tourism employment, relating to publics lands, includingskiing, outdoor recreation and touring, provided 14 percent of totalemployment in the region. The Archuleta and La Plata county econo-mies are based primarily on tourism and retail trade. Agriculture relatedservices and forestry remain significant sources of employment for

13

certain parts of the region, especially Dolores and Montezuma counties.Since the closure of the Sunnyside Mine in Silverton, San Juan Countyis almost entirely dependent on income and employment generatedfrom tourism.

The reliance of the regional economy on the beauty and overallhealth of private and public lands was illustrated during the devastatingwildfire season of 2002, dominated by the Missionary Ridge Fire thatignited on June 9, just north of Durango. (A total of 70,085 acresburned.) Many local businesses experienced losses as a result of down-turns in the tourist industry. People living in the wildland urban inter-face areas experienced loss of homes and personal property as the firesswept through unincorporated areas. This tragedy has served to create aheightened awareness of the need for wildfire mitigation plans, andsupport for community education programs.

In 2001-2002, significant efforts were made to identify high firerisk areas in the five counties of Southwest Colorado. As a result eachcounty formulated a county fire plan, which can be accessed on line atwww.southwestcoloradofires.org. Several fuel treatment and educationprojects are currently underway. For example see a special series ofevents entitled “What are you waiting for?” held in conjunction withWildfire Prevention and Education month, April 2003. (Further info isavailable at www.sjma.org.)

The Missionary Ridge

Fire of 2002 near

Durango burned

70,085 acres at

different levels of

intensity, about 20

percent severely.

The population within the

five counties [in southwest

Colorado] (80,071 in 2000)

has grown 36 percent from

1990 to 2000. Much of this

growth can be attributed to

what is being termed

“amenity migration.”Ti

m R

icha

rd

14

Mesa Verde Fire

Summer 2000

James Dietrich

15

Report of Findings

A Special Methodological ObservationAs we look at the results of the People and Fire focus groups in

western Colorado, it is well to keep in mind the nature of these findings.These data present the perspectives of approximately 275 people in 29communities, who participated in discussion groups from June toDecember 2002. These persons were not chosen as a “representative”sample of community residents, and therefore their responses should not

be viewed from a quantitative research perspective.Instead, they were chosen because they had a strong (perhaps

above average) understanding of their own communities, and at thesame time had some awareness of and interest in reducing the risk ofcatastrophic wildfire. They might be described as an “informed public”.

Nevertheless, their responses are very valuable when looked uponas a range of viewpoints, not a final consensus perspective. They provide us amosaic of viewpoints, rather than a narrow-range of conclusions. Froma social analysis perspective, they are extremely insightful in qualitative research

terms.

Their value is in defining the broad landscape of communityunderstanding, desires, and capacity to engage in more intensive civicand public processes of dialogue and action, fire mitigation and preven-tion. Their importance is that they give us insights, clues, and opportu-nities for enhancing partnerships in local or community-based situa-tions. They present a palette of opportunities and alternatives or a menufor local reflection and action about wildfire mitigation, stewardship,and prevention.

Clearly, they are not intended as a prescription for one-dimensional action.

Nevertheless, they are a significant starting point for communities and fire mitigation

and education staff to begin their work.

An Overview of Social ValuesDuring the People and Fire in Western Colorado (PFIWC) focus

groups, many statements were made that offer insights into the generalcharacteristics of the communities and cultures in western Colorado.

Coming up with clear and

innovative ideas about

working with communities

is the ultimate objective of

this research.

16

People recognize that change is occurring in the nature of many com-munities, and therefore that the relationships to forested ecosystemsalso need to be addressed and planned for. They especially notice thehigh rates of population growth, the urban perspectives of newcomers,and local desires for autonomy or independence. They recognize thetensions among various interests, fragility of the dry landscapes, and thevastness of the west relative to available fire fighting resources.

The regional characteristics, understandings, and values mentionedduring the focus groups hosted by the People and Fire Project, present asocio-cultural continuum of perspectives about future community firemitigation and education work. Following are among those highlighted:

Growth:

· A pattern of rapid population growth.

· Changes in building locations from relatively safe areas to risky sites.

· Urban newcomers are flocking to SW Colorado, creating rapid growthin the urban interface.

Public Land and Quality of Life:

· A high percentage of public land, ranging from 60-90 percent in the 21counties.

· The existence of this high percentage of public land is also a drivingfactor in the area economy due to tourism.

· The general quality of life is good.

Diverse Interests

· Distinctions are made between tourists/visitors, between locals/urbanites.

· There is a wide range of interest groups.

· And debate between “enviros” and westerners.

· There have been recent efforts to develop public-private partnerships.

· People are conflicted–some know wildfire is a problem, but enjoywhatever vegetation there is in an often-stark landscape.

Desire for Local Control:

· A preference for a sense of local control and a resistance to mandatesexists.

· The general attitude is that there are “too many rules now”.

· Generally there is an anti-regulatory attitude regarding land use rules,which may include wildfire-related requirements, but there have beensome requests to look at regulatory issues again.

· There is a “live and let live” attitude in this region, making proactivepolicy setting and more wildfire regulation difficult to implement.

· There is a “Why are you concerned about me attitude.”

· There are some issues of trust between locals and the US ForestService.

They especially notice the

high rates of population

growth, the urban perspec-

tives of newcomers, and

local desires for autonomy

and independence.

17

A Range of Fire Perspectives and Resources:

· The philosophy of “let it burn” is accepted.

· A resistance to prescribed fire is present.

· The historical view is that wildfire is bad.

· Controlled burns cause a lot of angst and get mixed reviews but areviewed by many as a potential solution to fuels build up; i.e., postMissionary Ridge Fire, June 2002.

· Patrol personnel/resource or budgetary shortages exist.

· Long distances exist between property and fire fighting resources.

· Our culture seems to have a longstanding view of local fire depts. as‘the folks who put fires out’. So, when a wildland fire happens, thepublic has unrealistic expectations about putting them out.

· The public tends to oversimplify the problem.

Natural Cycles – Community Opportunity

· Drought has persisted during the past few years.

· Recovery times of the ecosystem in western Colorado are slow.

· Heavy wildfire season of 2002/current fire emergency creates a timeli-ness for community outreach efforts.

· Attention spans are short. The current focus on wildfire issues couldwane quickly with a lot of winter moisture or the emergence of anotherbig issue.

Simply recognizing that a significant range of perspectives doesexist can raise our awareness of certain characteristics and conditions, aswell as constraints or limitations, when addressing catastrophic wildfiremitigation and education. In some instances, community perspectivesreveal a readiness to increase local preparedness. In others there arenoticeable resistances to any action that might be perceived as a “mandateor regulation.” People have a sense of timeliness about potential action,and are concerned that the “window of opportunity” will soon begin toclose as people forget the wildfire season of 2002.

Such descriptive assessments as these can provide a range of socialbeliefs and values, as a guide for future community assistance strategies,even though in some cases the perspectives are contradictory or at odds,even within a single social landscape. In many respects, they reinforcethe clear need for ongoing collaborative partnerships with local commu-nities in fire mitigation and management, in order to arrive at a level ofcommon understanding needed for concerted action.

“Attention spans are short.”

18

Four Fundamental Questions

Question #1: How Do Westerners Define theProblem of Wildfire?

In the focus groups, we started off with the fundamental questionof how people in western Colorado define the problem of catastrophic

wildfire. In fact, do people think that wildfire is a problem? If it is aproblem, what are its roots and components? If it is not a social orcommunity concern, why not? What types of people do not see wild-fire as a problem?

By starting with how people describe wildfire, how it affects themand their communities, we believe we will be in a better position tounderstand what might be done about it, especially in close concert withlocal individual or community efforts. Coming up with clear and innovative

ideas about working with communities is the ultimate objective of this research.So let’s begin with some of the ways that wildfire is viewed, and

where it is connected with the values and ways of life of people inWestern Colorado. (In each of the following sections, the bulleteditems, which appear after short introductory paragraphs, are takendirectly from the comments of participants in the discussion groups. Insome cases, the participant’s statement was slightly edited in order tocreate a complete, declarative thought, while retaining their essentialwords and meaning.)

Apathy or IrresponsibilityFocus group participants consistently expressed that the problem

of fire in the wildland-urban interface reflects an apathetic attitudeamong people living there. Some group participants concluded thatanyone who does not recognize the dangers of catastrophic wildfireafter the last several summers is just “apathetic.” This apathy alsomeans that the person is not acting according to societal norms, and istherefore irresponsible, at least from a certain point of view.

This is some of what people said in that regard:

· There are some who are just simply apathetic and won’t “hear” any-thing. How do we reach them?

“In the Missionary Ridge

Fire, our firefighters spent

most of their time saving

structures. If that energy

could have gone into put-

ting the fire out, we would

not have the disaster that

we had,” one local

firefighter lamented.

Pam Wilson

19

· Apathy: Many people just don’t care. There is a recognition that any fireprevention done will not be heard or acted up by “x” percentage of thepublic.

· The primary barrier to a community discussion is an uninformed andapathetic public.

· The public and county officials have their “heads in the sand.”

· Most people don’t think.

· People just don’t understand western issues and how things (natural orhuman systems) work—that’s why we have jurisdictions adopting“Codes of the West.”

· There is a lack of property owner mitigation.

· There is a lack of property owner maintenance of the mitigation (“theylet it all grow back”).

· Insurance covers the damage – so who cares if it happens.

· Homeowners are putting fire personnel at risk.

· There is a lack of personal responsibility.

· Individual choices are putting the public at risk.

Participants appear to take it for granted that the primary objectiveof fire prevention education is to overcome what looks much like apathy

on the part of many residents, property owners, and sometimes com-munity leaders and officials. For many folks, it is practically a generalassumption, or plain “common sense,” that no one would live in a forested

environment without taking appropriate action to protect themselves and their

neighbors. And yet they see many people who do not seem to follow thiscommon sense attitude or social norm. This is frustrating to manyobservers, and appears to trigger one of the emotive responses amongthose who deeply feel that wildfire is a serious problem.

This is also what can be understood as the “normative” aspect ofcommunity perceptions about the wildfire problem. By normative wemean that certain behaviors in a particular social setting are expected.Just as we might expect a doctor or a postman or an automobile driverto act according to certain normative rules, community members andresource managers/fire mitigation staff have expectations about whatpeople ought to do to protect their property from fire, to be responsibleto their neighborhoods, and so on. So, there are the social rules andnorms, an appropriate or inappropriate response (as perceived), andeither frustration or optimism among those who believe there is acorrect or incorrect way of protecting oneself and the community fromfire.

20

Taking Our Chances–Or How Fire Risks arePerceived

Going somewhat deeper, some people understand that different“perceptions of risk” exist, and that these depend on many ecologicaland social factors. When a person or neighborhood does not sense ahigh enough level of risk, then for them there is “not” an immediateproblem, and therefore there is usually not enough motivation to takedefensive action. Very often, focus group participants described a very

low perception of risk on the part of citizens and leaders, which might inpart explain what also looks like apathy to others:

· People think of it as something “out there” that will never directlyimpact them.

· The general attitude among residents of rural areas is “It won’t happento me.”

· There’s no real feeling of impact until a fire is nearby.

· People don’t get concerned until the fire is next door.

· People feel “It will happen someplace else to someone else.”

· There is a lack of a grasp of fire risk.

· With a sporadic fire history – fire is not seen as an immediate problem.

· There’s a “need to get rid of denial.”

· People have a lack of knowledge of threat and loss.

· There is no local awareness of what a real fire is.

· There has been no “climax fire” in Ouray County in years.

· Most people are “fire ignorant” regarding impacts of wildfire to struc-tures and wildlands.

· It can’t happen to us attitude (Panorama Fire, on a bench betweenBasalt and Carbondale, was a huge wake-up call for folks because thefire was intense and spread quickly through a large fuel loading ofgrass/sage). Houses were damaged that had oak brush right next tothem and wood shake shingles.

· Many have always believed that we have “asbestos forests” – especiallythose who live at higher elevations (e.g. Rico and Silverton) – theysimply do not think a wildfire could hit their communities.

· People choose to ignore situations like Los Alamos–“it will neverhappen to me” mentality.

· There is a lack of concern about fire issues on the part of countycommissioners

One of the reasonable conclusions about these comments is thatperception of risk is something that a person may have to experience. Thefire has to be on the front door step, so to speak, in order to trigger adefensive reaction.

· Some people have to be in crisis before acting.

· Most in the community ignore the issue until fire is headed their way.

“Some people have to be

in crisis before acting . . .

People don’t get concerned

until the fire is next door.”

Glenwood Springs Post Independent

21

· Homeowners can protect homes (up to a point) but you need to planfor protection, a garden hose in the final hour won’t work

Furthermore, personal and community awareness rises dramati-cally during the critical or emergency fire event, but can soon pass.Awareness appears to act like a door or window. For a while it is open,and then all too quickly it seems to close.

· There is general apathy, although events of the past summer did raiseawareness.

· Community interest in wildfire issues has increased substantially becauseof proximity to the Missionary Ridge fires (near Durango) this pastseason.

· Attention spans are short. The current focus on wildfire issues couldwane quickly with a lot of winter moisture or the emergence of anotherbig issue.

· The events of this summer still didn’t get everyone’s attention.

Whatever the ultimate utility of statements such as these, it wouldappear that some people characterize the lack of “fire wise behavior” asa sign of apathy or irresponsibility. Still others have a related tendency toevaluate personal or community inaction as based on a low or uninformed

perception of risk.Comparing the perspectives in the last two sections can surely raise

the question of how possible it is to inform people that they may be atrisk, when they can’t or haven’t “experienced” it for themselves? Dopeople have to see the fire before they are willing to act? Obviously, thequandary is often that then it might be too late!

It further raises landscape questions about the “appropriate”location of a wildland-urban interface in both social and ecologicalterms: is it realistic to designate the interface at exactly the point whereresidences and businesses physically join the forest? Does such alocation take into account the distances needed to create “communitysafety,” when that may need to be calculated on low, and partiallyuninformed, public risk assessments? And should its location addressthe large-scale landscapes required to sustain urban watersheds, whichwe will take up in a later section on community values at risk?

Fire is Not a Problem to SomeSince we did not want to assume that everyone believes wildfire is

a problem, we encouraged some discussion about this very question.While not every group took this question up directly, some groupparticipants did describe the sort of persons for whom wildfire is not aconcern or issue. The general perspective was that people who truly donot see wildfire as a problem are not very well acquainted with thesituation in western Colorado, or they represent a certain kind of

There were numerous

comments to the effect that

there is a lack of public

understanding about the

nature and role of fire and

the objectives of fire man-

agement.

An educational field trip in a post-fire

burn area on the West Slope.

Sam Burns

22

“environmental” interest that sees fire differently. Participants more orless felt that if you don’t live here, or have limited experience withwestern forests, you might be able come to the conclusion that there isno wildfire problem. Here are the folks mentioned as not seeingwildfire as a problem:

· Environmentalists believe that wildfire is a natural phenomenon andtherefore is not a problem.

· Second-home owners are not here enough to see/experience theproblem.

· People unfamiliar with local issues and concerns, especially Easterners.

· Environmental groups that think wildfire is an answer to a problem, nota problem in itself.

· Preservationists.

· Only recently has wildfire been perceived as a problem, while the riskhas been there for quite some time.

Recognizing that these views are present is important becausethere is indeed a breadth of community opinion about the role of fire,and also about what should be done to properly manage it, if at all.This diversity of viewpoints raises the concern that there is often adegree of tension between the perspectives of “local” folks and thosefrom a different part of the state or region, even those who have takenup residence, but are not perceived as true “local” folks.

These are not necessarily folks who think there is a problem andthen choose to ignore it, that is, those described earlier as being merelyapathetic, or not believing there is a high level of risk. Rather, these arepeople who see wildfire from a broader scale, ecological, ecosystemorientation, or some other perspective. The larger question is: what rolecan and should they play within a collaborative fire planning and man-agement process, when local communities are struggling with whatappears to them to be real and catastrophic fire risks? Obviously, such avariation in perspectives can occur within most any community, orbecause of external interests. This sort of opposition in perspectivessometimes exists to such a degree that common actions to achieve firemitigation and prevention objectives are constrained or blocked, eitherwithin the urbanizing area or among resource managers.

There are also times when community members do not agree onwhose responsibility it is to work on the wildfire concern. This canconfuse the “problem defining process” to a significant degree.

· Everyone is deferring responsibility –people point to “others” as theproblem and responsible for the solution.

· Most people think either the county or the fire dept. is responsible.

· Some think it is Mother Nature.

· Others think the land management agencies, including DOW areresponsible.

The ponderosa pine zone in southwest

Colorado is charaterized by a dense

overgrowth that surpasses the range of

natural variability. Many people value this

condition as “natural,” but many don’t

realize it is at risk of catastrophic

wildfire, and insect and disease outbreaks,

which threaten overall stability of the

forest.

Carla Harper

23

Occasionally, someone will express a perspective that, whileobvious in some respects, has a significant degree of fundamentalvalidity, such as the following:

· Everyone is responsible for reducing risk.

· Without direct effect on the community (emphasis added), proper attentionis not paid to wildfire.

Statements like these last two bring home some of the basic truthsand difficult ironies in many community understandings about cata-strophic wildfire. For instance, if you take a more inclusive communityperspective about the hazards and challenges of wildfire management,then it is not much easier to see that it really is “everyone’s responsibil-ity,” not just the fire department’s or the public land agency’s. However,to obtain such a community-scale orientation is often very challenging,requiring the development of new collaborative, forest stewardshipperspectives and skills, that are sometimes unfamiliar to certain commu-nities or neighborhoods.

At the same time, if there is little or no real perception of “wild-fire effects on the community,” then you can’t even get enough atten-tion paid to make it seem like a problem at all, certainly not one withany serious impacts. Then wildfire seems to be reduced to a “problem”just for the individual property owner. And, even though they mighttake action with regard to a moderate-sized hazardous fuel area, theycannot make their neighborhood safe or fire-adapted by themselves.

When catastrophic wildfires, not fires that burn in natural ways andcontribute to the health of ecosystems, are reduced to being the prob-lems of the individual property owners, and are not a concern to thepart-time resident or the “easterner” or the “preservationist”, or anyoneelse for that matter, then we obviously have the makings of an enor-mous “community” constraint. We have a situation that will requireconsiderable leadership, community building, and collaboration, ifanything resembling a common, civic solution can be forged.

Forest Health and RestorationWhile the responsibilities of individual property owners to address wild-

fire risk was consistently mentioned, this perspective was quite oftenbalanced with the broader ecological perspective of addressing foresthealth. For example, note was made that there has been a “failure to doenough timber removal; there has been a lack of fuel reduction; anddecades of fire suppression have upset natural cycles.” “And there hasbeen excessive fuel build-up.” Such commentary reflects a themeamong some participants that past events and practices, which havemodified or undermined natural forest conditions, have contributed signifi-cantly to creating the fire problem.

Should wildfire prevention

and mitigation address the

values that society places

on healthy forests, not

safety alone or primarily?

Would greater attention to

forest health in basic his-

torical and ecological

terms, and immediate fuel

reduction needs, facilitate a

more immediate and vis-

ible sense of progress?

24

Many ecological factors were mentioned:

· These are fire adapted ecosystems that become hazardous when fire isexcluded.

· It’s hot and dry in our valleys – fire happens.

· Drought issues and a spruce budworm infestation are aggravatingfactors in wildland and wildfire management.

· Catastrophic wildfire permanently damages soil whereas ‘natural’ burnsare good for the soil and allows re-growth faster.

· Beetle kill is greatly exacerbating the fuels buildup in southwest Colo-rado.

· Vegetation is sparse, but burns surprisingly fast and hot.

There were numerous comments to the effect that there is a lack of

public understanding about the nature and role of fire and the objectives of fire

management. The specific reasons for this limited public understandingincluded the following: “poor understanding of land and forest; a lackof grasp of fire risk; a lack of knowledge of threat and loss; underesti-mating the adverse economic impacts of fire; e.g., sediments, noxiousweeds, and water quality; and people not understanding the differencebetween high intensity and low intensity fires.”

· More people moving in from more urban areas (to get a place in thewoods) and they have no clue about fire’s role in the western landscape;

· Fuel loading–No one wants to clear the land of excess fuel;

· Lack of willingness of the public for controlled burns and otherthinning measures.

Conversely, improving individual and community knowledge andunderstanding about forest health and restoration appears to be asignificant concern. The message appears to be: give higher priority toinformation about forest conditions, such as hazardous fuel build-up, orwhat a healthy forest looks and functions like, and then there could begreater motivation for actions to reduce fire risks. Specific informationinitiatives suggested about forest and fire ecology were:

· There needs to be an educational effort regarding the distinctionsbetween types of fires.

· Emphasize positive ecological benefits of fire.

· The public agencies have not done a good enough job of answering thewhy questions: Why are prescribed burns important? How do theyenhance forest health? How do they prevent catastrophic fire? Thepublic is a lot more willing to accept controlled burns if they have moreinformation.

· Explain how fire is an integral part of the landscape – that’s just the wayit is (like rain in Seattle).

· The attitude that wildfire is bad needs to change to value wildfire as atool to increase forest health and as an appropriate management tool.

“Explain how fire is an

integral part of the land-

scape – that’s just the way it

is (like rain in Seattle).”

San Juans Public Land Center

25

· There is a lack of understanding that the forests almost completelyburn every “x” 100 years. People don’t know this.

· People living in alpine environments (Silverton and Rico) did not thinkthey were at risk before the Missionary Ridge Fire…now, they realizethere is a problem.

· Newcomers are not taught about living in the West. Many move hereand have no idea about how to interact with or live appropriately in asemi-arid desert environment. Many of these people want to do theright thing, but need education.

Participants also noted that the public is getting mixed messages

about the wildfire problem and that the definition of the wildland-urban interface is unclear. (More on this topic is presented a bit further in the

report.)

In summary, a critical concern is that the broader and more com-plex issue of forest health and restoration needs to become a part offire mitigation and prevention strategies, in order to reframe wildfire as more

than a personal safety issue. Put another way, if wildfires are merely definedin terms of their impacts on personal life and property, rather thanthrough the more systemic issues of ecosystem health and restoration,then the public and personal concerns can be reduced to a givenperson’s “risk assessment,” which, as we have already noted, can befraught with many misconceptions.

In some cases, the unintended consequence of prevention mes-sages about high risk appears to be: “I’ll take my chances.” Whereas, ifthe issue is framed by longer-term, ecosystem health, or a broaderinterest in sustainable forests, then perhaps the dialogue can be elevatedto a more inclusive civic or communal level. Should wildfire prevention and

mitigation address the values that society places on healthy forests, not safety alone or

primarily? Would greater attention to forest health in basic historical and ecological

terms, and immediate fuel reduction needs, facilitate a more immediate and visible

sense of progress?

While obviously public safety for personal lives and property is acritical value, it has often failed to motivate strong and consistentpersonal or community action. In contrast, focus group participantsrecommend forest health and restoration as additional concerns. Couldthese not become additional motivating factors towards the broadergoal of land stewardship and thereby be another means of achievinggreater fire mitigation? Does achieving forest restoration and health possibly

offer a more immediate step towards the goal of fire-adapted communities, than

attempting to raise the risk perception of thousands of individuals about a cata-

strophic event that may or may not strike in five, 10, 20, or 30 years?

26

Growth and the Need for Public PolicySprawl, poor land-use planning, and inadequate, or non-existent,

zoning and codes were often cited as root causes and contributingfactors to catastrophic wildfires threatening western Colorado’s commu-nities and people.

With the rapid growth western Colorado is experiencing, more andmore subdivisions and homes are now built in the urban/wildernessinterface. This adds to thousands of structures that were alreadyconstructed beginning in the 1970’s. Group participants point out that:

· More people are living in wildland/urban interface.

· There are more people in the region.

· More people live in the urban forest interface.

· More people are moving out to the urban interface.

Participants articulated that policy change is not just needed at thefederal level with regard to thinning, logging, prescribed burning, butthat fairly significant policy shifts are called for at the county andmunicipality levels. Many in the groups believe that new policies needto be forged locally or the wildfire risk will not be impacted.

· There is a lack of community wildfire regulations.

· Having no wildland fire code in the county puts homeowners at risk(homeowners that often don’t understand the risk of wildfire).

· Model mitigation codes–does BLM have any model codes?

· Shake shingles are actually required in some subdivisions (Vail onlyrecently allowed composite materials).

· Poor choice of construction materials (should have more requirementsfor heat break windows).

· There’s a lack of road access.

· We have limited egress and ingress (to homes).

· Standards must be generated and the community needs to be aware ofwhat they are, such as what constitutes a “safe escape route.”

Many in the groups acknowledged that the past is “in the past”and counties now have the opportunity to pass proactive policies—that,if passed, will minimize future risk.

· Government and insurance companies must force intelligent behaviors.

· (Currently there is) an inability to affect code change that will allow usto act now to prevent a worse problem later.

“In the Missionary Ridge Fire, our fire fighters spent most of theirtime saving structures. If that energy could have gone into putting thefire out, we would not have the disaster that we had,” one localfirefighter lamented. “If you allow sprawl, then you’re encouraging fireto threaten communities,” a municipal land use planner noted.

“More people are moving

out into the urban inter-

face.”

Healthy Mountain Communities

27

· There is too much territory for our equipment and number of men (tocover).

There were many areas of critique about local policies. For ex-ample, some existing land-use policies have the unintended conse-quence of exacerbating fire risk, such as the one encouraging buildingin the pinyon/juniper areas rather than in valley floors or open lands.In some counties, there are no codes in place for requiring in/out accessroads, making it risky for local fire departments to fight fires. Mostcounties do not require new development lots to be defensible beforethey are sold. Some were critical of the county fire bans passed thissummer—“…they were too few, too late and not advertised,” oneperson said.

A statewide policy issue, mentioned several times, is that countygovernments do not have much say in developments over 35 acres. So,if proactive fire policies were widely passed, they would still not affectthe land being developed as 35-acre ranchettes.

There was also comment about the need for a better fire marshalsystem:

· Sheriffs should not be fire wardens in Colorado. They are electedofficials to be cops not fire officials. More dialogue about wildfirewould happen if fire warden was a separate position and didn’t have allthe other policing issues to worry about.

· The county sheriff is the fire marshal and responsible for all landsoutside of fire districts—the knowledge and experience gained bysheriffs is often lost because of the political nature of the position.Furthermore, the Sheriff ’s Office has no funding or staff to fight fires.

· We need a state fire marshal.

There was recognition that some counties have already becomeproactive, such as Archuleta County, which requires new developmentto have in/out access roads, and to be defensible. Ouray County ismoving slowly on subjects like metal roofs and other constructionrequirements.

There was concern about the formation and support of rural firedistricts:

· Teach homeowners/realtors how to get into a fire district (subdivisionsusually choose not to enter).

· We need to have a discussion on what people want in terms of fireprotection.

· Town vs. rural (different areas want different levels of service).

· Burning Mt. is doing a survey to answer this question.

· What are taxpayers willing to pay?

Ultimately, many said these issues come down to money. If localgovernments are not willing to pass stringent policies, for whatever

The suggestions seem to

be focused on the opportu-

nities for dialogue, coop-

erative action, and long-

term buy-in to an inte-

grated program.

28

reasons, some felt they should have to pay for firefighting costs. How-ever, given that western Colorado communities have historically beenresistant to tight land-use regulation, such as zoning and stringent codes,some felt that new local policies may work better if they are incentive-based or even voluntary. For example, “…maybe developers should getdensity bonuses for improving access and for implementing putting in“fire safe lots,” a rancher noted.

Some of the other specific ideas for county policies, as put forthby the focus group participants, are:

· Ban any buildings in the urban interface and on hillsides over “x %”slope.

· Require developers of new subdivisions to build in/out access roads.

· Require developers to make new lots “defensible.”

· Require that the Uniform Building Code be in effect everywhere (versusselect counties who choose to adopt it).

· Require formal homeowner subdivisions to do education about defen-sible space.

· Pass codes with enforcement provisions.

· Allow fire departments to more easily “red line” entire subdivisions thatare not defensible (many fire depts. express great concern about openly“red lining” areas because of the criticism they will receive afterwards).

· Place more burden on local governments to pick up the tab forfirefighting costs in the urban interface.

It appears that inherent

within these concerns is

the need for clarity about

whether fire is bad all the

time or just under such and

such conditions, and con-

versely that fire is a natural

process, and therefore it

ought to be used appropri-

ately.

29

· Planning departments and planning commissions need to examine aproposal for “firewise” characteristics. Commissions throughout thecounty should meet to discuss joint standards.

Given that attendees said local governments play a major role infire and emergency management, and given that western Colorado has ahistory of resisting punitive land-use regulations, perhaps a soundguiding principle for any new policy development could be:

· County fire prevention policies need to be enacted in more counties;need to be enforced consistently; need to be respectful of propertyrights while balancing community risks; and, need to have ongoingenforcement mechanisms.

Limitations on Agency Ability to ManagePublic agencies, primarily federal land-management entities, due to

the myriad laws they are accountable to, and the nature of big organiza-tional systems, are often unable to manage the forest in ways that eventhey themselves believe to be appropriate. In some cases, they sufferfrom what some have begun to call “analysis paralysis.” These condi-tions lead to the perception, some felt, that the agencies do not do thelogical things required to prevent or fight fire:

· Federal agencies are not permitted to manage public land resources dueto politics.

· Congress needs to change policies to allow federal agencies to managepublic land resources for fire prevention (which includes logging andprescribed burns).

· Fear of liability leads to over-suppression and failure to promote andfund long-term solutions.

· Current policy allows people with no perspective on wildfire to impactforest management policies that lead to risk.

· There is overemphasis on the impact of federal laws on wildlife.

· There’s a lack of financial resources needed to deal with the problemfactors that affect public agency ability to manage fire.

The important message from this segment of the discussion is thatthere is some community understanding of the “limitations” underwhich the land management agencies, particularly at the federal level,are operating. Would further awareness and discussion of this situation lead to

some willingness to provide these land agencies with the tools they need to manage

more “appropriately,” especially with regard to reducing the risk of catastrophic

wildfire?

Participants also recognize there are many specific barriers togetting wildfire mitigation work done on the ground. A lot of frustra-tion was expressed over the polarization and multi-turf and agencydilemmas that occur over prescribed burns and thinning. Generally,

“There aren’t enough of

these kinds of tables for

people to get around and

talk about these things, and

work them out.”

Would further awareness

and discussion of this

situation lead to some

willingness to provide

these land agencies with

the tools they need to

manage more “appropri-

ately,” especially with

regard to reducing the risk

of catastrophic wildfire?

Tim Richard

30

attendees knew that thinning, logging and burning are tools needed toreduce risk. Frustration was expressed, however, over the seeminglystalled regulations and public processes to move such tools forward.The following list show sentiments expressed about these topics:

· Lack of small loggers to do the thinning.

· Lack of adequate funding to do prescribed burns and thinning.

· Citizen resistance to prescribed burns.

· Long lead times for prescribed burns.

· Regulatory limits that inhibit prescribed burns.

· Environmental regulations and laws (create constraints).

· Lack of financial resources needed to deal with the problem.

· More coordination at county, state and federal level.

Overcoming these barriers will require a combination of publicconsensus building, streamlining policy and regulations, and developingeconomic capacities to reduce hazardous fuels while utilizing the result-ant forest products efficiently and sustainably.

The Need for Interagency CollaborationIn general, the participants in the focus groups recognize that

preventing and fighting wildfire is a very complex endeavor, involvingnot only private sector homeowners, builders and businesses, but alsolocal, state and federal agencies. “Improving interagency collabora-tion” was often cited as a goal and talked about in many forms. Too,there were a lot of instances where local “interagency” collaborationwas cited as being “quite good.”

An overarching theme is the extent to which all of the agenciesneed to be talking to each other, being efficient with resources, andcommunicating with the public

· Better coordination (is needed) between local, state, and federal agen-cies.

The way that actual fires are fought “on the ground” is probablythe most visible way that inter-agency work can be improved, manysaid. When an actual fire breaks out, there are sometimes questionsabout who reports the fire, who will manage it, who pays for what, andwho responds first. Once the fire is out, there are also cross-jurisdic-tional issues in implementing post-fire recovery and rehabilitationefforts.

There was recognition that public agencies’ abilities tocollaboratively manage fires are hampered by factors out of theircontrol, ranging from under-funding to “…stupid or unnecessary laws”to a litigious culture. Pragmatic things like lack of road access, the

“ ‘Improving interagency

collaboration’ was often

cited as a goal and talked

about in many forms. Too,

there were a lot of instances

where local ‘interagency’

collaboration was cited as

being ‘quite good.’ ”

Tim Richard

31

isolation of many communities, and too few fire fighting resources werealso registered as affecting “interagency collaboration.”

· No one agency (is) in control or responsible for the fire issue—multipleagency coordination (is) required.

· DOW (is) against wildfire mitigation and prescribed burns because ofperceived negative wildlife impact.

· (Communities are) surrounded by public lands with little control ofhow they are managed for fire.

The nature and complexity of human and community relation-ships in the wildland-urban interface comes into play in many ways.Gone are the days of clear roles between “federal fires” and “localfires.” On the Missionary Ridge and Hayman fires, for example, theresources of virtually every federal, state and local agency had to becalled upon and coordinated. Folks seemed to believe that inevitably,there are problems when so many organizations try to fight a fire. Anexample of this occurred on the 2000 Mesa Verde National Park Fire.It seemed there was a controversy, at least in the minds of some folks,that because of the National Park Service’s policies towards preserva-tion of archeological sites, the fire was allowed to “…blow up…andcould have been stopped if we (the local fire districts) could have doneour job.”

Another issue mentioned is that agencies’ effectiveness is stymiedwhen they do not understand which community resource or valuedeserves priority protection. This sends an overwhelming message tofire fighting entities: everything must be saved. Clearly, in most instancesthis is not realistic. Communities need to clarify, articulate, and priori-tize if possible, the values and sites of highest status relative to firesuppression, mitigation, and protection. This local assessment thenneeds to be shared with all the governmental and resource managementagencies in the region.

While funding alone does not foster collaboration, it does help.The local volunteer fire departments, especially, reported quite oftenthat they just do not have the resources. Most in the discussion groupswere highly sympathetic to the local fire departments’ money problemsand maybe less so with the state and federal agencies’ lack of funding.Many in the process reported that, “If we can give local departmentsmore resources to educate and involve the public, they are the mosttrusted folks to do the job.”

Another local interagency issue is the need for county govern-ments to adopt stricter codes, such as the Uniform Building Code,which would greatly enhance fire departments’ abilities to fight fires.This issue was listed so often that a separate section on local countypolicy has been placed in this report.

It seems ultimately that if “interagency” actions are to improve,

32

“...it’s all about the relationship.” One developer noted, “There aren’t

enough of these kinds of tables for people to get around and talk about these things,

and work them out.” Changes in behavior within the public land agenciesrequire that the BLM and USFS fire managers, as well as state and localagencies and policy makers, participate in the dialogue. People in thefocus groups, generally, seemed to relish the opportunity to talk aboutthe issue of fire.

Thus, maybe a future action step is to somehow continue someform of community dialogue and then carry out subsequent actionsdesigned by all of the interest groups, groups who do not normally mixexcept in formal, polarizing and topic-specific situations. Some guide-lines for this approach were offered:

· Dialogue needs to be more than countywide;

· (We) must engage the city and fire district;

· Good coordination is needed among fire managers;

· There is a need for collaboration among decision-makers who aredealing with public policy.

In essence there is a call for programmatic changes in actionswithin the public land agencies.

· BLM and USGFS must participate in the dialogue.

· (They) must let go of turf protection.

· We need continuity with agencies across time.

· Buy-in from agencies that are constrained by money and staffing isneeded.

While this can be interpreted in several ways, we sense that theconcerns are not with the quality or performance of agency staff nearlyas much as they are with the manner in which fire mitigation andprevention resources should be utilized to overcome “turfism,” andcreate continuity and outreach within communities. The suggestions seem

to be focused on the opportunities for dialogue, cooperative action, and long-term buy-

in to an integrated program.

Education & Communications GapsOne of the strongest general concerns about the wildfire problem within the

discussion groups was the need for knowledge and understanding among the public.

· There is “simple ignorance” (within the community).

· People have a lack of knowledge about defensible space.

· There’s no feedback on the problem; for example, “Just wanted to letyou know that if a fire comes through here we can’t save your house.There’s not enough defensible space.”

“We need continuity with

agencies across time.”

33

In a later section of this report, a more detailed analysis of mes-sages content, desired audiences, and educational approaches will bepresented. In this section, we will describe how focus group partici-pants believe communication gaps or deficiencies are a part of the wildfireproblem.

While in one sense these shortcomings contribute to a lack ofpublic understanding of fire and its consequences, there are othernegative results of limited, confused, or contradictory communicationor education. Consider the following confusion about messages:

· USFS objectives are unclear and this contributes to confusion in thecommunity.

· The public is getting mixed messages about the wildfire problem.

· “Smokey the Bear worked too well for too long.”

· The public sees fire as preventable and unnatural.

· Through a relentless and sustained effort – like the Smokey Bearcampaign – we need to shift the paradigm.

· There is denial on the part of those doing education to recognize thatprevious messages didn’t work well enough.

· Positive ecological benefits need to be emphasized.

· There is a general lack of understanding of how wildfires move & work.

· There are misconceptions of what Firewise landscaping is all about(people think it means you just cut everything down).

· Poor choice of building materials (are wooden shake shingles reallynecessary?).

· There’s a lack of understanding of the ongoing risk of wildfire (this isthe West; we have wildfires).

These sorts of concerns go to the heart of fire prevention educa-tion by noting that there is confusion about the fundamental resourcemanagement objective relative to fire. Is fire useful, or acceptable, ortotally inappropriate? Is the traditional message of personal fire preven-tion comprehensive enough? When and where can fire be useful?

It appears that inherent within these concerns is the need forclarity about whether fire is bad all the time or just under such and such

conditions, and conversely that fire is a natural process, and therefore itought to be used appropriately. Can communities begin to see them-selves needing to be more fire adapted, ecologically and socially? Thiswould require a wholly different consciousness about the nature of fireand its role in the ecosystem. It would mean that a community wouldneed to develop ways to live safely with fire, rather than merely hope itnever strikes us, or reject its presence at all costs.

The media is another concern. Because it would appear that mediacan play such an important role throughout the natural and catastrophicfire process, from pre-fire readiness to post-fire community recovery, itis essential that its role and activities be utilized appropriately.

34

· There’s not a lot of confidence in the media.

· The media does not offer enough in-depth information.

· The benefits and “whys” of prescribed burns are not mentioned oftenenough.

· The media needs to deal with fire in a more complex way.

While some participants felt that there are enough fire educationmaterials available, several others expressed that they were not asaccessible as they need to be:

· Another problem is the lack of information available to the publicregarding fires, forest management and successes in stopping fires.

For a number of participants “accurate information” is a seriousconcern. Some feel that the information about fire is slanted too muchby the source providing it, or is misfocused:

· People need to question received information that is often inaccurate.

· People need to know where to get accurate information.

· There’s lots of “misinformation” about forest management issues,much coming either from politicians or the lumber industry.

· The discussion so far has been around public land issues and moreemphasis is needed on private lands and the interface areas.

· Some see fire as a natural process that they can’t do anything about.

· There is a (overly) high sense of security from existing infrastructure(“that’s what the fire department is for isn’t it?”).

Finally, people believe that attention should be given to the teach-ing or learning approach utilized; that is, to how and where the publiccan learn best, not merely the content or substance of the message:

· We need to tell stories—that is how many people learn. They will reactto story-telling much more than technical information.

· People need to understand “why” to understand the rules.

· People get information one-to-one “in coffee shops and on the street.”

Even though there was some pessimism about the effectiveness offire prevention education to significantly convince community membersof the many needs for fire mitigation, there remains a general faith inthe merits of an informed public:

· The better-informed people are, the better off the community will be.

The fact that participants invested so much time and energy on thelack of and need for good prevention messages indicates the impor-tance of this issue. Participants seemed hopeful that increased interac-tion between the public and governmental/land management agenciesand a more highly developed, complex role for the media would lead toa better fire prevention education prgram.

“There are misconcep-

tions of what Firewise

landscaping is all about

(people think it means you

just cut everything

down).”

“We need to tell stories-that

is how many people learn.

They will react to story-telling

much more than technical

information.”

Private Contractor Ryan Borchers thins

Durango, Colorado property.

Joy Mathis

Sam Burns

35

Question #2: What Community Values areat Risk?

An important way to describe the community’s perceptions ofwildfire is to document the values that people believe are “at risk.”

Many attributes and characteristics of a given place, landscape, orecosystem, possess value for individuals, groups, and entire communi-ties. These values reflect the attachments that people have with theirsurroundings, the place’s history, and the ways of life that have grownfrom the nature of that community. These can be as diverse as histori-cal buildings, family gathering places, recreational trails, or a forestedmountain that serves as a scenic backdrop. Such valued relationshipsand “spots,” which represent the human marks of settlement andinhabitation, embody the critical social meanings of a community.

Knowing how the people, or a community, perceive threats tothese values from wildfire is an important means of gathering localsocial understandings about relationships with the land. Looking moreclosely at the values at risk from wildfire can help us understand howwildfire will impact the cultural, social, and economic fabric of a com-munity. What sort of losses might occur? Are these sorts of potentialimpacts on community a means of increasing the risk awareness ofcitizens and fire managers? Would greater awareness of this range of values

enable the community to better establish reasonable priorities for fuel mitigation and

other hazard reduction activities?

Focus group members consistently stated that besides the obviouslosses to individual lives and property, there are many damaging impactsupon community or social resources and values. They commented thatcatastrophic wildfires quite often cause direct physical losses to powerlines, gas and oil infrastructure, livestock—short and long-term, air andwater quality, and views of the surrounding landscape.

When the impacts are taken cumulatively, people saw negativeconsequences for the economic health of the region. A visible exampleof this was when the Durango-Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroadneeded to halt operations for several weeks during the Missionary RidgeFire because of the risk of starting additional wildfires. It consequentlylost upwards of $4,000,000 in revenue.

More indirect or longer term impacts were mentioned with regardto other aspects of community life to include “recreation, ATV use,

hunting, snowmobiles, polluted streams affect fishing, scientific and educational

values, general quality of life, the heritage our ancestors have built in and around the

Would greater awareness

of this range of values

enable the community to

better establish reasonable

priorities for fuel mitiga-

tion and other hazard

reduction activities?

Tim Richard

36

community, to real estate values, and the scenic beauty that is the overall attraction to

the area.”

While during a fire there is often a “positive flow of income” intoa community from suppression activities, there is also considerable“emotional stress to the residents and visitors.” In addition, there ispotential for adverse effects on ecosystem relationships such as “burnedlands that lead to reservoir contamination, to esthetics with associatedeconomic impacts on property values, and to endangered species.”

· There are negative impacts to water quality.

· And negative impact on the economy of local communities and thestate.

· Negative impact occurs on the desirability of an area to live in.

· Wildfire negatively impacts real estate property values (homes or rawland).

· There are negative impacts of a scorched landscape.

· Wildfire can temporarily ruin riparian habitat (and we don’t have muchto sacrifice).

Threats to a broad range of community or social resources werementioned. We therefore can hypothesize that if awareness could beincreased about the threats posed by catastrophic wildfires upon adiverse range of social and economic values, a greater sense of urgencyand action regarding hazard mitigation and prevention might be estab-lished. Consider the following examples of critical social and commu-nity values:

· The community places a high value on the cultural and historical aspectsof the scenic byways in the area.

· Viewsheds are important. People distinguish between the “big picture”of overall views and forest health and their own individual views fromtheir property.

· Watersheds are at risk.

· People move here because they love the woods.

· Southwest Colorado has many, many archeological areas that have been(and still are) threatened by wildfire risk. These resources bring indollars.

· People can replace houses, but not their views.

· A love for the landscape is one thing that most people can agree upon.

The greater magnitude of fires in recent years, in some casesreaching in excess of 50 to 100 thousand acres, has raised the awarenessof people that out of control wildfires can destroy significant portionof a community’s infrastructure and cultural heritage, besides personalproperty and human lives. People are beginning to realize that the costfor suppressing a wildfire is only a percentage of the total costs ofwildfire. Some of the physical “things” lost can be replaced given

“Watersheds are at risk.”Jeanne Costello

37

enough time. But some of them, such as water systems and roads, canbe enormously expensive to repair or replace.

The truly social parts of community, the relationships betweenneighbors and with the forested lands, whether based on a historic orheritage value, an aesthetic or recreational value, a family homestead ora community landmark, cannot so easily be reconstructed. One of themore telling statements from one of the group participants appearsabove, and bears repeating:

· People can replace [their] houses, but not their views.

This comment gets at the deep sense of loss that a wildfire canproduce. People can rebuild their houses, if they have adequate insur-ance, but the value of the house is also based on where it is located.Some people have even been heard to say in regard to the recent largewildfires, “Yes, my house was saved, but what good is it when every-thing burned around it.” This may seem ironic, or even disloyal, whenso much effort and resources went into protecting those very samestructures.

While it does not necessarily mean that the fire suppression workof many firefighters and resource management organizations is unap-preciated, for indeed it very much is, it may tell us that further discus-sions are needed among community members about the other valuesthey hold dear, which would be extremely costly to replace, or whichhave large scale public impacts on the economy and future of a particu-lar place or watershed. Such a community value assessment might cause a more

integrated orientation towards social, ecological, economic, and heritage resources, thus

demonstrating the valued interactive relationships between trees, scenery, heritage,

homes, watersheds, and many other values.

“People can replace [their]

houses, but not their

views.”

Bryan Dahlberg/FEMA

38

Question #3: What Ideas for Action didWestern Coloradoans Provide?

Amidst the array of concerns and problem definitions there weremany, many positive recommendations about ways to solve the cata-strophic wildfire problem, or at least ways to make a dent in it. In thefollowing sections, we will present some themes and proposals thatoffer new perspectives about wildfire mitigation and prevention. Inlarge measure, these ideas are associated with a new focus on commu-nity engagement and action. While this emphasis does not require anentire paradigm shift from work with individuals, it calls for a consideration

of local communities, organizations, and leaders as vital means of strengthening the

wildfire mitigation and prevention strategies in the context of the multi-jurisdictional

wildland-urban interface.

One of the major questions posed to the focus groups was howcould we strengthen a community-based framework for fire mitigationand prevention education among residents, resource managementagencies and local fire management and government entities. Manyparticipants felt the approach was needed, and provided many sugges-tions about how it could be accomplished. While we do not providethese suggestions as a “complete” strategy, they provide some of theelements to establish and enhance the basis for a “community-based”dialogue about wildfire mitigation and prevention.

Expand Community Capacity Through MoreIntensive Public Involvement

As we explored the interactions of people and fire in the contextof “community,” there were many recommendations about pursuing “adeeper and more widespread community involvement.” One personemphasized that “a common vision must be developed among allparties.” Others noted, “trust needs to be developed through honestcommunication and action,” and “this is everyone’s problem, and weneed to work together to address issues.” This sense of greater community

responsibility and action was elaborated by a series of strong value state-ments about the need for increased civic engagement:

· Public-private partnership is necessary to prevent fire, with equalresponsibility on both sides.

· All voices that have a stake in this land must be included.

· Public land users must join the dialogue.

“Public-private partner-

ship is necessary to prevent

fire, with equal responsibil-

ity on both sides.”

39

· We must get private landowners involved in the process.

· Go directly to the constituent groups, such as ranchers and ask them tosponsor a meeting.

· We need shared local leadership that leads to a shared vision for publicsafety.

· The local community needs to be able to make decisions for themselves.

· The challenge is to create a sense of urgency without a sense of hope-lessness.

The thematic message of statements such as these seems to bethat greater resources can be brought to bear on fire problems in thewildland-urban interface if more effort is made to involve “the commu-nity.” Inherently, it also means that solitary individuals cannot beexpected to grapple with the evolving dimensions of catastrophicwildfires. The current nature and scope of wildfires necessitates theinvolvement of whole neighborhoods and communities, not a hit ormiss approach to “defensible space” on isolated private properties.

Broader public involvement is needed to create a clearer vision.But this more intense involvement must be based on the incorporationof informed understandings and diverse interests:

· A common vision must be developed among all parties. There must berespect for each other’s positions through truly listening to one another.“More foresight – less hindsight.”

· People need to know how various systems function together and abouttheir effects on wildfire and fire behavior in general.

· The community needs to be clear about what kinds of services, re-sponse times, and expectations it has or wants.

· Others are at risk if fire risk management is not done properly –firefighters, neighbors, community.

· Planning departments and planning commissions need to examine aproposal for firewise characteristics; commissions throughout thecounty should meet to discuss joint standards.

The message about greater community involvement also includedthe notion of creating trust, which will also be strengthened by tangiblefollow-up action:

· There must be tangible action to build that trust, which is absentbecause previous promises were not followed up.

· Action has to follow the dialogue, as has not occurred in the past.

· A willingness to network with neighboring communities is essential.

Public involvement is the first step in a community mobilizationprocess. Greater focus on civic engagement by land managementagencies, local government leaders, fire districts, and fire education andmitigation staff can maximize and mobilize needed resources, and

“The local community

needs to be able to make

decisions for themselves.”

Sam Burns

40

increase the acceptance of trust of local communities. In this respect,community preparedness is not unlike rallying community support whilefighting a wildfire. Rather than being episodic around the crisis event of awildfire, it must be an ongoing and timely process, utilizing communitydevelopment and capacity building measures.

Improving Community Dialogue about FireNumerous comments focused on both strengthening and/or

changing the framework for successful dialogue. These recommendationscould assist in reframing the planning and policy discussions about firemitigation in ways that make them more collaborative, more trustwor-thy, more of a partnership. (Numerous scientists and practitioners incommunity-based forest stewardship have proposed this approach toresource management questions. See bibliographic references to S.Daniels and D. Walker, Frentz, Burns, et al., Richard and Burns, G.Gray, et al.)

A variety of related perspectives among participants addressedissues such as improved processes for dialogue, providing clear commu-nication and follow-up action, ensuring adequate resources for commu-nity assistance efforts under the National Fire Plan, and making theframework for community discussion more inclusive:

Improve the Process

· Dialogue is happening, but its unclear what the next steps are.

· We need clarity of purpose for the dialogue; i.e., short- and long-termprotection.

· There must be a willingness to listen by community members. Thismeans setting aside preconceived notions about effective fire manage-ment and approaching the problem-solving tasks with a clear mind.

· Too many small programs dichotomize efforts. Concentrate all smallprograms into larger programs with dynamics.

· The local community has to be able to make decisions for themselvesand has to be listened to by agencies making decisions. Too manypeople who are unaware of local interests and concerns are makingpolicy decisions that have a negative impact on the community.

· Think about using new processes such as collaborative learning (areference to Daniels and Walker).

· There is also a need for a simple and consistent set of parameters thatguide the process.

· Frame the wildfire discussion as a community issue, not an environmen-tal or private property issue.

· Forums for the polarized groups around this issue need to be created.We don’t talk to each other enough outside of formalized meetings andprocesses.

“Frame the wildfire dis-

cussion as a community

issue, not an environmental

or private property issue.”

41

Include a Variety of Stakeholders:

· People need to know more about who is doing what in relation to firemanagement and mitigation.

· Any community dialogue must include respect for different values.Lines should not be drawn unnecessarily and inhibit discussion.

· Neighbors should be able to talk to neighbors if a potential problemhas been identified.

Refocus the Communications Message and Method of Delivery:

· We need help with a broader scale Public Relations/Education cam-paign.

· An effective campaign to change the culture about land managementfrom Smokey Bear to Gary Grouse.

· Media needs to focus on mitigation and prevention, not so much onwildfire disasters.

· The media must be involved. Accurate stories that increase awarenessare essential to the education process.

· This information cannot come from “big organizations” to whichpeople have become desensitized— information needs to come fromgrassroots sources and ones to which residents are connected.

Obtain Adequate Resources:

· Ongoing funding from the National Fire Plan.

· More funding to improve local fire planning and implementation.

· Grants and programs for ongoing community education.

The obvious challenge, as proposed by the participants in thePFIWC focus groups, is how best to reframe fire mitigation and preven-tion education in a wider context of community dialogue and action. As indicatedby the statements above, this will involve improvements in the processof community involvement, adequate community outreach resources, arefocused prevention message, and an inclusive, multi-party frameworkfor local dialogue and action.

Use Localized Frameworks and Emphasize Grassroots ActionMuch emphasis was given to working locally to utilize and expand

community capacity, because participants seem to strongly believe thatmany local groups, organizations, and associations are capable andwilling to be a part of a fire mitigation and prevention education strat-egy. Perhaps no sense in this research is stronger than this support forintegrating local capabilities into fire mitigation within the wildland-urban interface.

· Use the structure in place with community groups, don’t create a newstructure—use existing groups including homeowners associations,clubs and organizations.

· There has to be cooperation and communication between entities that

“Neighbors should be

able to talk to neighbors if

a potential problem has

been identified.”

Sam Burns

42

deal with wildfire issues and concerns. Specifically, governments need tobe talking to one another and working together to attack the problem.

· Have community workshops about fire be able to talk with neighbors ifa potential problem has been identified, with a goal of generating peerpressure to behave responsibly.

· A willingness to network with neighboring communities is essential todeal effectively with wildfire issues. If neighbors do not reduce risk,what good is risk reduction in our communities?

· Community leaders need to lead – they have to bring these issues to thecommunity’s attention.

· The county commissioners need to endorse and coordinate the effort.

· Wildland fire is a multi-jurisdictional problem—fire doesn’t respectboundaries or anything else for that matter.

· Work on a neighborhood basis, not in a public hearing or publicmeeting setting.

· Local fire departments have the most credibility in delivering thisinformation along with homeowners groups and local leaders.

In this last section, and in several other places in this report, thereis strong emphasis on utilizing local community organizations and leader-

ship. In one sense the participants are saying, we can do a better jobthan external resources. In another sense they appear to be saying, atthe local level there are people, energy, and commitment that are goinguntapped. We would like to be involved and utilized more in mitigationand prevention efforts that affect our lives. As one person said:

· We have a choice to manage the forest to fit our community…do

logging, modify for aesthetics…and health of forest…leave some

slash for habitat.

Economic Incentives and Disincentives areNeeded, and There Could Be “Some NeededRegulations”

The economic costs associated with a catastrophic wildfire havebecome astronomical. Costs range from replacing municipal waterfiltration systems and roads to insurance pay-outs, to a drop in touristsand the dollars they spend – not to mention the public dollars requiredto put the fires out.

When evaluating these costs, some participants felt there is a needto institute economic incentives and/or disincentives because communi-ties simply cannot afford the total costs of a catastrophic wildfire.Some focus group members articulated a frustration that traditional,preventive and proactive wildfire education just does not go far enough.They said that perhaps the only thing that will prompt some communityresidents (perhaps those who tend to be disengaged, apathetic or evenbelligerent) to take serious committed action is to “…make ‘em pay.”

“. . . at the local level, there

are people, energy, and

commitment that are going

untapped.”

43

Put slightly differently, when most people living on the WesternSlope can link their economic viability to the vitality of the land andforests, then, perhaps they should pay to protect it from wildfire. Thissentiment shows that some in the focus groups believe that “...hittingfolks in the proverbial pocket books...” will go farther to reduce risk thatany amount of mass public education. While disincentives have notproven to be all that effective for previous public issues, somewhat outof deep frustration, some focus group participants feel that we mustturn to some sort of realistic consequence for inaction.

While there was conceptual tension in some of the groups overwhether the angle should be a “carrot” or a “stick”, the ideas generatedincluded:

· Build incentives and/or disincentives into insurance policies, meaningthose who have made their properties defensible get a different ratethan those who do not.

· Institute stricter fines, if people do not follow the rules both on publicand private lands.

· The issue doesn’t hit people in the pocketbook—insurance rates need tochange in high hazard areas for people to be more interested in firemitigation.

· Refuse to insure homes that are not defensible.

· Give people insurance deductions or permit fee waivers if their homesare defensible.

· Charge homeowners for the costs of fighting the fires if their homeswere not defensible.

· Institute some type of real estate transfer tax that would go intoprevention, education, mitigation.

· The money spent to prevent and fight wild fires is enormous—whobears the burden of those costs? The general public. Maybe a moredirect assessment to those who more directly benefit is in order.

· Require fireproof building materials for homes in high-risk areas.

Some expressed that only ‘requiring’, ‘mandating’, ‘regulating’ and‘fining’ will change behavior. Opposing voices said that ‘encouraging’,‘motivating’, ‘offering’ and ‘rewarding’ good behavior is much morefitting with the anti-regulation, relaxed culture of the Western Slope.

· Provide money for more joint projects—we need incentives to reinforceinteragency collaboration.

· Give information on what moneys are available for wildfire mitigation.

· Dollars needs to be consistent and realistic to be effective (many federalfunds require property owner match so funds are often left unused fordefensible space programs).

While no consensus or even clear message seemed to emerge, itwas obvious that the support of the business, real estate, insurance andconstruction sectors would be necessary to institute any incentive or

“. . . there was conceptual

tension over whether the

angle should be a ‘carrot’

or a ‘stick’ . . .”

44

disincentive approaches. Such changes, many conceded, can only comeabout when these sectors see wildfire as a problem, understand how itaffects them financially, and are willing to make the regulatory changesnecessary to motivate responsive action.

Southwest Colorado National Forest Community Study Group members in the field during

the summer of 1996 to learn about fire management issues.

45

Question #4: How Can Fire EducationMessages be Most Effective?

Besides asking focus group participants about how they definedthe “fire problem,” what values are threatened by wildfire, and how acommunity dialogue might be established or expanded, we solicitedtheir input about prevention education messages, audiences, andmethods. People in the groups talked about the content of the fireprevention education messages or the specific content of what theybelieved citizens and communities needed to learn. They had a lot tosay about the approach or the methods of conveying the preventionconcepts and lessons. They also defined potential audience and loca-tions. We have therefore divided their comments into these threegeneral areas: 1) Audiences, 2) Messages, 3) and Strategies.

Throughout the discussions about the fire prevention educationprocess, there are a number of thoughts that present a western orperhaps rural philosophy of adult or civic education. In large measurethese suggest a desire to be engaged as active participants, to work incommunal ways, and to use a “hands on” approach. With respect tothe western slope as a cultural region, these are reflective of the deeperbeliefs in independence, autonomy, local control, and pioneering spirit.While this philosophy is clearly underscored on occasion, it is alsoembedded in the other recommendations about messages, methods,audiences and locations.

As these next sections are presented, many of the suggestions arereminiscent of the earlier themes. We will again see concerns aboutforest health and ecosystem improvements, better communicationmethods, incentives and disincentives, and many thoughts about localcommunity approaches.

Who are the Audiences for the Messages?The audiences for fire prevention message can pretty much be

summed up as: everyone. However, some the target groups areworthwhile noting:

· Elected officials, including city and county, recreation/fire/waterdistricts.

· Chamber of Commerce and the business community.

· Homeowners’ associations and other public groups.

46

· Realtors and developers.

· Insurance agents.

· “Cigarette-butt flippers.”

· Focus efforts on individual audiences; i.e., targeting tourists withinformation about camping safety. Other audiences include youngfamilies and retirees.

· Education efforts should be focused on homeowners, builders andarchitects, realtors and developers, landscapers, insurers, elected officialsand building officials.

· I think when people come here (Colorado) they ought to be told what isColorado…water shortages and wildfires are part.

· Newcomers – get this information in any publications that newcomersmight receive; e.g., welcome home packets, brochures from the buildingdepartments, etc.

And finally, there is a level of sophistication among many stakeholders on this

issue and they desire information they perceive is not readily available.

· Mapping suppression vs. “let burn” priority areas.

· Update maps of roads on public lands.

· People need to know about hazards and causes of hazards.

· People need to know what criteria will be used for fire-fighting deci-sions regarding their property.

· People need to know the economic effects of wildfire management,suppression and mitigation.

· Describe fire behavior and vegetative differences.

· Address post-fire effects on communities and community rehab.

· Need answers to questions posed to the USFS and BLM.

· Talk about demonstration projects across state lines.

What are the Messages?The content of the fire prevention messages suggests a need for

many types of information, some of which the participants realize isalready being provided. And yet underlying these curriculum or contentareas is the deeper message that if we are going to reach people andcommunities, we are going to have to provide diverse and yet morespecific knowledge about an array of topics, and interrelations.

In the following paragraphs, a short summary is provided aboutthe topic (in italics), followed by some verbatim statements by the groupparticipants that amplify that theme:

Accurate Information is NeededThere is not a lack of information about fire; rather, many said

that sometimes there can be too much information; the folks deliveringthe message do not collaborate enough; some people do not trust its

“Address post-fire effects

on communities and com-

munity rehab.”

Roadside sign warning of post-

Missionary Ridge fire floods

47

accuracy; and mixed messages are sometimes conveyed.

· There are mixed messages and rumors conveying inaccurate informa-tion throughout the community.

· There is inconsistent information.

· The real question is “where do we get accurate information?”

· Consistency of effort is important. Occasional educational efforts willlikely not work.

· We need a coordinated, cooperative effort with a consistent message.

· Create some structure that better coordinates internal and externaleducational efforts done by all agencies.

· Make sure those living at higher elevations are included who tend tobelieve they live in “asbestos forests.”

· People are not being given the “why” message—it’s just like children—if you are disciplining them, you need to tell them “why.”

A Deeper Focus on Ecosystem ImprovementsBesides the traditional wildfire prevention message, there is a

perceived need for fire to be placed in the larger context of foresthealth. In essence, to focus on preventing wildfires overlooks a deeperissue of sustainable management of forests. When wildfire is reconsid-ered and managed within the long-term process of ecosystem healthand improvement, then an appropriate and holistic resource manage-ment process might be established.

· Current education measures do not go far enough to educate communi-ties about the ecology, health and status of forests.

· The messages have been too general and not systemic enough in termsof the root causes of catastrophic wildfires.

· Focus on added value from wildfire protection and management efforts;i.e., increased water yield, improved wildlife habitat and spruce bud-worm resistance.

· Things change. Ecosystems are dynamic. There are forest cycles overtime.

· “Fire can be your friend if it’s properly used.”

· Talk about fire in the context of water quality and quantity, habitat,wildland management, air quality and quality of life issues.

· Improving habitat should be mentioned.

· Send the message: “Thinning the forest is not bad.”

· People must be educated about the serious problems we have in ourforests and how policies and procedures impact those problems.

· Educate people about what a healthy forest (ponderosa forest) lookslike and that the current state is unnatural.

· Revive Smokey the Bear, but add a new element showing the complexi-ties of wildfire and that, “not all fire is bad.”

“We need a coordinated,

cooperative effort with a

consistent message.”

Congressman Scott McInnis (right) gets

briefing from Sector Chief Terry

McShane from the Carbondale Fire

Department.

Andrea Booher/FEMA

48

Fire Behavior and Fuel Build-upThere is a desire to have a better explanation of how fires work or

behave. There is a belief that having a deeper understanding of hazard-ous fuels, topography, and the spread of fires will enable people toassess risk more realistically, and therefore act in a safer manner.

· Some fires cannot be put out.

· Address fire behavior and vegetative differences.

· There needs to be some education about how forest fires “work”differently than structure fires.

· One focus should be the interrelationship between drought and fire.

· Emphasize hazards and the causes of those hazards.

· We need to educate regarding ALL the ramifications of wide-area firebans (such as banning prescribed burns in sub-areas where current firedanger is low). Maybe use risk management statistics to make decisions.

· Fire is a reality and we will never be able to prevent wildfires fromoccurring.

· Explain what the fire threat is.

· Educate regarding risk-zone construction standards.

· Cover post-fire effects on communities and community rehabilitation.

· Need to learn the long- and short-term impacts of action and inaction.

· Prescribed fire is used to improve the ecosystem and is a necessarycomponent of effective management plans.

Fire FightingThere is a sense that citizens and communities need to be more

realistic about fire fighting risks and capabilities. The important mes-sage seems to be that there is a limit to what sort of wildfires can besafely fought or managed.

· Wildfire will likely not be adequately fought, even with all our resources.

· Cover the delivery capability of fire fighting services; e.g., engine accessto properties.

· Federal firefighters are not supposed to do structural work—they arenot responsible for fighting fires in homes/structure.

· The priority of local firefighting is service to fire district members.

· Others are at risk if fire risk management is not done properly, includ-ing firefighters, neighbors, and the community.

· The valley floor is relatively safe. Development on steep hillsides is atrisk if a fire starts.

· Some fires cannot be fought effectively.

· Talk about the tax dollar cost of fire suppression.

· Need to assure people have local knowledge of fire suppression capa-bilities.

· Need to know the costs of fire and related activities.

“. . . there is a limit to what

sort of wildfires can be

safely fought or managed.”

49

Personal Fire Mitigation MeasuresOne of the great urgencies is to motivate people to be responsible for their own

property. While this can be viewed as one of the most basic “firewise-type” messages,

the theme of personal responsibility should continue to be emphasized, according to

many group participants. The nuance or tone of this message is not merely that you

can save your own property and life, but that it is a social duty towards your neigh-

bors with regard to their safety.

· People need to accept that they are individually responsible for wildfireprotection…that they shouldn’t expect federal, state, municipal or firedistrict activity alone will save their homes.

· People need to be made aware of basic mitigation measures that can betaken to reduce risk and they need to know where to go to get thatinformation.

· People must be educated about the benefits of actions they take tominimize risk.

· People need to realize there’s an element of personal responsibility indealing with wildfire issues.

· Work from the standpoint that folks have a “duty” to deal with wildfireissues from a public safety standpoint.

· We need to show how many people are impacted by fires.

· Teach neighborhoods how to do joint prescription burns.

· People should be taught the habit of developing water supplies for firesuppression.

What are the Methods for Delivering theMessages?

The ways that fire mitigation and prevention messages are deliv-ered are as essential as the message itself. By and large a greater senseof partnership with local organizations and resources is desired. Againthis is supportive of some earlier findings about a desire for communityinvolvement and partnership.

Agency Involvement and OrientationWhile there are many more ideas about community-based ap-

proaches to education (read on), ideas about agency involvementsurfaced several times in the groups. Participants believe the followingshould take place or become involved:

· Direct communication from the U.S. Forest Service.

· County building departments.

· Educate planning commissioners and newly-elected officials.

· Allow agencies to use triage flagging to mark defensible property.

· Feds must have the buy-in of their land-owning neighbors in order tosuccessfully implement their own fire plans. This means “locals” and“neighbors” must have substantive involvement in federal planning/NEPA processes.

“We need to show how

many people are impacted

by fires.”

50

Continue to Build CapacityOn all levels, local capacity to do fire education needs improve-

ment. There is a feeling that many good (new) ideas are out there, but:Who will develop these programs?

· There is not enough fire/law enforcement/EMS response capability,both people and equipment.

· Build the capacity of local fire departments to take on more fire educa-tion tasks.

· Organize neighborhoods via individual contacts and neighborhoodclubs and organizations. Do individual and small group discussions andpresentations.

Community MeetingsThis time-tested tool still can be an effective way to get the message out.

· Do a “State of the Forest” Community Meeting.

· Take this message to others’ meetings—take the table to them (havevisits done by fire officials).

· Go to homeowner association meetings.

Community Outreach and Community Based ApproachesWhile many solutions and action steps were recommended, the

predominant theme seemed to be: ‘Take the education to the streets!’utilizing established community networks and calling upon volunteersand key leaders.

No one said that the federal or state agencies should hire scores ofadditional staff to educate the public. Conversely, scores of participantssaid that community volunteers and leaders need to first see the prob-lem, understand it—then work to educate their friends, neighborhoodand colleagues about how to reduce their risk. And, most felt stronglythat this personal word of mouth education is what would be mosteffective. There were many creative new, revised or revisited ap-proaches suggested, and many included building the capacity of localorganizations to get the word out.

· Education efforts should be community based using local groups andassociations.

· Use local fire departments as educators.

· Local sources are the preferred sources.

· Build education into K-12 curriculum.

· Do this education all year round, not just during fire season.

· Establish a clearinghouse—there is too much information out there, it’sconfusing, we don’t always know whose information to trust.

· Provide more signage in the danger times.

· Use all available tools, including public meetings, media and demonstra-tion projects.

While many solutions and

action steps were recom-

mended, the predominant

theme seemed to be: Take

the education to the streets!

No one said the federal or

state agencies should hire

scores of additional staff to

educate the public.

51

· Create an educational presence at community events.

· Depends on where they live – most community members will go tolocal county offices first.

· Most information is passed by word-of-mouth from their neighbors.

· Include brochures in things people already receive and read (e.g.,invoices).

· Educational efforts should be focused on: homeowners; volunteer firedistricts; insurers; builders/developers/realtors; county commissioners;and other elected officials.

· Access and make use of complementary efforts, such as Firewise andthe American Red Cross.

· Use locally based “red card” personnel as educators.

· Use insurers, realtors and other interested groups as partners.

· Education should be a cooperative effort involving local fire districts,state agencies and federal agencies with some focus on thinning andother prevention tools.

· Originate outreach efforts. Don’t wait for people to come to you.

· Consider a “Neighborhood Watch” type of localized approach toeducation in addition to the other methods.

· People are most comfortable among their friends and immediateneighbors.

· Smaller scale efforts would be more politically viable, focused onneighborhoods and individuals.

· Use hands-on public education.

· Neighbor to neighbor, deliver brochures door-to-door.

· Do a lot more “story telling”; utilize ceremonies, recognitions, gather-ings; have affected residents tell their stories; make sure pictures areused.

· Neighborhood/community meetings.

· Create a volunteer corps.

· Work one-to-one.

· Local advisory groups could be set up with multiple stakeholders,multiple agencies . . . some are in place already.

· Utilize the church community.

· Involve the networks of the community.

· Ceremony, gathering, and recognition work.

· Use something that goes on and on.

· Homeowner groups.

· Fire department/citizen groups with flyers/handouts going to subdivi-sion meetings.

· Build relationships with homeowners/college/rotary clubs.

· Word of mouth is still the best.

· One part of model is to bring different interests to table.

· Model after Animas River stakeholders (a group working on clean-up of

“Do a lot more

‘storytelling’ . . .”

52

the Animas River) . . . is a successful way to come together to getinformation.

· Use long term stakeholder processes.

· Attended big pageants in Vermont . . . They tell stories and just have agathering.

· It is best if requests for education come from the community.

· There is a need for unified groups, for example a fire council.

· Design a project that meets the concerns of community.

· Revive Smokey the Bear Message to get messages “back” into commu-nities.

Community Responsibilities

In addition, there are group or communal aspects and consequences of the

wildfire problem that people need to learn about. It is only through listening to each

other, planning and working together that the larger landscape scale elements of

wildfire can be addressed.

· There must be a willingness to listen by community members. Thismeans setting aside preconceived notions about effective fire manage-ment and approaching the problem-solving tasks with a clear mind.

· Members of the community need to understand the significance of theproblem and their role in fire mitigation.

· This is everyone’s problem and we all need to work together to addressthe issues.

· Standards (for safe access, etc.) must be generated and the communityneeds to be aware of what those standards are.

Archuleta County

Community Wildfire

Hazard Map

developed with local

fire district staff, US

Forest Service, county

planning staff and

community members

during the launch of a

multi-year planning

effort to reduce

unwatned effects of

wildfire and build

community awareness.

53

· A countywide evacuation plan needs to be developed, since the countyis so large.

· This (fire risk) can only be changed by being involved and by a desire tobe part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Demonstration Projects

Experiential and “on the ground learning” can be effective toolsfor delivering fire education and prevention messages. Reading a bro-chure or newspaper insert is one thing, but if homeowners can actuallysee defensible space and mitigation projects, the chances they will takeaction will probably increase.

· People need to be told about potential demonstration areas that cur-rently exist.

· Use mitigation projects to generate an additional benefit; e.g., freefirewood or chips.

· Do a demonstration project in conjunction with a controlled burn toshow the value of defensible space.

· Use recent burn areas to show successes and failures in wildlandsmanagement; i.e., how fire behaved in an area of controlled burn versusa thinning area versus an area open for woodcutting and harvesting.

· Use before and after bus tours.

· Use restoration efforts in the burned areas as an educational tool.

· Forest Service could organize tours of the fire…and recounthistory…this was logged and this is how fire behaved …this area had acontrolled burn and this is how the fire behaved here …this area hadnothing…and this is how the fire behaved.

· Say where the forest will come back naturally . . . how long and wheresoil was destroyed.

· Try a controlled burn, and then you will find out what people want.

· No one will come until FS/BLM are actually doing a project.

· We should do a process first…then do project and then continueprocess.

· Don’t do huge project…but a small one will begin dialogue.

· Before controlled burns, the responsible entity seeks public involve-ment.

Focus on the High Risk Areas

It is often an overwhelming task to “educate the community.” Apragmatic approach is to focus on those areas deemed “high risk” basedon criteria such as: population, type of building materials used, vegeta-tion, in/out access, distance from a fire station, slope, aspect, etc.Perhaps prioritizing where education needs to occur will not only focusthe efforts, but also improve the chances for success.

· Start with residents of the wildland-urban interface areas first.

· Towns possibly threatened by fire in the area are logical starting points.

· Focus selectively on high-risk areas.

54

· Some mapping of risk areas is already underway. High-risk areasshould be identified and an education effort prioritized around them.

With regard to high priority fire hazard areas, there were numerouscalls for mapping in and around specific communities. While somecounties/communities have begun or completed this process, morework is needed.

· Wildfire hazard mapping at the county level (hopefully to be adopted byBoard of County Commissioners soon).

· We need to map and prioritize fire hazards.

· Work on more hazards mapping (currently only 2% accurate).

· Conduct more assessments now.

Incentives or Disincentives

A clear variance in the groups surrounded the issue of “incentivesand education” versus “mandates and regulation.” Given westernColorado’s history of independent thinking and desire for few regula-tions, many said that behaviors would more likely be changed throughincentives.

· We need incentives for the community to act responsibly, NOT man-dates.

· Create incentives for doing defensible space.

· Use the angle that you are actually improving your land value bycreating defensible space.

Others clearly felt that incentives are not enough and that alongwith education, there has to be regulation.

· A fire impact fee could fund inspections and education.

· Educate the regulators regarding the need for standards like acountywide fire code with enforcement and inspection.

· Strengthen regulations of homes…driveway widths.

· Development is allowed on flood plains, hurricane prone areas and mytaxes are paying for building damages where they shouldn’t have built inthe first place.

· Legislation/regulation—more punishment if you start a fire.

· We need a 2 x 4 to hit between eyes.

· May need more regulation and enforcement and education regardingcompliance with burning regulations, permit requirements, etc.

· One idea is to hit people in the pocketbook.

· If you live in the county, either have defensible space or your insuranceprice is higher.

· People should pay for their choice.

· Put a lien on property.

“We need to map and

prioritize fire hazards.”

“People should pay for

their choice.”

55

Miscellaneous Tools to Reach People and CommunitiesMembers of the focus groups mentioned just about every

technique imaginable for reaching individuals and communities. Theessence of their comments was “leave no stone unturned to makepeople aware of the wildfire issue.”

· Direct mail – Oak Creek example cited (working well).

· Direct mail doesn’t work – perceived as junk.

· Display property owners’ fire protection status on maps and getmaps out to community.

· Continuing education programs.

· Tours and field trips.

· Videos.

· Demonstrations of the hydromulcher.

· Methods should include bigger and better signage.

· Signage on gas well pumps: “Don’t Wake the Sleeping Giant” (inresponse to child seriously injured).

· Direct real estate funds towards education.

· Access and make use of complimentary efforts such as Firewise andthe American Red Cross.

· Educate realtors. Push the full disclosure angle possibly by workingwith state level professional associations. Link full disclosure trainingwith how to do defensible space.

· Possible model—Corporation for the Northern Rockies: Welcometo the West.

· Computer models of potential fire impacts—maybe display ex-amples of fire on certain ecosystems.

· “Monitoring” teams—some said they would work, some said wouldnot be welcomed—watch terminology, maybe use education teams,survey teams, fire prevention teams.

Public SpacesMany suggested that getting more messages out in public places

serves as one more reminder to be “fire safe.”

· Community bulletin board at the local Post Office.

· Public transportation.

· Handouts at parks and monuments

· Drama, skits, outdoor theatre, puppets.

Role of Local Media

Perhaps the local media are not being utilized enough to doprevention education. Sure, they cover the actual fires but manyparticipants commented that the media need to be key partners inprevention messages.

· Local newspapers play a key role.

· Get videos out on demonstration projects funded by the Colorado

“Leave no stone

unturned.”

56

State Forest Service.

· Use a media campaign focused on problems and solutions.

· Radio and TV (mentioned more than once).

· Develop local media coverage.

· Internet/website utilization—this should be considered given theincreasing number of websites and of people owning computers.

· Utilize effective media techniques, including pictures and visuals.

· Use the media and provide “canned material” which can be inserted inlocal papers. Such an effort was done circa 2000.

Work With Real Stories and FeelingsWe must be careful not to develop a sense of hopelessness about

dealing with wildfire. Despite the seemingly never-ending and difficult-to-measure task of trying to get communities and the people who live inthem to be more “fire-wise,” most participants expressed hope, evenoptimism that this is worth everyone’s time, and that education effortscan have an impact.

· People will listen to personal stories related by those with wildfireexperiences.

· Local testimonials would be effective.

· Talk about success stories.

· Use visuals, including those of areas before and after treatment.

· Use “dynamic presentations” featuring people who have “been there.”

· They should focus on feelings and emotion as well as technical issues.

· Develop a marketing focus, including a readily identified slogan, for theeducational effort.

· Use a “Smokey the Bear” type of approach.

· Use the library of stories and pictures being developed by agencies.

· Use the experiences and expertise developed during this past summer.

· Show what works.

· Use fire trucks.

· Say we will thin Kendall Mountain (near Silverton, Colorado) nextweek…put a real or pretend project in the paper.

Youth Involvement

Maybe some adults are not going to hear the messages, but therewas mentioned several times that we can influence how future genera-tions view fire by reaching youth now with relevant, interesting, interac-tive messages and activities.

· Local schools – it was stated that kids are quite capable of making theirparents aware of community issues.

· Integrate fire prevention into K-12 curriculum.

· Get Youth Corps involved.

Video

The After the Fire video informs

residents in or near the perimeter of the

Missionary Ridge and Valley fires about

post-burn flood safety issues and

precautions.

57

· Do more with school-aged kids…for example, do demonstrations offire behavior such as electrocuting a hot dog to show how electricitystarts fires, or how cigarette butts and coke bottles can start fires

Use the Window of OpportunityWhile the fire season of 2002 was devastating, the silver lining is

that we have peoples’ attention. We must seize this “window” ofopportunity before the drought is over.

· We should seize the opportunity to educate community members thathas been created by the number of wildfires experienced this summer.

· Timing is critical…take advantage of increased interest after the last fireseason.

· Timing is important. There are “more open ears” during the fire season.

“Use the window of op-

portunity.”

58

Summary ReflectionsAs efforts are made by many organizations and interests to

implement the National Fire Plan, the critical challenge is how relation-ships to communities are established and sustained. Individual, unilat-eral, single entity, uncoordinated action will not be successful. Reduc-ing the risk of catastrophic wildfire in social and ecological landscapesis a highly complex enterprise, requiring enormous teamwork andcooperation among formal and informal systems. One of the primaryingredients of a sustainable fire mitigation and prevention strategy isthe degree of incorporation and integration of local communityresources.

Building collaborative relationships with communities is importantfor numerous reasons, including the following:

· By definition, communities must be involved in designating andworking within the wildland urban interface.

· Wildfire mitigation within this zone is inherently dependent uponsupport and participation by local property owners and public officials.

· The wildland-urban interface is a multi-jurisdictional landscape requir-ing cooperation among watersheds, counties, municipalities, counties,states and federal land management agencies.

· Wildfire management is a multi-disciplinary process, which encom-passes risk assessment, land-use planning, emergency management,citizen participation, mitigation and education, and neighborhoodaction.

· Public and community perspectives about wildfire management,suppression, mitigation, and prevention must first be understood andthen coalesced into a common and concerted effort throughout longintervention processes.

It is because of these principles that the People and Fire in Western

Colorado project was undertaken. We believed that if the National FirePlan work in the wildland-urban interface was to be successful, adeeper level of collaborative community development and organizingwas going to be needed. In this sense PFIWC is somewhat differentthan the traditional “community or public acceptability” studieswherein an effort is made to determine what the public would toleratewith regard to smoke levels or wildlife impacts of prescribed fires.Indeed, public toleration is not the same as community collaboration, and

59

is not at all an adequate foundation for broad scale, multi-jurisdictionalcommunity action. The collaboration of communities and citizens inthe long-term stewardship of forestlands in the wildland urban interfaceneeds to be a sustainable process, not an episodic event. It must bebased on trust, not reduced to coercion.

One of the first steps in this process is to better understand thebeliefs and values of local community members and leaders, to recog-nize the diversity of perceptions about the wildfire problem, in order todetermine where common ground exists. Beginning at this pointfacilitates an incorporation of human and community knowledge intothe total wildfire management strategy, along with the uses of suchtraditional tools as fire ecology, silviculture, firewise defense, and emer-gency preparedness. In this context of integrated and cooperative,multi-jurisdictional planning and action, we are perhaps at the verybeginning of developing a science of community perspectives aboutfire.

Indeed, we see the People and Fire study effort as an initial step inwestern Colorado that will require follow-up involvement among manyparties, including communities themselves. And while the perspectivesof 30 communities in this region are fertile with ideas about the prob-lem of catastrophic wildfire, it is always important to recognize howdiverse and unique other social settings are. Clearly, as the work to buildrelationships with communities in addressing the wildfire risks in thewildland-urban interface continues, similar efforts should be made toelicit and assess the understandings of local residents, leaders, andpartners.

Now to the summary of what western Coloradoans believe isimportant about wildfire and their communities. One of the moreimportant topics is the way wildfire is defined. From a West Slopeperspective, wildfire has many dimensions:

• When “appropriate defensive actions” seem not to be taken by

residents or those in authority, this “inaction” is viewed as per-

sonal apathy or irresponsibility. When individuals do not createdefensiblee space on their own property, they are viewed as irrespon-sible in relationship to their own neighborhood, because it is felt thatsuch choices place “the public at risk.” This interplay between personalinaction and public impact or cost is a critical tension that has conse-quences for fire prevention education messages as well as what rolelocal governments might appropriately take.

• In a broader context, individuals and communities that do not

respond to the threat of wildfire are believed to not fully under-

stand the true risk. Discussion group participants say that manypeople simply believe “it will not happen to me.” Others said peoplebelieve they live in an “asbestos forest,” or that there is “no real feelingof impact until a fire is nearby.” These descriptions seem to describe asignificant segment of the population that are somehow able to “ig-nore” the threat of catastrophic wildfire, even while living in high

One of the first steps in

this process is to better

understand the beliefs and

values of local community

members and leaders, to

recognize the diversity of

perceptions about the

wildfire problem, in order

to determine where com-

mon ground exists.

60

hazard areas, because they do not grasp the actual and/or potential risk.Perception of risk appears to be linked to direct experience with fire.Risk is grasped only when the fire is coming over the hill towards me.What then is the potential role of prevention education, if the audiencecannot fully hear the message without a visible or tangible risk confront-ing them?

• Wildfire is not a problem or concern to some people, often becauseof a particular ecological perspective, such as that all fires are natural, orthat the person or group is unfamiliar with the landscape and vegetativeconditions of western Colorado that create the likelihood of wildfire.This latter group is often referred to as easterners or urbanities orvisitors, who have not lived in the rural West long enough to realize therisk and impact of catastrophic wildfires. As a result, a degree ofseparation arises between locals or old-timers, and folks who move infrom urban areas, which makes establishing a broad community under-standing somewhat more difficult.

• There appears to be a strong realization that wildfire on the scale thathas occurred in the West in the past three years is integrally related toforest health or overstocked stands of trees, where natural fire has beenexcluded. A significant number of participants therefore see

wildfire as a problem connected to forest restoration. That is, theybelieve that wildfire is more than a safety concern to property owners inthe wildland-urban interface, because it is more strategically an ecosys-tem problem. This perspective brings into stronger play the roles ofnatural and prescribed fire, along with other means of bringing large-scale landscapes closer to their “natural range of variability.” Theimportance of this perspective is that it places wildfire in the largercontext of ecosystem restoration, rather than limiting it to the tradi-tional model of “defensible space.” This may allow a new emphasis onsustainable forest management as a means of gradually developing fire-adapted communities.

• Wildfire is also seen as a problem related to growth of communi-

ties into the wild or forested lands that ring many of the most

desirable communities in western Colorado. Large numbers ofpeople are moving to this region with a strong desire to connect withthe outdoors, natural environments, mountains and scenery. Not only isthe volume of growth an element of the wildfire danger, but also theway residences are being built in remote and inaccessible terrain hascreated significant barriers to fire mitigation and suppression. Partici-pants believe that a lack of community planning regulations requiringthat fuel reduction occur when a subdivision is being planned anddeveloped is a concern. They also see that roads within residential areasneed to be accessible to fire suppression vehicles. In this sense, peoplesee wildfire as a problem of local government, particularly pertaining toplanning and building code regulation.

• There were also expressions of concern about both state and fire

district policies. Some felt that having the county sheriff act as thechief fire authority was not appropriate and that there should be aseparate county fire marshal, and a state fire marshal. A related concernwas encouraging the formation of fire protection districts and havingsome community discussions about what level of service they can

61

expect from them. With regard to the latter point, there is a concernabout what residents are actually willing to pay for. These expectationsneed to be clarified to bring a degree of reality to what level of fireprotection is going to be available within a given community.

• Beyond the obvious physical and human impacts of catastrophicwildfire on lives and property, large fires like the Missionary Ridge Firenear Durango and the Hayman Fire southwest of Denver are viewed ashaving significant consequences for communities. These might be

termed impacts on social and economic values, or on major naturaland infrastructure resources. These include scenic landscape, historicalrelationships with the forest, a community’s heritage, water systems,utility lines, and tourism based economies, which are often dependentupon some of the above-mentioned resources and values. This recog-nition of impacts on social and communal values reorients the conse-quences of wildfires beyond the personal to the community, where thestakes are not necessarily higher, but are certainly more long-term andcostly, where some impacted resources cannot be replaced throughinsurance, such as the historic meaning of a landscape to a community.Social and economic impacts on communities from catastrophic firemoves the consequences of fire beyond the personal to the publicinterest. What are implications of this shift?

• Participants also believe that part of the wildfire problem pertains to

limitations on the abilities of federal land management agencies

to care for the land and manage it properly. These limitations areprimarily the result of regulations that require the federal managers toconduct environmental studies and consider wildlife conditions andother ecological circumstances. People believe that an overemphasis onthese types of laws keeps the agencies from being able to manageprofessionally. It also includes the fact that resources are often notavailable to adequately manage the public lands. The result is thatthinning overstocked stands has not occurred, which has led to exces-sive fuel buildups. “Current policy allows people with no perspectiveabout wildfire to impact forest management policies that lead to risk.”

• Additionally, there is the belief that there are barriers with regard

to the tools that resource managers can use to reduce wildfire

risks. For instance, a lack of citizen acceptance of smoke and otherimpacts leads to high opposition to prescribed fires. Managers hesitateto take actions that are believed appropriate to fire mitigation becauseof the threat of lawsuits. And finally, even when fire mitigation ispursued, there is inadequate funding to prepare and conduct thinningprojects, and a lack of local loggers and thinners to sufficiently carry outthe projects.

• Another aspect of the fire problem is a lack of interagency collabo-

ration. This is especially true of wildland-urban interface fires wheremulti-jurisdictions exist and federal, state, and local fire districts need towork together. There is a concern that communities are surrounded byfederal public lands with little control over how they are managed withregard to fire. With the complexity of large-scale wildfires today, howfederal and local agencies work together on fire suppression is key tosuccess and long-term trust building. People believe that coordinationand collaboration need to occur on a county and regional basis, and that

62

land and resource management agencies must let go of “turf protec-tion” to achieve collaboration.

• Finally, there is considerable concern about the gaps in education and

communication about fire. First, there is the issue with confused orcontradictory or overlapping messages from a variety of managementagencies about how fire is to be managed. Is the Smokey Bear messagestill valid? Is fire natural and therefore in some sense desirable? Is itpreventable? What are its ecological benefits? Second, people believethe media should be more proactive, discussing the complexity of firesand the benefits of prescribed fire, not merely describing it as anepisodic crisis. Finally, even though there are lots of wildfire preventionmaterials, there are concerns with misinformation or slanted viewpointsbeing expressed, with too much inaccurate information, and citizensand leaders not understanding the message. On this latter point, thesuggestion is that people need to know “why” they are being asked totake a particular mitigation action, and that fire prevention stories aremore informative and acceptable than a mere informational message.

Within any given place, landscape, or ecosystem, there are manytypes of values at risk for catastrophic wildfire. Understanding how

wildfire will impact the cultural, social, and economic fabric of a community is key to

how community members will become more engaged in wildfire mitigation.

• Focus group members consistently noted many potential impacts upon“community” or “social” resources and values. They commentedthat catastrophic wildfires cause direct physical losses to power lines, gasand oil infrastructure, livestock, and air and water quality.

• When the impacts are taken cumulatively, people saw negative conse-quences for the economic health of the region, scientific and educa-tional values, general quality of life, the heritage our ancestors have builtin and around the community, to real estate values, and the scenicbeauty that is the overall attraction to the area.

People are beginning to realize that the cost for suppressing awildfire is only a percentage of the total costs of wildfire.

• The truly social parts of community—the relationships betweenneighbors and with the forested lands—whether it is based on a historicor heritage value, an aesthetic or recreational value, a family homesteador a community landmark, cannot so easily be reconstructed.

• People can rebuild their houses, if they have adequate insurance, but thevalue of the house is also based on where it is located. Somepeople have even been heard to say in regard to the recent large wild-fires, “Yes, my house was saved, but what good is it when everythingburned around it.”

One of the major questions posed to the focus groups was how acommunity-based framework could be strengthened for firemitigation and prevention education among residents, resource manage-ment agencies and local fire management and government entities.

Perhaps no finding in this

research is stronger than

the breadth of support for

integrating local capabili-

ties into fire mitigation

within the wildland/urban

interface.

63

Some of the elements recommended for establishing and enhancing a“community-based” dialogue include:

• Greater focus on civic engagement by public-land-managementagencies, local government leaders, fire districts, and fire education andmitigation staff to maximize and mobilize needed resources, andincrease the acceptance of trust of local communities.

• Numerous comments focused on both strengthening and/or changingthe framework for successful dialogue, such as improved processesfor dialogue, providing clear communication and follow-up action,ensuring adequate resources for community assistance efforts under theNational Fire Plan, and making the framework for community discus-sion more inclusive.

• Much emphasis was given to working locally to utilize and expand

community capacity, as participants described how many local groups,organizations, and associations are capable and willing to be a part of afire mitigation and prevention education strategy.

Perhaps no finding in this research is stronger than the

breadth of support for integrating local capabilities into

fire mitigation within the wildland/urban interface.

There is strong emphasis on utilizing local community organi-

zations and leadership. Participants indicated that local communitieswould do a better job of fire mitigation and prevention education thanmerely utilizing external resources. They also believe that at the locallevel there are people, energy, and commitment going untapped.

The economic costs associated with a catastrophic wildfire havebecome astronomical. Costs range from replacing municipal waterfiltration systems and roads to insurance payments, to a drop in touristsand the dollars they spend—not to mention the public dollars requiredto put the fires out.

• When evaluating these costs, some participants felt there is a need to

institute economic incentives and/or disincentives because com-munities simply cannot afford the costs of a catastrophic wildfire.

• While disincentives have not proven to be all that effective for previouspublic issues, perhaps out of deep frustration, some focus groupparticipants felt that there must be some sort of realistic conse-

quence for inaction.

• Opposing voices said that ‘encouraging’, ‘motivating’, ‘offering’

and ‘rewarding’ good behavior is much more fitting with the anti-regulation, relaxed culture of the West Slope.

The audiences for fire prevention messages can be pretty

much summed up as: everyone, with specific groups mentioned,such as realtors, newcomers, county commissioners and planning staff.

Participants in the groups discussed the content of the fire

prevention education messages, on which they believed citizens and

64

communities need to focus:

• Making the information more accurate and focused.

• Besides the traditional wildfire prevention message, there is a perceivedneed for fire to be placed in the larger context of forest health.

• A better explanation of how fires work or behave.

• A realistic picture of fire fighting risks and capabilities, explainingwhat sort of wildfires can be safely fought or managed.

• Motivating people to be responsible for their own property as a social

duty regarding neighborhood safety.

The ways or methods that fire mitigation and prevention mes-sages are delivered are as essential as the message itself:

• Agencies need to become more involved with communities indelivering fire mitigation messages.

• On all levels, local capacity to conduct fire education needs to bedeveloped and strengthened through partnerships.

• Take fire mitigation and prevention education to the streets byutilizing established community networks, calling upon volunteers andkey leaders.

• Community volunteers and leaders need to first see the problem,understand it—and then work to educate their friends, neighborhoodand colleagues about how to reduce their risk.

• A personal “ word of mouth” approach to fire prevention educationis considered most effective.

• The larger landscape-scale elements of wildfire need to be addressedfrom the perspective of a broad sense of community responsibility.

• Experiential and “on the ground learning” are very effective toolsfor delivering fire education and prevention messages.

• Focus on those areas deemed “high risk” based on criteria such as:population, type of building materials used, vegetation, in/out access,distance from a fire station, slope, aspect, etc.

• With regard to high priority fire hazard areas, there were numerous callsfor mapping in and around specific communities.

• Many said that personal and community behaviors would more likely bechanged through incentives.

• Other clearly felt that incentives are not enough and that along witheducation, there has to be some degree of fire-safety regulation.

• Getting more messages out in public places serves as one morereminder to be “fire safe.”

• The media need to be key partners in prevention messages by address-ing the complexity of fire behavior, ecosystem conditions, and the needfor community action.

• Education efforts can have a greater impact if they are based upon thelives of people in the community, related through stories of successand experiences with wildfire and fire mitigation.

• Influence how future generations view fire by reaching youth now

[The People and Fire

Report] is intended as the

start of a deeper conversa-

tion about mobilizing

greater community re-

sources in the critical

struggle to reduce cata-

strophic wildfire risks in

the wildland urban inter-

face in the Rocky Moun-

tain West.

65

with relevant, interesting, interactive messages and activities.

• While the 2002 wildfire season has opened a “ window of opportu-

nity,” before it closes, community fire mitigation and preventioneducation actions need to be taken immediately .

A Final Note: We wish to convey a special thanks to all theparticipants in western Colorado that made this research on cata-strophic wildfire possible. Without your involvement to develop themany community-based thoughts and recommendations reported here,this effort to describe community perceptions of fire would not havebeen achievable, or at all successful. Based on the knowledge, enthusi-asm and commitment you displayed as participants in the communityfocus groups, you will surely be an important and continuing part of thelocal processes to improve fire mitigation and prevention efforts.

We want to emphasize again that The People and Fire Project isa beginning effort towards increasing community participation in theNational Fire Plan. It is not a final answer, nor is it meant to be pre-scriptive. Rather it is intended as the start of a deeper conversation about mobiliz-

ing greater community resources in the critical struggle to reduce catastrophic wildfire

risks in the wildland urban interface in the Rocky Mountain West.

66

Appendix A—Map of Study Areas

67

Appendix B—Research Methods

Previous Community-Oriented Fire ResearchOver the past 20-25 years, social scientists have actively sought to

understand the values and attitudes of community members aboutwildfire. As a part of the National Fire Plan, The National WildfireCoordinating Group commissioned a report on the human dimensionsof fire management. The report, entitled Burning Questions: A Social

Science Research Plan for Federal Wildland Fire Management, was completedunder the leadership of Gary Machlis, University of Idaho. This reportincludes a policy analysis, a literature review, and needs assessment withregard to the contributions of social science research to improved firemanagement. In a section of the report entitled “Public Perceptions,Education, and Risk Communications,” (p. 94), the following paragraphprovides an overview of some previous research:

An extensive body of research literature exists on public attitudestowards resource management policies (Bright and Manfredo 1997;Reading et al. 1994; Steel et al. 1994; Tarrant et al. 1997). Public per-ceptions of fire and public acceptance of fire management policies havebeen the subject of extensive experimental and case-study research.Public attitudes can play a role in policy formation and decision-makingby, for example, influencing policies regarding prescribed fires. Theycan influence support for hazard mitigation strategies in areas prone towildfires. At the individual level, perceptions can affect how peoplerespond to fire risks in the wildland-urban interface. Thus, an under-standing of public attitudes and beliefs about wildland fires and re-source management policies are important for federal land managementagencies, concerned with wildland fire management. (Machlis, et al.2002, p. 95)

While much research has been focused on individual attitudes andperceptions of fire management, often focusing on what has come tobe called “public acceptability” of fire as a management tool, thereseems to be considerable need to examine community willingness, orcapacity, to work through partnership or cooperative processes tosupport fire mitigation and management planning. That is, muchprevious research has examined the respondent’s views about the risksof prescribed fires, the effects of smoke, or perceptions of impacts onwildlife or watersheds, among many fire management questions. From

68

such studies, fire and resource managers have sought to improve theirdecisions about where and how to use prescribed fire, how to reducehazardous fuels or improve fire safety messages, before and duringmajor fire events. In this manner, fire management of both natural andprescribed fires has been related to community concerns and impacts.

However, we believe that a significant gap exists in the socialscience literature concerning wildland fire with regard to “communityengagement,” and citizen and leadership capacity for participation inplanning, mitigation, and prevention education. It is in this light that wehave undertaken the People and Fire in Western Colorado research project,assessing not only the ways that citizens define the “wildfire problem,”and characterize “values at risk,” but how they describe the capacity oftheir own communities to work with fire managers and prevention andmitigation staff to reduce wildfire risk and improve public safety.

Because of this project’s primary emphasis on inventorying andarraying “community understandings” about wildfire management andmitigation, we have developed a research approach to elicit qualitativedescriptions of local beliefs, values and concerns about resources andcapacities to work collaboratively within the “wildland-urban interface.”

We relied most heavily on community-based focus or discussiongroups, conducted in 29 distinct communities in approximately one-third of the counties in the state of Colorado, a region where there ispreponderance of the public land.

Stakeholder SelectionDiverse stakeholders were chosen from a variety of interest areas

such as recreation, ranching, wildlife, real estate, and local governmentto participate in the focus groups. However, and perhaps more impor-tantly, stakeholders were selected for a balanced knowledge of both commu-

nity and fire issues. Stakeholders were not necessarily formal communityleaders or professional experts about fire, although some of thesepersons were represented. It was deemed preferable that the various interest

oriented stakeholders include persons who knew something about citizen concerns

about surrounding forest lands, about beliefs regarding natural and prescribed fire

management, and about what it would take to reach common understandings about

wildfire mitigation planning and decision making.While focus group members might have strong views about

reintroducing fire into surrounding ecosystems, or thinning the landsadjacent to a given community, hopefully they would also be open tolistening to other viewpoints in a balanced group discussion. Moststrategically, they needed to be willing to assist in describing what others

believe or think about fire and appropriate management solutions, in amanner that could be utilized to build convergence and collaborationaround a community based fire mitigation and education plan.

It was deemed preferable that the

various interest-oriented stakehold-

ers include persons who knew

something about citizen concerns,

about surrounding forest lands,

about beliefs regarding natural and

prescribed fire management, and

about what it would take to reach

common understandings about

wildfire mitigation planning and

decision making.

69

The sample for this research was therefore not chosen randomlyand evenly throughout Western Colorado. Rather, the participantsrepresented the attitudes and values of the social and cultural placeswhere they lived and worked, or what many analysts refer to as a “senseof place.” (See the list of places where focus groups were heldthroughout western Colorado, Appendix C.)

Places in Western Colorado vary dramatically as a result of recenteconomic and demographic changes. There are traditional ranchingcommunities like the west end of San Miguel County, and secondhome enclaves like Aspen. Among these and many other communities,there are quite different relationships with the surrounding forestlands.(See article by Larry Swanson, “The West’s Forest Lands: Magnets ofNew Migrants and Part-time Residents,” 2001.)

Focus Group QuestionsFour general areas of inquiry were pursued with each focus group.

The items shown under each area below signify topics that the groupfacilitator was asked to probe with each focus group:

1. Framing the Wildfire Issue/Problem-Issue

· From your perspective, what is the wildfire problem or issue?

· Do you see wildfire as a problem, or merely an issue?

· Do some people in the community not see wildfire as a problem?

· How do various groups in your community view the wildfire problem-issue?

· What terms do people use to frame or describe the wildfire problem-issue?

· To whom do people attribute responsibility for the wildfire problem-issue and/or possible measures to reduce risk or threats, as they seethem?

2. Community Values at Risk

· What locally held values cause people to think that wildfire is a concern,in the sense that those values could be threatened or might be compro-mised by wildfire?

· Do certain groups hold these values in particular? For example, from agovernmental perspective, or any specific interest group positions?

· Do you have a sense of what the most important community values arerelated to wildfire and improving community safety?

3. Capacity for Community Dialogue

· What conditions would need to exist in your community, in order foryou and others to develop a productive dialogue on fire issues and/orany actions to reduce community risks? Examples of “conditions”could be a level of trust among key parties, a sense that participation in

70

the dialogue would result in productive outcomes, or having reasonableaccess to information and knowledge about fire risk and environmentalconditions. (There could be many other types of conditions.)

4. Fire Education Needs and Preferences:

· What do members of your community need to know to begin to talkproductively about the wildfire issues and potential measures to improvecommunity safety?

· Where do people prefer to obtain information about community issuesof this nature? (Radio, TV, newspaper, workshops, etc.)

· Are any particular means or methods of receiving information moreacceptable to community members than others? (Brochures, video-tapes, group presentations, field trips, etc.)

· Are you, or others you know, willing to be a part of a monitoring groupthat would visit sites where efforts are being made to reduce wildfirerisks in your community as a part of a learning dialogue?

In the conduct of community planningand decision-making processes, it is ratherroutine to ensure that stakeholder identifica-tion is representative with regard to a broadrange of socio-economic and demographiccharacteristics. Typically, stakeholder selectionwould take into account employment, lengthof residence, political power, and age, amongmany other societal dimensions. While theimportance of these factors is unquestioned inbroadening resource stewardship, in thecontext of developing community-based firemitigation efforts, this research project em-phasized a stronger sense of communitycapacity building, establishing civic dialogue,networking, relationship formation, and publicconversation, and therefore strongly influ-ences the stakeholder engagement process.

In this light the PFIWC Project estab-lished a stakeholder identification and selec-tion process based on the following condi-tions, assumptions, and attributes:

• A priority on stakeholder knowledge oflocal communities and their values;

• Stakeholders were selected because oftheir strong knowledge about fire and fire

management, but they were not necessar-ily professional, scientific “experts”;

• Stakeholders were engaged on the basis oftheir active participation in envisioning andcreating a civic conversation about fireimpacts and mitigation measures;

• Stakeholders were viewed as representingcommunities of place, having social,experiential, and historical knowledge of aparticular place, rather than as isolated,individual respondents who were merelysources of data or factual information;

• Local organizations were utilized to facili-tate stakeholder nomination and selectionprocess, and convened the focus groups, inorder to increase the capacity of individualcommunities and regions to collaboratewith fire management and education staffin the ongoing implementation of theNational Fire Plan;

• Stakeholders were asked about theirinterest in serving as monitors in subse-quent fire-risk reduction and educationefforts, if such opportunities were tobecome available in their community studyarea.

Engaging Stakeholders in a Context ofIncreased Collaborative Stewardship

71

Appendix C—Community Locations ofFocus GroupsFocus groups were held in five research study areas:

Area One - Northwest: (4)

Craig, Meeker, Rangely, Steamboat Springs,

47 participants

Area Two - North Mountains: (5)

Breckenridge, Hot Sulpher Springs, Kremmling, Silverthorne, Walden.

66 participants

Area Three - Central Mountain: (6)

Aspen, Avon, Eagle, El Jebel, Glenwood Springs, Rifle,

37 participants

Area Four - West-Central Valleys: (9)

Cedaredge, Grand Junction, Gunnison, Hotchkiss, Lake City, Montrose,Nucla, Telluride, Ridgeway.

85 participants

Area Five - Southwest: (5)

Cortez, Durango, Pagosa Springs, Silverton, Rico.

42 participants

• Twenty-nine communities hosted focus groups within 21 counties inwestern Colorado.

• Total number of participants was 277.

72

Appendix D—Short Biographical Sketchesof the Study Area Facilitators

The People and Fire in Western Colorado Project had the goodfortune of being able to rely upon five consultant facilitators. Withouttheir diligence and steady commitment it would not have been possibleto undertake a community-oriented, research project of this magnitude.

Brief sketches of their professional backgrounds are providedbelow. Obviously, they have many other skills and experiences than thisbrief summary allows.

Study Area One: Chuck Sperry conducted the focus groups inthe Northwest area. At that time he was a research consultant, associ-ated with the Rocky Mountain Center for Economic Democracy, anorganization he founded to address worker-owned business coopera-tives. Chuck has worked with the Office of Community Services onprevious research, in particular assisting with a series of communitygroup case studies that have been funded by the Economic AssistancePrograms of the US Forest Service (USFS) to improve communitysustainability. He has a background of work with the US Forest Ser-vice, having previously worked on the Grand Mesa-Uncompaghre-Gunnison National Forests. He has recently returned to work withthree national forests in Western Montana, which are undertaking amulti-forest planning effort. Chuck’s academic background ranges fromforestry, to economics, and group dynamics.

Study Area Two: Jack Taylor is a facilitator and mediator with theRocky Mountain Resource Center in Dillon, Colorado. He has con-ducted previous group and strategic planning work through the North-west Council of Governments, which sponsored the People and Fireresearch work in Area Two. In addition to his facilitation work, Jack isalso involved in court-sponsored mediation programs, which focus ondeveloping ways for offenders to compensate the persons or communi-ties that they have victimized. He is continuing to work with theNorthwest COG on community research and assessment, and willundoubtedly be able to assist with community fire mitigation andplanning in this area.

73

Study Area Three: Colin Laird is associated with Healthy Moun-tain Communities, located in Carbondale, Colorado. Colin is one of thefounders of the healthy communities movement in Colorado, whichaddresses the well-being of communities and regions on a multi-facetedbasis. In other words, a healthy community is one that has good educa-tional systems, access to health care, and is safe and sustainable, amongmany other factors. In this case, a community can be viewed as healthyif it has a fire mitigation and prevention education plan and actionstrategy. In the past Healthy Mountains Communities has been active inaffordable housing, regional transportation, and community planning.

Study Area Four: Jim Spehar is a private consultant, based inGrand Junction, Colorado. He has a background in organizationaldevelopment and planning. One of his previous experiences has beenin tourism development in rural areas, working to develop a westernColorado regional network, the Rural Resort Region, which aimed toaddress the social impacts in a regional resort economy. In this capacity,Jim has worked with many communities and local governments in thisregion. Jim also has a background in local government as a former MesaCounty Commissioner and is a member of the Grand Junction CityCouncil.

Study Area Five: Marsha Porter-Norton has also been involvedin the healthy communities movement, serving as the first executivedirector of Operation Healthy Communities in Durango, Colorado.Prior to returning to Southwest Colorado, her native home, Marshaworked in youth development in Denver. Her knowledge of SouthwestColorado, and her experience in coordinating several dozen healthycommunities initiatives, has enabled her to develop strong relationshipswith citizens, local governments, and civic leaders. Marsha has beenassociated with county fire planning in Southwest Colorado, in particu-lar facilitating the La Plata County Fire Plan. Besides her work on People

and Fire, she continues to be involved in fire mitigation demonstrationprojects and related prevention education activities for this region,through funding from the National Fire Plan.

Special Note: We also appreciate the organizational sponsorshipprovided in developing the community focus groups by the NorthwestCouncil of Governments, Gary Seversen, Executive Director, HealthyMountain Communities, Colin Laird, Executive Director, and thePainted Sky Resource and Conservation District, Rick Isom, ExecutiveDirector.

74

References

Books, articles, unpublished reportsFocus Groups Summaries, People and Fire in Western

Colorado. 2002. 29 focus groups divided into fivestudy areas. Durango, CO: Office of CommunityServices, Fort Lewis College.

Machlis, Gary, et al. 2002. Burning Questions: A socialscience research plan for Federal wildland firemanagement. National Wildfire CoordinatingGroup.

Wildland Fire Leadership Council, Fact Sheet, 6/18/02.

Swanson, Larry. 2001. The West’s Forest Lands: Mag-nets for new migrants and part-time residents.Changing Landscape. 2(1): 16-25.

WebsitesNational Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho, Fire

News Website, www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/nfn.html,source for acres burned by state by year.

Western Governors Association, www.westgov.org.

Office of Community Services, Fort Lewis College,Durango, Colorado, http://ocs.fortlewis.edu.

Colorado State Demographer’s Office web site,Department of Local Affairs, Denver, Colorado,census data source, http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog/demog/htm.