People and Fire in Western Colorado

Focus Group Attitudes, Beliefs, Opinions and Desires Regarding Wildfire in the Wildland-Urban Interface of Colorado’s West Slope

A Working Report

Prepared by the Office of Community Services Fort Lewis College Durango, Colorado Sam Burns, Research Project Coordinator Marsha Porter-Norton, Consultant/Research Associate Marcella Mosher, Research Assistant Tim Richard, Publication layout & design, editing for the Bureau of Land Management in conjunction with the National Fire Plan

April 2003

Office of Community Services Preface

This report on the People and Fire in Western offer community members and fire mitigation and Colorado Project is a working document. It is filled with management staff a menu of ways to strengthen the ideas and concerns of over 275 participants from 29 worthwhile efforts already underway. community focus or discussion groups throughout • Those of us who have worked on this community participation effort thus far look forward to Colorado’s western slope. The project’s staff and further discussions with those focused on improv- facilitators with the Office of Community Services and ing partnerships with communities. In this regard, partners in the Colorado Bureau of Land Management we anticipate conducting further dissemination call it a “working report” in order to encourage further of this working document in a variety of ways, to dialogue about its contents and potential applications. include further application-oriented interpretations In its “working” form, this report provides a starting of these findings. This report is online at point for communities, fire mitigation and prevention www.southwestcoloradofires.org. Other information is available at ocs.fortlewis.edu. personnel, emergency management officials, fire and natural resource managers, and policy makers, all of • The scope of this community involvement project did not permit us to carefully catalogue the many whom are playing critical roles in addressing catastrophic efforts currently underway in western Colorado wildfire, particularly in the wildland-urban interface. The under the auspices of the National Fire Plan and People and Fire In Western Colorado Working other fire mitigation and prevention processes. Report is not presented as a comprehensive answer for Our expectation is that the “working” ideas what any community must do to insure that it is becom- present here will enrich and strengthen the ing more “fire-adapted.” current activities of rural fire departments, community firesafe councils, public-land managers, What does it offer? Many opportunities, challenges and community officials, who are the critical and themes; among them the following: frontline resources for making our communities • A snapshot of the many ways that people see fire, more “fire-adapted.” painting a clearer picture of the diversity of ways • In the most basic and essential terms, the focus of that fire is viewed in western communities that the People and Fire Project can hopefully be a possess high percentages of public lands. This first step in a greater recognition of the gives those in similar situations a way to inventory human and social dimensions of catastrophic some of the contemporary human and social wildfire mitigation and management. While dimensions of fire and fire management. accepting it as a first step, we believe that opening • Many suggestions for enhancing future actions in the door wider to the perspectives and collabora- the area of wildfire mitigation and prevention tive actions of people and communities about education through a more integrated and commu- wildfire will benefit our mutual efforts and resolve. nity collaborative approach. As suggestions, they

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

Sam Burns Ronald Hodgson Project Coordinator Project Liaison Officer Office of Community Services Fire and Aviation Management Fort Lewis College Colorado Bureau of Land Management Durango, Colorado Lakewood, Colorado

The People and Fire in Western Colorado Project was funded by the National Fire Plan through Cooperative Assistance Agreement 1422 CAA010019 with the Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, September 2001 2 Contents

People and Fire in Western Colorado Introduction ...... 4 Fire and the Western Slope ...... 4 Historic Levels of Catastrophic Wildfire ...... 4 Fire and Communities ...... 5 Understanding the Western Slope “Community” ...... 6 Social Background of the Western Slope ...... 6 Descriptions of Five Study Areas ...... 7

Report of Findings ...... 15 A Special Methodological Observation...... 15 An Overview of Social Values ...... 15 Natural Cycles – Community Opportunity ...... 17 Four Fundamental Questions ...... 18 Question #1: How Do Westerners Define the Problem of Wildfire? ...... 18 Apathy or Irresponsibility ...... 18 Taking Our Chances–Or How Fire Risks are Perceived...... 20 Fire is Not a Problem to Some ...... 21 Forest Health and Restoration ...... 23 Growth and the Need for Public Policy ...... 26 Limitations on Agency Ability to Manage ...... 29 The Need for Interagency Collaboration ...... 30 Education & Communications Gaps ...... 32 Question #2: What Community Values are at Risk? ...... 35 Question #3: What Ideas for Action did Western Coloradoans Provide? ...... 38 Expand Community Capacity Through More Intensive Public Involvement ...... 38 Improving Community Dialogue about Fire...... 40 Economic Incentives and Disincentives are Needed, and There Could Be “Some Needed Regulations” ...... 42 Question #4: How Can Fire Education Messages be Most Effective? ...... 45 Who are the Audiences for the Messages? ...... 45 What are the Messages? ...... 46 What are the Methods for Delivering the Messages? ...... 49

Summary Reflections ...... 58

Appendices A—Map of Study Areas ...... 66 B—Research Methods ...... 67 Previous Community-Oriented Fire Research ...... 67 Stakeholder Selection ...... 68 Focus Group Questions ...... 69 Engaging Stakeholders in a Context of Increased Collaborative Stewardship ...... 70 C—Community Locations of Focus Groups ...... 71 D—Short Biographical Sketches of the Study Area Facilitators ...... 72

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

3 Introduction

Through this report we will share the results of some initial research on community perspectives about wildfire and fire management. We are hopeful that the perspectives and understandings of more than 275 persons in western Colorado, who participated in the group discussions hosted by this project, will raise awareness about the opportunities to engage local community resources and skills in fire mitigation and prevention.

Fire and the Western Slope

Historic Levels of Catastrophic Wildfire The wildfire season in 2002 reached historic levels. In the United States, 7.1 million acres burned, of which 5,450,932 acres occurred in the eight western states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. In Colorado, major wildfires, including the Hayman, Missionary Ridge, Burn Canyon, Big Fish, and Coal Seam, burned over 915,000 acres, caused the evacuation of 85,000 people, and burned 384 homes. While wildfire is expected to occur Southwest Colorado effort to build naturally to some degree in healthy ecosystems, the intensity and scope awareness of fire prevention needs and of wildland fire in recent years has become alarming. opportunites includes a series of community workshops and field trips. One major difference in recent fire patterns is the scale of occur- rences in what has become known as the wildland-urban interface, or that zone where human settlements adjoin forest or range lands. This fire pattern has caused higher levels of human evacuation. In most cases, the wildlands are publicly owned and managed, while adjacent to them are many new residences and commercial developments. Increas- ingly, growth in and around forested areas, in the mountains, along the Front Range urban corridor from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, and rural communities in western Colorado has increased the risk catastrophic wildfire in this zone. (See Larry Swanson, “The West’s Forest Lands: Magnets for New Migrants and Part-time Residents, 2001, on migration 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 these counties of 713,900, 481,400 can be attributed to net migration.)

4 . . . there is increasing awareness that the values, attitudes, and knowledge held by community members about natural and prescribed fire are key

Healthy Mountain Communities components for successful Fire and Communities strategies to mitigate cata- Over the past two years, efforts under what has become known as strophic wildfire. the National Fire Plan (NFP) have sought to engage communities more intensively in wildfire mitigation and education. The NFP involves many 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 local fire districts, and encouraging private landowner awareness and stewardship. A ten-year strategy has been adopted, endorsed by the Western Governors Association (WGA), entitled A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment. (See WGA website, www.westgov.org.) Four goals identified in this strategy are: “to improve fire prevention and suppression; to reduce hazardous fuels; to restore 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 at the local level “people from local government, state and federal agencies, 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 of community 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 interface. 5 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 community oriented inquiry undertaken by the People and Fire in Western Colorado study.

Social Background of the Western Slope Along 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 often referred to as the West Slope or western slope. It contains many small towns of about 500 to1000 residents, and several moderate sized cities Russ Brown like Delta, Montrose, Durango, and Glenwood Springs with populations There is hardly a commu- of 6,400, 12,344, 13,922, and 7,736 respectively. Grand Junction, the nity that does not have largest city at about 45,000 residents, is located in Mesa County with a total population of 119,281. (See the five study areas described below.) profound relationships with Scattered throughout the West Slope are millions of acres of an adjacent national forest, public lands. There is hardly a community that does not have profound relationships with an adjacent national forest, national park, or range- national park, or rangeland lands of the Bureau of Land Management. In many cases, the actual of the Bureau of Land founding of many communities occurred because of a mining, timber- Management. ing or ranching history. Even today the relationships continue, although the local economies have shifted in varying degrees towards outdoor recreation, 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

Rico, Colorado TimTim Richard Richard 6 linked to tourism, retirement communities, and recreation, there are vast areas of forest lands, wilderness, archaeological resources, rivers, mesas, and scenic vistas that are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. The unique landscapes and local attachments to wildlands underscore the need to assess the values and understandings of community members about fire, fire risk, and management over a wide array of local communities. This western and largely public-land environment, with its characteristics of and values for natural places and communities, provides an The unique landscapes important starting point for any discussion about people and fire. It and local attachments provides a cultural backdrop for community and citizen perspectives underscore the need to about catastrophic wildfire management and mitigation, especially with regard to the potential directions for expanding community involvement assess the values and un- and action. Clearly, whatever future actions are taken to develop collaborative, well- derstanding of community grounded fire mitigation and education strategies will need to take into account the traditions and beliefs of communities on the Western Slope. members about fire, fire risk and management over Descriptions of Five Study Areas a wide array of local com- Area One: The Northwest Study Area includes Routt, Moffat and munities. Rio Blanco counties. The western two-thirds of the area is largely high desert with sparse grass and brush with minimal forest cover except in the highest elevations, such as in the vicinity of Douglas Pass. East of Meeker and northeast of Craig, the land begins to grade into heavier forest cover on the White River and Routt National Forests; however, a wide zone of mixed farming and ranch lands persists along the Yampa River, between Craig and Steamboat Springs. Heavily forested mountains border Steamboat Springs on the north, east and southeast The area encompasses 10,344 square miles with total population of approximately 40,000 people. Population has grown by roughly 25 percent over the past decade; however, the distribution of growth is mixed, ranging from 15 to 20 percent in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties, to approximately 40 percent in Routt County. Not surprisingly, the most rapid population growth has occurred in the forested, mountain- ous areas, especially around Steamboat Springs. Rio Blanco County experienced a slight decrease in population from 6,061 in 1990 to 5,986 in 2000, while Moffat grew from 11,354 to 13,184, and Routt grew from 14,172 to 19,690. The growth in Routt County, where Steamboat Springs is located, seems largely due to recreation activities, notably winter sports, although the entire region is noted for its scenic, outdoor recreation opportunities such as fishing, hunting, and camping. While tourism is important throughout western Colorado, if one were to further characterize the economic cultures of northwest area communities, Rangely and Craig might be considered mainly ranching and energy (petroleum and coal) based. Agriculture and energy may also remain dominant around Meeker but there is an emerging sector involving in-migrants drawn by the desire to live in the forested moun- 7 tain slopes and canyons, east of town. In both Meeker and Steamboat Springs, fire managers have serious concerns about rapid development of high-value homes and businesses in interface zones with dense forest cover. Citizens of Routt County actually refer to at least three separate regions of the county by different names, North Routt, South Routt, and Steamboat Springs. Part of these distinctions may be rooted in separate fire protection districts; however, there is also an extreme economic contrast between the immediate Steamboat Springs area and the rest of the county. Steamboat Springs has a four-lane divided highway, large conference-style hotels, many very expensive homes, and the usual run of chain restaurants, high-end shops and other businesses typically found in destination ski areas. Moffat and Routt counties have taken significant steps to establish

BLM county fire plans. Moffat has focused on working with the ranching Moffat and Routt counties community to establish agreements with regard to allowing fires to burn on private rangelands. Routt has emphasized fire planning in connec- have taken significant steps tion with new subdivision development and county planning regula- to establish county fire tions. One of the four joint fire management centers is located in Craig, plans. Moffat has focused Colorado. Public lands are a dominant feature in the northwestern area, on working with the ranch- with Dinosaur National Monument located just northwest of Rangely, ing community to establish and portions of the White River and Routt National Forests located on the eastern side of the study area. All in all, the Northwest is a mixture agreements with regard to of ranching, energy production, public lands, and steadily growing allowing fires to burn on recreation communities. This social and economic continuum creates an array of interest in natural resources and fire management perspec- private rangelands. Routt tives. has emphasized fire planning in connection with Area Two: The Northwest Mountain area consists of three counties, Jackson, Grand and Summit. Here also there are several community new subdivision develop- types, ranging from ranching in and around Kremmling, to the rapidly ment and county planning growing recreation-based towns of Silverthorne, Dillon, Frisco, Montezuma, and Breckenridge. Because of their closeness to the regulations. Denver-metro region, the latter communities are weekend-recreation destination points. In a little over an hour or two, these areas are accessible to millions of people living along the Front Range from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs. Because of this, the recreation-oriented communities in Summit County quite often experience the perspectives of visitors from urban areas. While this has brought considerable economic 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 rural communities has produced some of the typical Old West-New West perspectives. For some residents, there is a sense of the area changing 8 too rapidly, of traditional ranching practices being lost, and rural values being overwhelmed by urbanites. For others the public concerns of proper planning, a functioning urban infrastructure, and economic sustainability are priorities. Between 1990 and 2000, Summit County, in the heart of winter ski country, grew in population from 12,939 to 23,548, or annual growth rate of 6.2 percent. In the same decade, Grand County increased its size from 8,006 to 12,442 at an average rate of 4.5 percent. These are very high rates of growth, with Summit County more than doubling its population in 10 years. This was due in large measure to recreational- industry-driven growth, and second-home-related amenity growth. In contrast, Jackson County, farther to north, and outside the I-70, mountain recreation-access corridor, declined very slightly in the 1990’s by 20 residents from 1597 to 1577. With regard to public lands and fire management, a memorandum Bob Lockard of agreement between the White River National Forest has emerged Coal Seam Fire near Glenwood Springs with many of the counties and municipalities in the area, under the June 2002. leadership of the Northwest Council of Governments, located in located in Silverthorne, Colorado. In January of 2003, a fuel reduction initiative was announced, to be coordinated through this community- public land partnership. This effort has significant potential for establishing a framework for future collaboration regarding hazardous fuel reduction.

Area Three: The Central Mountain study area covers the counties of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin, an area of approximately 5,400 square miles running from the headwaters of the Continental Divide in central Colorado to the Utah boarder. These counties contain significant public lands, including much of the White River National Forest, which is the fifth most visited national forest in the U.S. The forest contains major winter recreational areas (Aspen, Snowmass, Buttermilk, Vail, Beaver Creek), seasonal attractions (hunting, snowmobiling, cross country skiing) and summer attractions (fishing, backpacking, hiking, four-wheel driving, horseback riding, mountain biking, etc.). Garfield County contains significant land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The western end of the county is experiencing a rapid increase in natural gas drilling. Resort development during the 1990’s, and the second home market fueled by this development, have resulted in significant growth in the region. Garfield County’s population grew approximately 45% during the last decade, while Eagle County’s population grew nearly 90% over the same timeframe – making these two of the fastest growing rural counties in the Intermountain West. In the face of pressures from rapid growth and the resort economy, the rural landscape is changing quickly. The ranching and farming areas that once separated communities and provided a buffer 9 between residential areas and public lands are subdividing for development purposes. The development of multi-million dollar homes, once limited to close proximity to the resort communities, has spread from the valley floor to the mesas and hillsides adjacent to public lands. In fact, both Eagle and Garfield Counties have seen a significant increase in persons living outside towns and municipalities. Although this increase in unincorporated population is not all within the urban/ In some instances, com- wildland interface next to public lands, these numbers illustrate the munity perspectives reveal public interest in living outside of town centers. a readiness to increase The increasing population in the wildland/urban interface has many community members concerned. Whether the concern is lack of local preparedness. In fire protection in certain areas of a county, lack of community under- others there are noticeable standing of wildfire, or the effectiveness of wildfire mitigation, this region epitomizes the challenges of wildfire in western Colorado – a resistances to any action growing number of people in high wildfire hazard areas and limited that might be perceived as community adoption of wildfire mitigation measures. a “mandate or regulation.” County Pop. 1980 Pop. 1990 Pop. 2000 Garfied 22,514 29,974 43,791 Eagle 13,320 21,928 41,659 Pitkin 10,338 12,661 14,872

Incorporated vs. Unincorporated Population by County 1990 2000 Eagle Incorporated 11,291 20,087 Unincorporated 10,637 21,572

Garfield Incorporated 16,855 24,446 Unincorporated 13,119 19,345

Pitkin Incorporated 6,624 8,465 Unincorporated 6,037 6,407

Area Four: The West-Central Valley area was settled because of opportunities in ranching and mining. Many of the early settlers arrived in the area shortly before the Utes were removed to Utah in 1881. Today there is still coal mining in the North Fork of the Gunnison Valley, while all the uranium mining in what has been called the Westend has halted. Hard rock mining in Crested Butte and Telluride is now non-existent, having been replaced by skiing and other mountain recreation. As documented by the Painted Sky Resource and Conserva- tion District, the result has been a been a whole set of issues related to exponential growth: 10 • 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- For some residents there is dency on a single, major economic sector, tourism. sense of the area changing Residents have a great deal of concern about issues that affect too rapidly, of traditional their locality and traditional life style. They wish that growth would not overwhelm their quality of life. While agriculture has historically been a ranching practices being stabilizing influence on the economy, lately lower commodity prices, lost, and rural values being higher labor costs, and drought have created significant difficulties. The overwhelmed by urbanites. number of people employed in agriculture dropped about 30 percent between 1990 and 1995. For others the public con- In some circles it is understood that growth in tourism employ- cerns of proper planning, a ment is replacing commodity-oriented jobs, which have been dependent on natural resources. While this is true in sheer numbers of jobs, it is functioning urban infra- not when it comes to wages. Commodity-based jobs–for example, in structure, and economic mining–approached $18-19 per hour, while tourism based jobs are sustainability are priorities. closer to $7-8 an hour. Since public lands comprise nearly 70 percent of the total land base of the west-central valleys, the sustainability of the communities in this region is deeply tied to their future use and well-being. The landscape is dominated by high-forested mesas and mountains, such as the Grand Mesa and the Uncompahgre Plateau, and by a series of watersheds formed by the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and San Miguel rivers. As significant population growth occurs, everything within these physical 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 is coordinating efforts in its service area, which includes most of the 11 counties in Study Area Four. The Montrose Interagency Fire Dispatch Center is facilitating a coordinated fire mitigation and prevention effort among the jurisdictions in this region.

Area Five: The Southwest Colorado area contains five counties in southwest Colorado, namely Archuleta, Dolores, La Plata, Montezuma and San Juan counties. The region encompasses 6,584 square miles, 6.3 percent 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 private lands and 17 percent are tribal lands. Geographically the area is located in a transitional zone between the southwestern edge of the Rocky Mountains and the eastern edge of the Colorado Plateau. The population within the five counties (80,071 in 2000) has grown about 36 percent from 1990 to 2000. Much of this growth can be attributed to what is being termed “amenity migration.” Newcomers are moving in to take advantage of the area’s unique natural resources, quality of life, and other amenities that the region offers. Many of these newcomers are retirees or second-home owners that bring along their pensions and other retirement benefits. This “new” money affects the local economy as it is spent on new homes and goods and services. Also, many of these urban refugees are flocking to the urban interface where rapid development is occurring. Population growth has affected land use and fire planning as well as the overall economic picture of the region. Most of the growth has occurred 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 provide services such as fire protection, water and sewer, and infrastructure improvements such as new schools and transportation systems to newly annexed commercial and residential areas. The local governments are searching for ways to set spending priorities in the face of decreasing property tax revenues resulting from projected declines in oil and gas production (as resources are depleted). Historically, industries such as mining, agriculture and forestry formed the base supporting the local economy. Currently, the historic major industries of mining, agriculture and forestry provide less than four percent of employment earnings in the regional economy. These base industries have been replaced over time by tourism. Jobs relating to tourism accounted for 24 percent (12,406 jobs) of total employment in 2000. Tourism employment, relating to publics lands, including skiing, outdoor recreation and touring, provided 14 percent of total employment in the region. The Archuleta and La Plata county economies are based primarily on tourism and retail trade. Agriculture related services and forestry remain significant sources of employment for 12 certain parts of the region, especially Dolores and Montezuma counties. Since the closure of the Sunnyside Mine in Silverton, San Juan County is almost entirely dependent on income and employment generated from tourism. The reliance of the regional economy on the beauty and overall health of private and public lands was illustrated during the devastating wildfire season of 2002, dominated by the Missionary Ridge Fire that ignited on June 9, just north of Durango. (A total of 70,085 acres The population within the burned.) Many local businesses experienced losses as a result of down- five counties [in southwest turns in the tourist industry. People living in the wildland urban inter- Colorado] (80,071 in 2000) face areas experienced loss of homes and personal property as the fires swept through unincorporated areas. This tragedy has served to create a has grown 36 percent from heightened awareness of the need for wildfire mitigation plans, and 1990 to 2000. Much of this support for community education programs. In 2001-2002, significant efforts were made to identify high fire growth can be attributed to risk areas in the five counties of Southwest Colorado. As a result each what is being termed county formulated a county fire plan, which can be accessed on line at “amenity migration.” www.southwestcoloradofires.org. Several fuel treatment and education projects are currently underway. For example see a special series of events entitled “What are you waiting for?” held in conjunction with Wildfire Prevention and Education month, April 2003. (Further info is available at www.sjma.org.) Tim Richard Tim

The Missionary Ridge Fire of 2002 near Durango burned 70,085 acres at different levels of intensity, about 20 percent severely. 13 Mesa Verde Fire Summer 2000

James Dietrich

14 Report of Findings

A Special Methodological Observation As 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 29 communities, who participated in discussion groups from June to Coming up with clear and December 2002. These persons were not chosen as a “representative” sample of community residents, and therefore their responses should not innovative ideas about be viewed from a quantitative research perspective. working with communities Instead, they were chosen because they had a strong (perhaps above average) understanding of their own communities, and at the is the ultimate objective of same time had some awareness of and interest in reducing the risk of this research. catastrophic wildfire. They might be described as an “informed public”. Nevertheless, their responses are very valuable when looked upon as a range of viewpoints, not a final consensus perspective. They provide us a mosaic of viewpoints, rather than a narrow-range of conclusions. From a social analysis perspective, they are extremely insightful in qualitative research terms. Their value is in defining the broad landscape of community understanding, desires, and capacity to engage in more intensive civic and public processes of dialogue and action, fire mitigation and prevention. Their importance is that they give us insights, clues, and opportunities for enhancing partnerships in local or community-based situations. They present a palette of opportunities and alternatives or a menu for 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 Values During the People and Fire in Western Colorado (PFIWC) focus groups, many statements were made that offer insights into the general characteristics of the communities and cultures in western Colorado.

15 People recognize that change is occurring in the nature of many communities, and therefore that the relationships to forested ecosystems also need to be addressed and planned for. They especially notice the high rates of population growth, the urban perspectives of newcomers, and local desires for autonomy or independence. They recognize the tensions among various interests, fragility of the dry landscapes, and the vastness of the west relative to available fire fighting resources. They especially notice the The regional characteristics, understandings, and values mentioned high rates of population during the focus groups hosted by the People and Fire Project, present a growth, the urban perspec- socio-cultural continuum of perspectives about future community fire mitigation and education work. Following are among those highlighted: tives of newcomers, and local desires for autonomy Growth: · A pattern of rapid population growth. and independence. · Changes in building locations from relatively safe areas to risky sites. · Urban newcomers are flocking to SW Colorado, creating rapid growth in the urban interface.

Public Land and Quality of Life: · A high percentage of public land, ranging from 60-90 percent in the 21 counties. · The existence of this high percentage of public land is also a driving factor 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 enjoy whatever vegetation there is in an often-stark landscape.

Desire for Local Control: · A preference for a sense of local control and a resistance to mandates exists. · 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 been some requests to look at regulatory issues again. · There is a “live and let live” attitude in this region, making proactive policy 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 Forest Service. 16 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 are viewed by many as a potential solution to fuels build up; i.e., post Missionary Ridge Fire, June 2002. “Attention spans are short.” · 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, the public 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 timeliness for community outreach efforts. · Attention spans are short. The current focus on wildfire issues could wane quickly with a lot of winter moisture or the emergence of another big issue.

Simply recognizing that a significant range of perspectives does exist can raise our awareness of certain characteristics and conditions, as well as constraints or limitations, when addressing catastrophic wildfire mitigation and education. In some instances, community 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.” People have a sense of timeliness about potential action, and are concerned that the “window of opportunity” will soon begin to close as people forget the wildfire season of 2002. Such descriptive assessments as these can provide a range of social beliefs 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 reinforce the clear need for ongoing collaborative partnerships with local communities in fire mitigation and management, in order to arrive at a level of common understanding needed for concerted action.

17 Four Fundamental Questions

Question #1: How Do Westerners Define the Problem of Wildfire?

In the focus groups, we started off with the fundamental question of how people in western Colorado define the problem of catastrophic Pam Wilson wildfire. In fact, do people think that wildfire is a problem? If it is a “In the Missionary Ridge problem, what are its roots and components? If it is not a social or Fire, our firefighters spent community concern, why not? What types of people do not see wildfire as a problem? most of their time saving By starting with how people describe wildfire, how it affects them structures. If that energy and their communities, we believe we will be in a better position to could have gone into put- understand what might be done about it, especially in close concert with local individual or community efforts. Coming up with clear and innovative ting the fire out, we would ideas about working with communities is the ultimate objective of this research. not have the disaster that 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 in we had,” one local Western Colorado. (In each of the following sections, the bulleted firefighter lamented. items, which appear after short introductory paragraphs, are taken directly from the comments of participants in the discussion groups. In some cases, the participant’s statement was slightly edited in order to create a complete, declarative thought, while retaining their essential words and meaning.)

Apathy or Irresponsibility Focus group participants consistently expressed that the problem of fire in the wildland-urban interface reflects an apathetic attitude among people living there. Some group participants concluded that anyone who does not recognize the dangers of catastrophic wildfire after the last several summers is just “apathetic.” This apathy also means that the person is not acting according to societal norms, and is therefore 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” anything. How do we reach them? 18 · Apathy: Many people just don’t care. There is a recognition that any fire prevention done will not be heard or acted up by “x” percentage of the public. · The primary barrier to a community discussion is an uninformed and apathetic 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 or human 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 (“they let 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 objective of fire prevention education is to overcome what looks much like apathy on the part of many residents, property owners, and sometimes community leaders and officials. For many folks, it is practically a general assumption, 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 this common sense attitude or social norm. This is frustrating to many observers, and appears to trigger one of the emotive responses among those who deeply feel that wildfire is a serious problem. This is also what can be understood as the “normative” aspect of community perceptions about the wildfire problem. By normative we mean that certain behaviors in a particular social setting are expected. Just as we might expect a doctor or a postman or an automobile driver to act according to certain normative rules, community members and resource managers/fire mitigation staff have expectations about what people ought to do to protect their property from fire, to be responsible to their neighborhoods, and so on. So, there are the social rules and norms, an appropriate or inappropriate response (as perceived), and either frustration or optimism among those who believe there is a correct or incorrect way of protecting oneself and the community from fire.

19 Taking Our Chances–Or How Fire Risks are Perceived Going somewhat deeper, some people understand that different “perceptions of risk” exist, and that these depend on many ecological and social factors. When a person or neighborhood does not sense a high enough level of risk, then for them there is “not” an immediate problem, and therefore there is usually not enough motivation to take defensive action. Very often, focus group participants described a very low perception of risk on the part of citizens and leaders, which might in part explain what also looks like apathy to others: · People think of it as something “out there” that will never directly impact them. · The general attitude among residents of rural areas is “It won’t happen Glenwood Springs Post Independent to me.” “Some people have to be · There’s no real feeling of impact until a fire is nearby. · People don’t get concerned until the fire is next door. in crisis before acting . . . · People feel “It will happen someplace else to someone else.” People don’t get concerned · There is a lack of a grasp of fire risk. until the fire is next door.” · 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 structures and wildlands. · It can’t happen to us attitude (Panorama Fire, on a bench between Basalt and Carbondale, was a huge wake-up call for folks because the fire was intense and spread quickly through a large fuel loading of grass/sage). Houses were damaged that had oak brush right next to them and wood shake shingles. · Many have always believed that we have “asbestos forests” – especially those who live at higher elevations (e.g. Rico and Silverton) – they simply do not think a wildfire could hit their communities. · People choose to ignore situations like Los Alamos–“it will never happen to me” mentality. · There is a lack of concern about fire issues on the part of county commissioners

One of the reasonable conclusions about these comments is that perception of risk is something that a person may have to experience. The fire has to be on the front door step, so to speak, in order to trigger a defensive reaction. · Some people have to be in crisis before acting. · Most in the community ignore the issue until fire is headed their way.

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

Furthermore, personal and community awareness rises dramatically 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 raise There were numerous awareness. comments to the effect that · Community interest in wildfire issues has increased substantially because of proximity to the Missionary Ridge fires (near Durango) this past there is a lack of public season. understanding about the · Attention spans are short. The current focus on wildfire issues could wane quickly with a lot of winter moisture or the emergence of another nature and role of fire and big issue. the objectives of fire man- · The events of this summer still didn’t get everyone’s attention. agement. Whatever the ultimate utility of statements such as these, it would appear that some people characterize the lack of “fire wise behavior” as a sign of apathy or irresponsibility. Still others have a related tendency to evaluate 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 at risk, when they can’t or haven’t “experienced” it for themselves? Do people have to see the fire before they are willing to act? Obviously, the quandary is often that then it might be too late! It further raises landscape questions about the “appropriate” Sam Burns location of a wildland-urban interface in both social and ecological An educational field trip in a post-fire burn area on the West Slope. terms: is it realistic to designate the interface at exactly the point where residences and businesses physically join the forest? Does such a location take into account the distances needed to create “community safety,” when that may need to be calculated on low, and partially uninformed, public risk assessments? And should its location address the large-scale landscapes required to sustain urban watersheds, which we will take up in a later section on community values at risk?

Fire is Not a Problem to Some Since 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 group participants did describe the sort of persons for whom wildfire is not a concern or issue. The general perspective was that people who truly do not see wildfire as a problem are not very well acquainted with the situation in western Colorado, or they represent a certain kind of 21 “environmental” interest that sees fire differently. Participants more or less felt that if you don’t live here, or have limited experience with western forests, you might be able come to the conclusion that there is no wildfire problem. Here are the folks mentioned as not seeing wildfire as a problem: · Environmentalists believe that wildfire is a natural phenomenon and therefore is not a problem. · Second-home owners are not here enough to see/experience the problem. · People unfamiliar with local issues and concerns, especially Easterners. · Environmental groups that think wildfire is an answer to a problem, not a problem in itself. · Preservationists. Carla Harper · Only recently has wildfire been perceived as a problem, while the risk The ponderosa pine zone in southwest has been there for quite some time. Colorado is charaterized by a dense overgrowth that surpasses the range of Recognizing that these views are present is important because natural variability. Many people value this there is indeed a breadth of community opinion about the role of fire, condition as “natural,” but many don’t realize it is at risk of catastrophic and also about what should be done to properly manage it, if at all. wildfire, and insect and disease outbreaks, This diversity of viewpoints raises the concern that there is often a which threaten overall stability of the degree of tension between the perspectives of “local” folks and those forest. from a different part of the state or region, even those who have taken up residence, but are not perceived as true “local” folks. These are not necessarily folks who think there is a problem and then choose to ignore it, that is, those described earlier as being merely apathetic, or not believing there is a high level of risk. Rather, these are people who see wildfire from a broader scale, ecological, ecosystem orientation, or some other perspective. The larger question is: what role can and should they play within a collaborative fire planning and management process, when local communities are struggling with what appears to them to be real and catastrophic fire risks? Obviously, such a variation in perspectives can occur within most any community, or because of external interests. This sort of opposition in perspectives sometimes exists to such a degree that common actions to achieve fire mitigation and prevention objectives are constrained or blocked, either within the urbanizing area or among resource managers. There are also times when community members do not agree on whose responsibility it is to work on the wildfire concern. This can confuse the “problem defining process” to a significant degree. · Everyone is deferring responsibility –people point to “others” as the problem 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 are responsible. 22 Occasionally, someone will express a perspective that, while obvious in some respects, has a significant degree of fundamental validity, such as the following: · Everyone is responsible for reducing risk. · Without direct effect on the community (emphasis added), proper attention is not paid to wildfire. Should wildfire prevention Statements like these last two bring home some of the basic truths and mitigation address the and difficult ironies in many community understandings about cata- values that society places strophic wildfire. For instance, if you take a more inclusive community perspective about the hazards and challenges of wildfire management, on healthy forests, not then it is not much easier to see that it really is “everyone’s responsibil- safety alone or primarily? 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, Would greater attention to requiring the development of new collaborative, forest stewardship forest health in basic his- perspectives and skills, that are sometimes unfamiliar to certain commu- torical and ecological nities or neighborhoods. At the same time, if there is little or no real perception of “wild- terms, and immediate fuel fire effects on the community,” then you can’t even get enough atten- reduction needs, facilitate a tion paid to make it seem like a problem at all, certainly not one with any serious impacts. Then wildfire seems to be reduced to a “problem” more immediate and vis- just for the individual property owner. And, even though they might ible sense of progress? take action with regard to a moderate-sized hazardous fuel area, they cannot make their neighborhood safe or fire-adapted by themselves. When catastrophic wildfires, not fires that burn in natural ways and contribute to the health of ecosystems, are reduced to being the problems of the individual property owners, and are not a concern to the part-time resident or the “easterner” or the “preservationist”, or anyone else for that matter, then we obviously have the makings of an enormous “community” constraint. We have a situation that will require considerable leadership, community building, and collaboration, if anything resembling a common, civic solution can be forged.

Forest Health and Restoration While the responsibilities of individual property owners to address wildfire risk was consistently mentioned, this perspective was quite often balanced with the broader ecological perspective of addressing forest health. For example, note was made that there has been a “failure to do enough timber removal; there has been a lack of fuel reduction; and decades of fire suppression have upset natural cycles.” “And there has been excessive fuel build-up.” Such commentary reflects a theme among some participants that past events and practices, which have modified or undermined natural forest conditions, have contributed significantly to creating the fire problem. 23 Many ecological factors were mentioned: · These are fire adapted ecosystems that become hazardous when fire is excluded. · It’s hot and dry in our valleys – fire happens. · Drought issues and a spruce budworm infestation are aggravating factors in wildland and wildfire management. · Catastrophic wildfire permanently damages soil whereas ‘natural’ burns are 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.

San Juans Public Land Center There were numerous comments to the effect that there is a lack of “Explain how fire is an public understanding about the nature and role of fire and the objectives of fire management. The specific reasons for this limited public understanding integral part of the land- included the following: “poor understanding of land and forest; a lack scape – that’s just the way it of grasp of fire risk; a lack of knowledge of threat and loss; underesti- is (like rain in Seattle).” mating the adverse economic impacts of fire; e.g., sediments, noxious weeds, and water quality; and people not understanding the difference between high intensity and low intensity fires.” · More people moving in from more urban areas (to get a place in the woods) 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 other thinning measures.

Conversely, improving individual and community knowledge and understanding about forest health and restoration appears to be a significant concern. The message appears to be: give higher priority to information about forest conditions, such as hazardous fuel build-up, or what a healthy forest looks and functions like, and then there could be greater motivation for actions to reduce fire risks. Specific information initiatives suggested about forest and fire ecology were: · There needs to be an educational effort regarding the distinctions between types of fires. · Emphasize positive ecological benefits of fire. · The public agencies have not done a good enough job of answering the why questions: Why are prescribed burns important? How do they enhance forest health? How do they prevent catastrophic fire? The public is a lot more willing to accept controlled burns if they have more information. · Explain how fire is an integral part of the landscape – that’s just the way it is (like rain in Seattle). · The attitude that wildfire is bad needs to change to value wildfire as a tool to increase forest health and as an appropriate management tool. 24 · There is a lack of understanding that the forests almost completely burn every “x” 100 years. People don’t know this. · People living in alpine environments (Silverton and Rico) did not think they were at risk before the Missionary Ridge Fire…now, they realize there is a problem. · Newcomers are not taught about living in the West. Many move here and have no idea about how to interact with or live appropriately in a semi-arid desert environment. Many of these people want to do the right 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 complex issue of forest health and restoration needs to become a part of fire mitigation and prevention strategies, in order to reframe wildfire as more than a personal safety issue. Put another way, if wildfires are merely defined in terms of their impacts on personal life and property, rather than through the more systemic issues of ecosystem health and restoration, then the public and personal concerns can be reduced to a given person’s “risk assessment,” which, as we have already noted, can be fraught with many misconceptions. In some cases, the unintended consequence of prevention messages about high risk appears to be: “I’ll take my chances.” Whereas, if the issue is framed by longer-term, ecosystem health, or a broader interest in sustainable forests, then perhaps the dialogue can be elevated to 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 a critical value, it has often failed to motivate strong and consistent personal or community action. In contrast, focus group participants recommend forest health and restoration as additional concerns. Could these not become additional motivating factors towards the broader goal of land stewardship and thereby be another means of achieving greater 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 catastrophic event that may or may not strike in five, 10, 20, or 30 years?

25 Growth and the Need for Public Policy Sprawl, poor land-use planning, and inadequate, or non-existent, zoning and codes were often cited as root causes and contributing factors to catastrophic wildfires threatening western Colorado’s communities and people. With the rapid growth western Colorado is experiencing, more and more subdivisions and homes are now built in the urban/wilderness interface. This adds to thousands of structures that were already constructed 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. Healthy Mountain Communities “More people are moving Participants articulated that policy change is not just needed at the federal level with regard to thinning, logging, prescribed burning, but out into the urban inter- that fairly significant policy shifts are called for at the county and face.” municipality levels. Many in the groups believe that new policies need to 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 only recently allowed composite materials). · Poor choice of construction materials (should have more requirements for 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 of what 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 us to act now to prevent a worse problem later.

“In the Missionary Ridge Fire, our fire fighters spent most of their time saving structures. If that energy could have gone into putting the fire out, we would not have the disaster that we had,” one local firefighter lamented. “If you allow sprawl, then you’re encouraging fire to threaten communities,” a municipal land use planner noted. 26 · There is too much territory for our equipment and number of men (to cover).

There were many areas of critique about local policies. For example, some existing land-use policies have the unintended consequence of exacerbating fire risk, such as the one encouraging building in 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 access The suggestions seem to roads, making it risky for local fire departments to fight fires. Most be focused on the opportu- counties do not require new development lots to be defensible before they are sold. Some were critical of the county fire bans passed this nities for dialogue, coop- summer—“…they were too few, too late and not advertised,” one erative action, and long- person said. term buy-in to an inte- A statewide policy issue, mentioned several times, is that county governments do not have much say in developments over 35 acres. So, grated program. if proactive fire policies were widely passed, they would still not affect the land being developed as 35-acre ranchettes. There was also comment about the need for a better fire marshal system: · Sheriffs should not be fire wardens in Colorado. They are elected officials to be cops not fire officials. More dialogue about wildfire would happen if fire warden was a separate position and didn’t have all the other policing issues to worry about. · The county sheriff is the fire marshal and responsible for all lands outside of fire districts—the knowledge and experience gained by sheriffs 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 become proactive, such as Archuleta County, which requires new development to have in/out access roads, and to be defensible. Ouray County is moving slowly on subjects like metal roofs and other construction requirements. There was concern about the formation and support of rural fire districts: · Teach homeowners/realtors how to get into a fire district (subdivisions usually choose not to enter). · We need to have a discussion on what people want in terms of fire protection. · 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 local governments are not willing to pass stringent policies, for whatever 27 reasons, some felt they should have to pay for firefighting costs. How- ever, given that western Colorado communities have historically been resistant 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 get density bonuses for improving access and for implementing putting in “fire safe lots,” a rancher noted. It appears that inherent Some of the other specific ideas for county policies, as put forth within these concerns is by the focus group participants, are: the need for clarity about · Ban any buildings in the urban interface and on hillsides over “x %” slope. whether fire is bad all the · Require developers of new subdivisions to build in/out access roads. time or just under such and · Require developers to make new lots “defensible.” such conditions, and con- · Require that the Uniform Building Code be in effect everywhere (versus select counties who choose to adopt it). versely that fire is a natural · Require formal homeowner subdivisions to do education about defen- process, and therefore it sible space. · Pass codes with enforcement provisions. ought to be used appropri- · Allow fire departments to more easily “red line” entire subdivisions that ately. are 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 for firefighting costs in the urban interface.

28 · Planning departments and planning commissions need to examine a proposal for “firewise” characteristics. Commissions throughout the county should meet to discuss joint standards.

Given that attendees said local governments play a major role in fire and emergency management, and given that western Colorado has a history of resisting punitive land-use regulations, perhaps a sound guiding 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 property rights while balancing community risks; and, need to have ongoing enforcement mechanisms.

Limitations on Agency Ability to Manage Tim Richard Public agencies, primarily federal land-management entities, due to “There aren’t enough of the myriad laws they are accountable to, and the nature of big organiza- these kinds of tables for tional systems, are often unable to manage the forest in ways that even they themselves believe to be appropriate. In some cases, they suffer people to get around and from what some have begun to call “analysis paralysis.” These condi- talk about these things, and tions lead to the perception, some felt, that the agencies do not do the logical things required to prevent or fight fire: work them out.” · Federal agencies are not permitted to manage public land resources due to politics. · Congress needs to change policies to allow federal agencies to manage public land resources for fire prevention (which includes logging and Would further awareness prescribed burns). · Fear of liability leads to over-suppression and failure to promote and and discussion of this fund long-term solutions. situation lead to some · Current policy allows people with no perspective on wildfire to impact forest management policies that lead to risk. willingness to provide · There is overemphasis on the impact of federal laws on wildlife. these land agencies with · There’s a lack of financial resources needed to deal with the problem the tools they need to factors that affect public agency ability to manage fire. manage more “appropri- The important message from this segment of the discussion is that ately,” especially with there is some community understanding of the “limitations” under regard to reducing the risk which the land management agencies, particularly at the federal level, are operating. Would further awareness and discussion of this situation lead to of catastrophic wildfire? 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 to getting wildfire mitigation work done on the ground. A lot of frustration was expressed over the polarization and multi-turf and agency dilemmas that occur over prescribed burns and thinning. Generally, 29 attendees knew that thinning, logging and burning are tools needed to reduce risk. Frustration was expressed, however, over the seemingly stalled 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. Tim Richard “ ‘Improving interagency Overcoming these barriers will require a combination of public consensus building, streamlining policy and regulations, and developing collaboration’ was often economic capacities to reduce hazardous fuels while utilizing the result- cited as a goal and talked ant forest products efficiently and sustainably. about in many forms. Too, there were a lot of instances The Need for Interagency Collaboration where local ‘interagency’ In general, the participants in the focus groups recognize that preventing and fighting wildfire is a very complex endeavor, involving collaboration was cited as not only private sector homeowners, builders and businesses, but also being ‘quite good.’ ” local, state and federal agencies. “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.” An overarching theme is the extent to which all of the agencies need to be talking to each other, being efficient with resources, and communicating with the public · Better coordination (is needed) between local, state, and federal agencies.

The way that actual fires are fought “on the ground” is probably the most visible way that inter-agency work can be improved, many said. When an actual fire breaks out, there are sometimes questions about who reports the fire, who will manage it, who pays for what, and who responds first. Once the fire is out, there are also cross-jurisdictional issues in implementing post-fire recovery and rehabilitation efforts. There was recognition that public agencies’ abilities to collaboratively manage fires are hampered by factors out of their control, ranging from under-funding to “…stupid or unnecessary laws” to a litigious culture. Pragmatic things like lack of road access, the

30 isolation of many communities, and too few fire fighting resources were also registered as affecting “interagency collaboration.” · No one agency (is) in control or responsible for the fire issue—multiple agency coordination (is) required. · DOW (is) against wildfire mitigation and prescribed burns because of perceived negative wildlife impact. · (Communities are) surrounded by public lands with little control of how they are managed for fire.

The nature and complexity of human and community relationships in the wildland-urban interface comes into play in many ways. Gone are the days of clear roles between “federal fires” and “local fires.” On the Missionary Ridge and Hayman fires, for example, the resources of virtually every federal, state and local agency had to be called upon and coordinated. Folks seemed to believe that inevitably, there are problems when so many organizations try to fight a fire. An example 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…and could have been stopped if we (the local fire districts) could have done our job.” Another issue mentioned is that agencies’ effectiveness is stymied when they do not understand which community resource or value deserves priority protection. This sends an overwhelming message to fire fighting entities: everything must be saved. Clearly, in most instances this is not realistic. Communities need to clarify, articulate, and prioritize if possible, the values and sites of highest status relative to fire suppression, mitigation, and protection. This local assessment then needs to be shared with all the governmental and resource management agencies in the region. While funding alone does not foster collaboration, it does help. The local volunteer fire departments, especially, reported quite often that they just do not have the resources. Most in the discussion groups were highly sympathetic to the local fire departments’ money problems and maybe less so with the state and federal agencies’ lack of funding. Many in the process reported that, “If we can give local departments more resources to educate and involve the public, they are the most trusted folks to do the job.” Another local interagency issue is the need for county governments 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 county policy has been placed in this report. It seems ultimately that if “interagency” actions are to improve, 31 “...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 agencies require that the BLM and USFS fire managers, as well as state and local agencies and policy makers, participate in the dialogue. People in the focus groups, generally, seemed to relish the opportunity to talk about the issue of fire. “We need continuity with Thus, maybe a future action step is to somehow continue some agencies across time.” form of community dialogue and then carry out subsequent actions designed by all of the interest groups, groups who do not normally mix except 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 are dealing with public policy.

In essence there is a call for programmatic changes in actions within 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 is needed.

While this can be interpreted in several ways, we sense that the concerns are not with the quality or performance of agency staff nearly as much as they are with the manner in which fire mitigation and prevention resources should be utilized to overcome “turfism,” and create 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 Gaps One 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 let you know that if a fire comes through here we can’t save your house. There’s not enough defensible space.”

32 In a later section of this report, a more detailed analysis of messages content, desired audiences, and educational approaches will be presented. In this section, we will describe how focus group participants believe communication gaps or deficiencies are a part of the wildfire problem. While in one sense these shortcomings contribute to a lack of public understanding of fire and its consequences, there are other negative results of limited, confused, or contradictory communication or education. Consider the following confusion about messages: · USFS objectives are unclear and this contributes to confusion in the community. · 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 Bear campaign – we need to shift the paradigm. · There is denial on the part of those doing education to recognize that previous 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 really necessary?). · There’s a lack of understanding of the ongoing risk of wildfire (this is the West; we have wildfires).

These sorts of concerns go to the heart of fire prevention education by noting that there is confusion about the fundamental resource management objective relative to fire. Is fire useful, or acceptable, or totally inappropriate? Is the traditional message of personal fire prevention comprehensive enough? When and where can fire be useful? 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 conversely that fire is a natural process, and therefore it ought to be used appropriately. Can communities begin to see themselves needing to be more fire adapted, ecologically and socially? This would require a wholly different consciousness about the nature of fire and its role in the ecosystem. It would mean that a community would need to develop ways to live safely with fire, rather than merely hope it never strikes us, or reject its presence at all costs. The media is another concern. Because it would appear that media can play such an important role throughout the natural and catastrophic fire process, from pre-fire readiness to post-fire community recovery, it is essential that its role and activities be utilized appropriately. 33 · 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 often enough. · The media needs to deal with fire in a more complex way.

While some participants felt that there are enough fire education “There are misconcep- materials available, several others expressed that they were not as tions of what Firewise accessible as they need to be: landscaping is all about · Another problem is the lack of information available to the public regarding fires, forest management and successes in stopping fires. (people think it means you just cut everything For a number of participants “accurate information” is a serious concern. Some feel that the information about fire is slanted too much down).” by 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 more emphasis is needed on private lands and the interface areas. · Some see fire as a natural process that they can’t do anything about. Joy Mathis · There is a (overly) high sense of security from existing infrastructure Private Contractor Ryan Borchers thins (“that’s what the fire department is for isn’t it?”). Durango, Colorado property. Finally, people believe that attention should be given to the teach- ing or learning approach utilized; that is, to how and where the public can learn best, not merely the content or substance of the message: · We need to tell stories—that is how many people learn. They will react to 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 of Sam Burns fire prevention education to significantly convince community members “We need to tell stories-that of the many needs for fire mitigation, there remains a general faith in is how many people learn. the merits of an informed public: They will react to story-telling · The better-informed people are, the better off the community will be.

much more than technical The fact that participants invested so much time and energy on the information.” lack of and need for good prevention messages indicates the importance of this issue. Participants seemed hopeful that increased interac- tion between the public and governmental/land management agencies and a more highly developed, complex role for the media would lead to a better fire prevention education prgram. 34 Question #2: What Community Values are at Risk? An important way to describe the community’s perceptions of wildfire is to document the values that people believe are “at risk.” Many attributes and characteristics of a given place, landscape, or ecosystem, possess value for individuals, groups, and entire communities. These values reflect the attachments that people have with their Tim Richard surroundings, the place’s history, and the ways of life that have grown Would greater awareness from the nature of that community. These can be as diverse as histori- of this range of values cal buildings, family gathering places, recreational trails, or a forested mountain that serves as a scenic backdrop. Such valued relationships enable the community to and “spots,” which represent the human marks of settlement and better establish reasonable inhabitation, embody the critical social meanings of a community. priorities for fuel mitiga- Knowing how the people, or a community, perceive threats to these values from wildfire is an important means of gathering local tion and other hazard social understandings about relationships with the land. Looking more reduction activities? closely at the values at risk from wildfire can help us understand how wildfire will impact the cultural, social, and economic fabric of a community. What sort of losses might occur? Are these sorts of potential impacts on community a means of increasing the risk awareness of citizens 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 obvious losses to individual lives and property, there are many damaging impacts upon community or social resources and values. They commented that catastrophic wildfires quite often cause direct physical losses to power lines, gas and oil infrastructure, livestock—short and long-term, air and water quality, and views of the surrounding landscape. When the impacts are taken cumulatively, people saw negative consequences for the economic health of the region. A visible example of this was when the Durango-Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad needed to halt operations for several weeks during the Missionary Ridge Fire because of the risk of starting additional wildfires. It consequently lost upwards of $4,000,000 in revenue. More indirect or longer term impacts were mentioned with regard to 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 35 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” into a community from suppression activities, there is also considerable “emotional stress to the residents and visitors.” In addition, there is potential for adverse effects on ecosystem relationships such as “burned lands that lead to reservoir contamination, to esthetics with associated economic 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 the state. · Negative impact occurs on the desirability of an area to live in. · Wildfire negatively impacts real estate property values (homes or raw land). · There are negative impacts of a scorched landscape. Jeanne Costello · Wildfire can temporarily ruin riparian habitat (and we don’t have much “Watersheds are at risk.” to sacrifice).

Threats to a broad range of community or social resources were mentioned. We therefore can hypothesize that if awareness could be increased about the threats posed by catastrophic wildfires upon a diverse range of social and economic values, a greater sense of urgency and action regarding hazard mitigation and prevention might be established. Consider the following examples of critical social and community values: · The community places a high value on the cultural and historical aspects of 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 from their 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 in dollars. · 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 cases reaching in excess of 50 to 100 thousand acres, has raised the awareness of people that out of control wildfires can destroy significant portion of a community’s infrastructure and cultural heritage, besides personal property and human lives. People are beginning to realize that the cost for suppressing a wildfire is only a percentage of the total costs of wildfire. Some of the physical “things” lost can be replaced given 36 enough time. But some of them, such as water systems and roads, can be enormously expensive to repair or replace. The truly social parts of community, the relationships between neighbors and with the forested lands, whether based on a historic or heritage value, an aesthetic or recreational value, a family homestead or a community landmark, cannot so easily be reconstructed. One of the more telling statements from one of the group participants appears above, and bears repeating:

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

This comment gets at the deep sense of loss that a wildfire can produce. People can rebuild their houses, if they have adequate insurance, 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 large wildfires, “Yes, my house was saved, but what good is it when everything burned around it.” This may seem ironic, or even disloyal, when so much effort and resources went into protecting those very same structures. While it does not necessarily mean that the fire suppression work of many firefighters and resource management organizations is unap- Bryan Dahlberg/FEMA preciated, for indeed it very much is, it may tell us that further discus- “People can replace [their] sions are needed among community members about the other values they hold dear, which would be extremely costly to replace, or which houses, but not their have large scale public impacts on the economy and future of a particu- views.” 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.

37 Question #3: What Ideas for Action did Western Coloradoans Provide? Amidst the array of concerns and problem definitions there were “Public-private partner- many, many positive recommendations about ways to solve the catastrophic wildfire problem, or at least ways to make a dent in it. In the ship is necessary to prevent following sections, we will present some themes and proposals that fire, with equal responsibil- offer new perspectives about wildfire mitigation and prevention. In ity on both sides.” large measure, these ideas are associated with a new focus on community engagement and action. While this emphasis does not require an entire 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 how could we strengthen a community-based framework for fire mitigation and prevention education among residents, resource management agencies and local fire management and government entities. Many participants felt the approach was needed, and provided many suggestions about how it could be accomplished. While we do not provide these suggestions as a “complete” strategy, they provide some of the elements to establish and enhance the basis for a “community-based” dialogue about wildfire mitigation and prevention.

Expand Community Capacity Through More Intensive Public Involvement As we explored the interactions of people and fire in the context of “community,” there were many recommendations about pursuing “a deeper and more widespread community involvement.” One person emphasized that “a common vision must be developed among all parties.” Others noted, “trust needs to be developed through honest communication and action,” and “this is everyone’s problem, and we need to work together to address issues.” This sense of greater community responsibility and action was elaborated by a series of strong value statements about the need for increased civic engagement: · Public-private partnership is necessary to prevent fire, with equal responsibility on both sides. · All voices that have a stake in this land must be included. · Public land users must join the dialogue. 38 · We must get private landowners involved in the process. · Go directly to the constituent groups, such as ranchers and ask them to sponsor a meeting. · We need shared local leadership that leads to a shared vision for public safety. · 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 hopelessness.

The thematic message of statements such as these seems to be that greater resources can be brought to bear on fire problems in the wildland-urban interface if more effort is made to involve “the community.” Inherently, it also means that solitary individuals cannot be expected to grapple with the evolving dimensions of catastrophic wildfires. The current nature and scope of wildfires necessitates the involvement of whole neighborhoods and communities, not a hit or Sam Burns miss approach to “defensible space” on isolated private properties. “The local community Broader public involvement is needed to create a clearer vision. needs to be able to make But this more intense involvement must be based on the incorporation of informed understandings and diverse interests: decisions for themselves.” · A common vision must be developed among all parties. There must be respect 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 about their effects on wildfire and fire behavior in general. · The community needs to be clear about what kinds of services, response 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 a proposal for firewise characteristics; commissions throughout the county should meet to discuss joint standards.

The message about greater community involvement also included the notion of creating trust, which will also be strengthened by tangible follow-up action: · There must be tangible action to build that trust, which is absent because 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 mobilization process. Greater focus on civic engagement by land management agencies, local government leaders, fire districts, and fire education and mitigation staff can maximize and mobilize needed resources, and

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

“Frame the wildfire dis- Improving Community Dialogue about Fire cussion as a community Numerous comments focused on both strengthening and/or changing the framework for successful dialogue. These recommendations issue, not an environmental could assist in reframing the planning and policy discussions about fire or private property issue.” mitigation in ways that make them more collaborative, more trustwor- thy, more of a partnership. (Numerous scientists and practitioners in community-based forest stewardship have proposed this approach to resource 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 addressed issues such as improved processes for dialogue, providing clear communication and follow-up action, ensuring adequate resources for community assistance efforts under the National Fire Plan, and making the framework 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-term protection. · There must be a willingness to listen by community members. This means setting aside preconceived notions about effective fire management and approaching the problem-solving tasks with a clear mind. · Too many small programs dichotomize efforts. Concentrate all small programs into larger programs with dynamics. · The local community has to be able to make decisions for themselves and has to be listened to by agencies making decisions. Too many people who are unaware of local interests and concerns are making policy decisions that have a negative impact on the community. · Think about using new processes such as collaborative learning (a reference to Daniels and Walker). · There is also a need for a simple and consistent set of parameters that guide the process. · Frame the wildfire discussion as a community issue, not an environmental 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 and processes.

40 Include a Variety of Stakeholders: · People need to know more about who is doing what in relation to fire management 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 problem has been identified.

Refocus the Communications Message and Method of Delivery: · We need help with a broader scale Public Relations/Education campaign. · An effective campaign to change the culture about land management from Smokey Bear to Gary Grouse. Sam Burns · Media needs to focus on mitigation and prevention, not so much on wildfire disasters. “Neighbors should be · The media must be involved. Accurate stories that increase awareness able to talk to neighbors if are essential to the education process. a potential problem has · This information cannot come from “big organizations” to which people have become desensitized— information needs to come from been identified.” grassroots 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 the PFIWC focus groups, is how best to reframe fire mitigation and prevention education in a wider context of community dialogue and action. As indicated by the statements above, this will involve improvements in the process of community involvement, adequate community outreach resources, a refocused prevention message, and an inclusive, multi-party framework for local dialogue and action.

Use Localized Frameworks and Emphasize Grassroots Action Much emphasis was given to working locally to utilize and expand community capacity, because participants seem to strongly believe that many local groups, organizations, and associations are capable and willing to be a part of a fire mitigation and prevention education strategy. Perhaps no sense in this research is stronger than this support for integrating local capabilities into fire mitigation within the wildland- urban interface. · Use the structure in place with community groups, don’t create a new structure—use existing groups including homeowners associations, clubs and organizations. · There has to be cooperation and communication between entities that 41 deal with wildfire issues and concerns. Specifically, governments need to be talking to one another and working together to attack the problem. · Have community workshops about fire be able to talk with neighbors if a potential problem has been identified, with a goal of generating peer pressure to behave responsibly. · A willingness to network with neighboring communities is essential to deal effectively with wildfire issues. If neighbors do not reduce risk, “. . . at the local level, there what good is risk reduction in our communities? · Community leaders need to lead – they have to bring these issues to the are people, energy, and community’s attention. commitment that are going · The county commissioners need to endorse and coordinate the effort. untapped.” · Wildland fire is a multi-jurisdictional problem—fire doesn’t respect boundaries or anything else for that matter. · Work on a neighborhood basis, not in a public hearing or public meeting setting. · Local fire departments have the most credibility in delivering this information along with homeowners groups and local leaders.

In this last section, and in several other places in this report, there is strong emphasis on utilizing local community organizations and leadership. In one sense the participants are saying, we can do a better job than external resources. In another sense they appear to be saying, at the local level there are people, energy, and commitment that are going untapped. We would like to be involved and utilized more in mitigation and 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 are Needed, and There Could Be “Some Needed Regulations” The economic costs associated with a catastrophic wildfire have become astronomical. Costs range from replacing municipal water filtration systems and roads to insurance pay-outs, to a drop in tourists and the dollars they spend – not to mention the public dollars required to put the fires out. When evaluating these costs, some participants felt there is a need to institute economic incentives and/or disincentives because communities 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 community residents (perhaps those who tend to be disengaged, apathetic or even belligerent) to take serious committed action is to “…make ‘em pay.” 42 Put slightly differently, when most people living on the Western Slope can link their economic viability to the vitality of the land and forests, then, perhaps they should pay to protect it from wildfire. This sentiment shows that some in the focus groups believe that “...hitting folks in the proverbial pocket books...” will go farther to reduce risk that any amount of mass public education. While disincentives have not proven to be all that effective for previous public issues, somewhat out of deep frustration, some focus group participants feel that we must “. . . there was conceptual turn to some sort of realistic consequence for inaction. tension over whether the While there was conceptual tension in some of the groups over angle should be a ‘carrot’ whether the angle should be a “carrot” or a “stick”, the ideas generated included: or a ‘stick’ . . .” · Build incentives and/or disincentives into insurance policies, meaning those who have made their properties defensible get a different rate than those who do not. · Institute stricter fines, if people do not follow the rules both on public and private lands. · The issue doesn’t hit people in the pocketbook—insurance rates need to change in high hazard areas for people to be more interested in fire mitigation. · Refuse to insure homes that are not defensible. · Give people insurance deductions or permit fee waivers if their homes are defensible. · Charge homeowners for the costs of fighting the fires if their homes were not defensible. · Institute some type of real estate transfer tax that would go into prevention, education, mitigation. · The money spent to prevent and fight wild fires is enormous—who bears the burden of those costs? The general public. Maybe a more direct 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 more fitting with the anti-regulation, relaxed culture of the Western Slope. · Provide money for more joint projects—we need incentives to reinforce interagency collaboration. · Give information on what moneys are available for wildfire mitigation. · Dollars needs to be consistent and realistic to be effective (many federal funds require property owner match so funds are often left unused for defensible space programs).

While no consensus or even clear message seemed to emerge, it was obvious that the support of the business, real estate, insurance and construction sectors would be necessary to institute any incentive or 43 disincentive approaches. Such changes, many conceded, can only come about when these sectors see wildfire as a problem, understand how it affects them financially, and are willing to make the regulatory changes necessary 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.

44 Question #4: How Can Fire Education Messages be Most Effective? Besides asking focus group participants about how they defined the “fire problem,” what values are threatened by wildfire, and how a community dialogue might be established or expanded, we solicited their input about prevention education messages, audiences, and methods. People in the groups talked about the content of the fire prevention education messages or the specific content of what they believed citizens and communities needed to learn. They had a lot to say about the approach or the methods of conveying the prevention concepts and lessons. They also defined potential audience and locations. We have therefore divided their comments into these three general areas: 1) Audiences, 2) Messages, 3) and Strategies. Throughout the discussions about the fire prevention education process, there are a number of thoughts that present a western or perhaps rural philosophy of adult or civic education. In large measure these suggest a desire to be engaged as active participants, to work in communal ways, and to use a “hands on” approach. With respect to the western slope as a cultural region, these are reflective of the deeper beliefs in independence, autonomy, local control, and pioneering spirit. While this philosophy is clearly underscored on occasion, it is also embedded in the other recommendations about messages, methods, audiences and locations. As these next sections are presented, many of the suggestions are reminiscent of the earlier themes. We will again see concerns about forest health and ecosystem improvements, better communication methods, incentives and disincentives, and many thoughts about local community 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 are worthwhile noting: · Elected officials, including city and county, recreation/fire/water districts. · Chamber of Commerce and the business community. · Homeowners’ associations and other public groups.

45 · Realtors and developers. · Insurance agents. · “Cigarette-butt flippers.” · Focus efforts on individual audiences; i.e., targeting tourists with information about camping safety. Other audiences include young families and retirees. · Education efforts should be focused on homeowners, builders and architects, realtors and developers, landscapers, insurers, elected officials and building officials. · I think when people come here (Colorado) they ought to be told what is Colorado…water shortages and wildfires are part. · Newcomers – get this information in any publications that newcomers might receive; e.g., welcome home packets, brochures from the building Roadside sign warning of post- departments, etc. Missionary Ridge fire floods “Address post-fire effects And finally, there is a level of sophistication among many stakeholders on this issue and they desire information they perceive is not readily available. on communities and com- · Mapping suppression vs. “let burn” priority areas. munity rehab.” · 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 decisions 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 is already being provided. And yet underlying these curriculum or content areas is the deeper message that if we are going to reach people and communities, we are going to have to provide diverse and yet more specific knowledge about an array of topics, and interrelations. In the following paragraphs, a short summary is provided about the topic (in italics), followed by some verbatim statements by the group participants that amplify that theme:

Accurate Information is Needed There is not a lack of information about fire; rather, many said that sometimes there can be too much information; the folks delivering the message do not collaborate enough; some people do not trust its 46 accuracy; and mixed messages are sometimes conveyed. · There are mixed messages and rumors conveying inaccurate information 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 will likely not work. “We need a coordinated, · We need a coordinated, cooperative effort with a consistent message. · Create some structure that better coordinates internal and external cooperative effort with a educational efforts done by all agencies. consistent message.” · Make sure those living at higher elevations are included who tend to believe 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 Improvements Besides the traditional wildfire prevention message, there is a perceived need for fire to be placed in the larger context of forest health. In essence, to focus on preventing wildfires overlooks a deeper issue of sustainable management of forests. When wildfire is reconsid- Andrea Booher/FEMA ered and managed within the long-term process of ecosystem health Congressman Scott McInnis (right) gets and improvement, then an appropriate and holistic resource manage- briefing from Sector Chief Terry McShane from the Carbondale Fire ment process might be established. Department. · Current education measures do not go far enough to educate communities about the ecology, health and status of forests. · The messages have been too general and not systemic enough in terms of 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 budworm resistance. · Things change. Ecosystems are dynamic. There are forest cycles over time. · “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 our forests and how policies and procedures impact those problems. · Educate people about what a healthy forest (ponderosa forest) looks like 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.”

47 Fire Behavior and Fuel Build-up There is a desire to have a better explanation of how fires work or behave. There is a belief that having a deeper understanding of hazardous fuels, topography, and the spread of fires will enable people to assess risk more realistically, and therefore act in a safer manner. · Some fires cannot be put out. · Address fire behavior and vegetative differences. “. . . there is a limit to what · There needs to be some education about how forest fires “work” sort of wildfires can be differently than structure fires. safely fought or managed.” · 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 fire bans (such as banning prescribed burns in sub-areas where current fire danger is low). Maybe use risk management statistics to make decisions. · Fire is a reality and we will never be able to prevent wildfires from occurring. · 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 necessary component of effective management plans.

Fire Fighting There is a sense that citizens and communities need to be more realistic about fire fighting risks and capabilities. The important message seems to be that there is a limit to what sort of wildfires can be safely 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 access to properties. · Federal firefighters are not supposed to do structural work—they are not 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, including firefighters, neighbors, and the community. · The valley floor is relatively safe. Development on steep hillsides is at risk 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 capabilities. · Need to know the costs of fire and related activities.

48 Personal Fire Mitigation Measures One 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 neighbors with regard to their safety. · People need to accept that they are individually responsible for wildfire “We need to show how protection…that they shouldn’t expect federal, state, municipal or fire many people are impacted district activity alone will save their homes. · People need to be made aware of basic mitigation measures that can be by fires.” taken to reduce risk and they need to know where to go to get that information. · People must be educated about the benefits of actions they take to minimize risk. · People need to realize there’s an element of personal responsibility in dealing with wildfire issues. · Work from the standpoint that folks have a “duty” to deal with wildfire issues 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 fire suppression.

What are the Methods for Delivering the Messages? The ways that fire mitigation and prevention messages are delivered are as essential as the message itself. By and large a greater sense of partnership with local organizations and resources is desired. Again this is supportive of some earlier findings about a desire for community involvement and partnership.

Agency Involvement and Orientation While there are many more ideas about community-based approaches to education (read on), ideas about agency involvement surfaced several times in the groups. Participants believe the following should 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 to successfully implement their own fire plans. This means “locals” and “neighbors” must have substantive involvement in federal planning/ NEPA processes. 49 Continue to Build Capacity On all levels, local capacity to do fire education needs improvement. 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. While many solutions and · Build the capacity of local fire departments to take on more fire educa- action steps were recom- tion tasks. · Organize neighborhoods via individual contacts and neighborhood mended, the predominant clubs and organizations. Do individual and small group discussions and theme seemed to be: Take presentations. the education to the streets! Community Meetings This 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 (have visits done by fire officials). · Go to homeowner association meetings.

Community Outreach and Community Based Approaches While 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 volunteers and key leaders. No one said the federal or No one said that the federal or state agencies should hire scores of state agencies should hire additional staff to educate the public. Conversely, scores of participants said that community volunteers and leaders need to first see the prob- scores of additional staff to lem, understand it—then work to educate their friends, neighborhood educate the public. and colleagues about how to reduce their risk. And, most felt strongly that this personal word of mouth education is what would be most effective. There were many creative new, revised or revisited approaches suggested, and many included building the capacity of local organizations to get the word out. · Education efforts should be community based using local groups and associations. · 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’s confusing, 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 demonstration projects. 50 · Create an educational presence at community events. · Depends on where they live – most community members will go to local 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 fire districts; insurers; builders/developers/realtors; county commissioners; “Do a lot more and other elected officials. ‘storytelling’ . . .” · Access and make use of complementary efforts, such as Firewise and the 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 and other prevention tools. · Originate outreach efforts. Don’t wait for people to come to you. · Consider a “Neighborhood Watch” type of localized approach to education in addition to the other methods. · People are most comfortable among their friends and immediate neighbors. · Smaller scale efforts would be more politically viable, focused on neighborhoods 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 are used. · 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 subdivision 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 51 the Animas River) . . . is a successful way to come together to get information. · Use long term stakeholder processes. · Attended big pageants in Vermont . . . They tell stories and just have a gathering. · 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 communities.

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. This means setting aside preconceived notions about effective fire management and approaching the problem-solving tasks with a clear mind. · Members of the community need to understand the significance of the problem and their role in fire mitigation. · This is everyone’s problem and we all need to work together to address the issues. · Standards (for safe access, etc.) must be generated and the community needs 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. 52 · A countywide evacuation plan needs to be developed, since the county is so large. · This (fire risk) can only be changed by being involved and by a desire to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Demonstration Projects Experiential and “on the ground learning” can be effective tools for delivering fire education and prevention messages. Reading a bro- chure or newspaper insert is one thing, but if homeowners can actually see defensible space and mitigation projects, the chances they will take action will probably increase. · People need to be told about potential demonstration areas that currently exist. · Use mitigation projects to generate an additional benefit; e.g., free firewood or chips. · Do a demonstration project in conjunction with a controlled burn to show the value of defensible space. · Use recent burn areas to show successes and failures in wildlands management; i.e., how fire behaved in an area of controlled burn versus a 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 recount history…this was logged and this is how fire behaved …this area had a controlled burn and this is how the fire behaved here …this area had nothing…and this is how the fire behaved. · Say where the forest will come back naturally . . . how long and where soil 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 continue process. · Don’t do huge project…but a small one will begin dialogue. · Before controlled burns, the responsible entity seeks public involvement.

Focus on the High Risk Areas It is often an overwhelming task to “educate the community.” A pragmatic approach is to 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. Perhaps prioritizing where education needs to occur will not only focus the 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. 53 · Some mapping of risk areas is already underway. High-risk areas should be identified and an education effort prioritized around them.

With regard to high priority fire hazard areas, there were numerous calls for mapping in and around specific communities. While some counties/communities have begun or completed this process, more work is needed. “We need to map and · Wildfire hazard mapping at the county level (hopefully to be adopted by prioritize fire hazards.” Board 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 “incentives and education” versus “mandates and regulation.” Given western Colorado’s history of independent thinking and desire for few regulations, many said that behaviors would more likely be changed through incentives. · We need incentives for the community to act responsibly, NOT mandates. · Create incentives for doing defensible space. · Use the angle that you are actually improving your land value by creating defensible space. People should pay for “ Others clearly felt that incentives are not enough and that along their choice.” with education, there has to be regulation. · A fire impact fee could fund inspections and education. · Educate the regulators regarding the need for standards like a countywide fire code with enforcement and inspection. · Strengthen regulations of homes…driveway widths. · Development is allowed on flood plains, hurricane prone areas and my taxes are paying for building damages where they shouldn’t have built in the 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 regarding compliance 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 insurance price is higher. · People should pay for their choice. · Put a lien on property.

54 Miscellaneous Tools to Reach People and Communities Members of the focus groups mentioned just about every technique imaginable for reaching individuals and communities. The essence of their comments was “leave no stone unturned to make people 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 get “Leave no stone maps out to community. unturned.” · 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” (in response to child seriously injured). · Direct real estate funds towards education. · Access and make use of complimentary efforts such as Firewise and the American Red Cross. · Educate realtors. Push the full disclosure angle possibly by working with state level professional associations. Link full disclosure training with how to do defensible space. · Possible model—Corporation for the Northern Rockies: Welcome to the West. · Computer models of potential fire impacts—maybe display examples of fire on certain ecosystems. · “Monitoring” teams—some said they would work, some said would not be welcomed—watch terminology, maybe use education teams, survey teams, fire prevention teams.

Public Spaces Many 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 do prevention education. Sure, they cover the actual fires but many participants commented that the media need to be key partners in prevention messages. · Local newspapers play a key role. · Get videos out on demonstration projects funded by the Colorado 55 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 the increasing number of websites and of people owning computers. Video · Utilize effective media techniques, including pictures and visuals. · Use the media and provide “canned material” which can be inserted in local papers. Such an effort was done circa 2000.

Work With Real Stories and Feelings We 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 in them to be more “fire-wise,” most participants expressed hope, even optimism that this is worth everyone’s time, and that education efforts can have an impact. · People will listen to personal stories related by those with wildfire experiences. · 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 the The video informs After the Fire educational effort. residents in or near the perimeter of the Missionary Ridge and Valley fires about · Use a “Smokey the Bear” type of approach. post-burn flood safety issues and · Use the library of stories and pictures being developed by agencies. precautions. · 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) next week…put a real or pretend project in the paper.

Youth Involvement Maybe some adults are not going to hear the messages, but there was mentioned several times that we can influence how future generations view fire by reaching youth now with relevant, interesting, interactive messages and activities. · Local schools – it was stated that kids are quite capable of making their parents aware of community issues. · Integrate fire prevention into K-12 curriculum. · Get Youth Corps involved.

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

Use the Window of Opportunity While the fire season of 2002 was devastating, the silver lining is that we have peoples’ attention. We must seize this “window” of opportunity before the drought is over. “Use the window of op- · We should seize the opportunity to educate community members that portunity. has been created by the number of wildfires experienced this summer. ” · Timing is critical…take advantage of increased interest after the last fire season. · Timing is important. There are “more open ears” during the fire season.

57 Summary Reflections

As efforts are made by many organizations and interests to implement the National Fire Plan, the critical challenge is how relationships 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 landscapes is a highly complex enterprise, requiring enormous teamwork and cooperation among formal and informal systems. One of the primary ingredients of a sustainable fire mitigation and prevention strategy is the degree of incorporation and integration of local community resources. Building collaborative relationships with communities is important for numerous reasons, including the following: · By definition, communities must be involved in designating and working within the wildland urban interface. · Wildfire mitigation within this zone is inherently dependent upon support and participation by local property owners and public officials. · The wildland-urban interface is a multi-jurisdictional landscape requiring cooperation among watersheds, counties, municipalities, counties, states and federal land management agencies. · Wildfire management is a multi-disciplinary process, which encompasses risk assessment, land-use planning, emergency management, citizen participation, mitigation and education, and neighborhood action. · Public and community perspectives about wildfire management, suppression, mitigation, and prevention must first be understood and then coalesced into a common and concerted effort throughout long intervention processes.

It is because of these principles that the People and Fire in Western Colorado project was undertaken. We believed that if the National Fire Plan work in the wildland-urban interface was to be successful, a deeper level of collaborative community development and organizing was going to be needed. In this sense PFIWC is somewhat different than the traditional “community or public acceptability” studies wherein an effort is made to determine what the public would tolerate with regard to smoke levels or wildlife impacts of prescribed fires. Indeed, public toleration is not the same as community collaboration, and 58 is not at all an adequate foundation for broad scale, multi-jurisdictional community action. The collaboration of communities and citizens in the long-term stewardship of forestlands in the wildland urban interface needs to be a sustainable process, not an episodic event. It must be based on trust, not reduced to coercion. 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 One of the first steps in determine where common ground exists. Beginning at this point this process is to better facilitates an incorporation of human and community knowledge into understand the beliefs and the total wildfire management strategy, along with the uses of such traditional tools as fire ecology, silviculture, firewise defense, and emer- values of local community gency preparedness. In this context of integrated and cooperative, members and leaders, to multi-jurisdictional planning and action, we are perhaps at the very beginning of developing a science of community perspectives about recognize the diversity of fire. perceptions about the Indeed, we see the People and Fire study effort as an initial step in wildfire problem, in order western Colorado that will require follow-up involvement among many parties, including communities themselves. And while the perspectives to determine where com- of 30 communities in this region are fertile with ideas about the prob- mon ground exists. lem of catastrophic wildfire, it is always important to recognize how diverse and unique other social settings are. Clearly, as the work to build relationships with communities in addressing the wildfire risks in the wildland-urban interface continues, similar efforts should be made to elicit and assess the understandings of local residents, leaders, and partners. Now to the summary of what western Coloradoans believe is important about wildfire and their communities. One of the more important topics is the way wildfire is defined. From a West Slope perspective, wildfire has many dimensions: • When “appropriate defensive actions” seem not to be taken by residents or those in authority, this “inaction” is viewed as personal apathy or irresponsibility. When individuals do not create defensiblee space on their own property, they are viewed as irresponsible in relationship to their own neighborhood, because it is felt that such choices place “the public at risk.” This interplay between personal inaction and public impact or cost is a critical tension that has consequences for fire prevention education messages as well as what role local 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 understand the true risk. Discussion group participants say that many people simply believe “it will not happen to me.” Others said people believe they live in an “asbestos forest,” or that there is “no real feeling of impact until a fire is nearby.” These descriptions seem to describe a significant segment of the population that are somehow able to “ignore” the threat of catastrophic wildfire, even while living in high 59 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 audience cannot fully hear the message without a visible or tangible risk confront- ing them? • Wildfire is not a problem or concern to some people, often because of a particular ecological perspective, such as that all fires are natural, or that the person or group is unfamiliar with the landscape and vegetative conditions of western Colorado that create the likelihood of wildfire. This latter group is often referred to as easterners or urbanities or visitors, who have not lived in the rural West long enough to realize the risk and impact of catastrophic wildfires. As a result, a degree of separation arises between locals or old-timers, and folks who move in from urban areas, which makes establishing a broad community understanding somewhat more difficult. • There appears to be a strong realization that wildfire on the scale that has occurred in the West in the past three years is integrally related to forest health or overstocked stands of trees, where natural fire has been excluded. A significant number of participants therefore see wildfire as a problem connected to forest restoration. That is, they believe that wildfire is more than a safety concern to property owners in the wildland-urban interface, because it is more strategically an ecosystem problem. This perspective brings into stronger play the roles of natural and prescribed fire, along with other means of bringing large- scale landscapes closer to their “natural range of variability.” The importance of this perspective is that it places wildfire in the larger context of ecosystem restoration, rather than limiting it to the traditional model of “defensible space.” This may allow a new emphasis on sustainable forest management as a means of gradually developing fire- adapted communities. • Wildfire is also seen as a problem related to growth of communities into the wild or forested lands that ring many of the most desirable communities in western Colorado. Large numbers of people are moving to this region with a strong desire to connect with the outdoors, natural environments, mountains and scenery. Not only is the volume of growth an element of the wildfire danger, but also the way residences are being built in remote and inaccessible terrain has created significant barriers to fire mitigation and suppression. Partici- pants believe that a lack of community planning regulations requiring that fuel reduction occur when a subdivision is being planned and developed is a concern. They also see that roads within residential areas need to be accessible to fire suppression vehicles. In this sense, people see wildfire as a problem of local government, particularly pertaining to planning 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 the chief fire authority was not appropriate and that there should be a separate county fire marshal, and a state fire marshal. A related concern was encouraging the formation of fire protection districts and having some community discussions about what level of service they can 60 expect from them. With regard to the latter point, there is a concern about what residents are actually willing to pay for. These expectations need to be clarified to bring a degree of reality to what level of fire protection is going to be available within a given community. • Beyond the obvious physical and human impacts of catastrophic wildfire on lives and property, large fires like the Missionary Ridge Fire near Durango and the Hayman Fire southwest of Denver are viewed as having significant consequences for communities. These might be termed impacts on social and economic values, or on major natural and infrastructure resources. These include scenic landscape, historical relationships with the forest, a community’s heritage, water systems, utility lines, and tourism based economies, which are often dependent upon some of the above-mentioned resources and values. This recognition of impacts on social and communal values reorients the consequences of wildfires beyond the personal to the community, where the stakes are not necessarily higher, but are certainly more long-term and costly, where some impacted resources cannot be replaced through insurance, such as the historic meaning of a landscape to a community. Social and economic impacts on communities from catastrophic fire moves the consequences of fire beyond the personal to the public interest. 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 are primarily the result of regulations that require the federal managers to conduct environmental studies and consider wildlife conditions and other ecological circumstances. People believe that an overemphasis on these types of laws keeps the agencies from being able to manage professionally. It also includes the fact that resources are often not available to adequately manage the public lands. The result is that thinning overstocked stands has not occurred, which has led to excessive fuel buildups. “Current policy allows people with no perspective about 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 other impacts leads to high opposition to prescribed fires. Managers hesitate to take actions that are believed appropriate to fire mitigation because of the threat of lawsuits. And finally, even when fire mitigation is pursued, there is inadequate funding to prepare and conduct thinning projects, and a lack of local loggers and thinners to sufficiently carry out the projects. • Another aspect of the fire problem is a lack of interagency collaboration. This is especially true of wildland-urban interface fires where multi-jurisdictions exist and federal, state, and local fire districts need to work together. There is a concern that communities are surrounded by federal public lands with little control over how they are managed with regard to fire. With the complexity of large-scale wildfires today, how federal and local agencies work together on fire suppression is key to success and long-term trust building. People believe that coordination and collaboration need to occur on a county and regional basis, and that 61 land and resource management agencies must let go of “turf protection” to achieve collaboration. • Finally, there is considerable concern about the gaps in education and communication about fire. First, there is the issue with confused or contradictory or overlapping messages from a variety of management agencies about how fire is to be managed. Is the Smokey Bear message still valid? Is fire natural and therefore in some sense desirable? Is it Perhaps no finding in this preventable? What are its ecological benefits? Second, people believe the media should be more proactive, discussing the complexity of fires research is stronger than and the benefits of prescribed fire, not merely describing it as an episodic crisis. Finally, even though there are lots of wildfire prevention the breadth of support for materials, there are concerns with misinformation or slanted viewpoints integrating local capabili- being expressed, with too much inaccurate information, and citizens and leaders not understanding the message. On this latter point, the ties into fire mitigation suggestion is that people need to know “why” they are being asked to take a particular mitigation action, and that fire prevention stories are within the wildland/urban more informative and acceptable than a mere informational message. interface. Within any given place, landscape, or ecosystem, there are many types 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 commented that catastrophic wildfires cause direct physical losses to power lines, gas and oil infrastructure, livestock, and air and water quality. • When the impacts are taken cumulatively, people saw negative consequences for the economic health of the region, scientific and educational values, general quality of life, the heritage our ancestors have built in and around the community, to real estate values, and the scenic beauty that is the overall attraction to the area.

People are beginning to realize that the cost for suppressing a wildfire is only a percentage of the total costs of wildfire. • The truly social parts of community—the relationships between neighbors and with the forested lands—whether it is based on a historic or heritage value, an aesthetic or recreational value, a family homestead or a community landmark, cannot so easily be reconstructed. • People can rebuild their houses, if they have adequate insurance, 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 large wildfires, “Yes, my house was saved, but what good is it when everything burned around it.”

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

62 Some of the elements recommended for establishing and enhancing a “community-based” dialogue include: • Greater focus on civic engagement by public-land-management agencies, local government leaders, fire districts, and fire education and mitigation staff to maximize and mobilize needed resources, and increase the acceptance of trust of local communities. • Numerous comments focused on both strengthening and/or changing the framework for successful dialogue, such as improved processes for dialogue, providing clear communication and follow-up action, ensuring adequate resources for community assistance efforts under the National Fire Plan, and making the framework for community discussion 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 a fire 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 organizations and leadership. Participants indicated that local communities would do a better job of fire mitigation and prevention education than merely utilizing external resources. They also believe that at the local level there are people, energy, and commitment going untapped. The economic costs associated with a catastrophic wildfire have become astronomical. Costs range from replacing municipal water filtration systems and roads to insurance payments, to a drop in tourists and the dollars they spend—not to mention the public dollars required to put the fires out. • When evaluating these costs, some participants felt there is a need to institute economic incentives and/or disincentives because communities simply cannot afford the costs of a catastrophic wildfire. • While disincentives have not proven to be all that effective for previous public issues, perhaps out of deep frustration, some focus group participants felt that there must be some sort of realistic consequence 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 63 communities need to focus: • Making the information more accurate and focused. • Besides the traditional wildfire prevention message, there is a perceived need 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, explaining [The People and Fire what sort of wildfires can be safely fought or managed. • Motivating people to be responsible for their own property as a social Report] is intended as the duty regarding neighborhood safety. start of a deeper conversa- The ways or methods that fire mitigation and prevention mes- tion about mobilizing sages are delivered are as essential as the message itself: greater community re- • Agencies need to become more involved with communities in sources in the critical delivering fire mitigation messages. • On all levels, local capacity to conduct fire education needs to be struggle to reduce cata- developed and strengthened through partnerships. strophic wildfire risks in • Take fire mitigation and prevention education to the streets by utilizing established community networks, calling upon volunteers and the wildland urban inter- key leaders. face in the Rocky Moun- • Community volunteers and leaders need to first see the problem, understand it—and then work to educate their friends, neighborhood tain West. and colleagues about how to reduce their risk. • A personal “ word of mouth” approach to fire prevention education is considered most effective. • The larger landscape-scale elements of wildfire need to be addressed from the perspective of a broad sense of community responsibility. • Experiential and “on the ground learning” are very effective tools for 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 calls for mapping in and around specific communities. • Many said that personal and community behaviors would more likely be changed through incentives. • Other clearly felt that incentives are not enough and that along with education, there has to be some degree of fire-safety regulation. • Getting more messages out in public places serves as one more reminder to be “fire safe.” • The media need to be key partners in prevention messages by addressing the complexity of fire behavior, ecosystem conditions, and the need for community action. • Education efforts can have a greater impact if they are based upon the lives of people in the community, related through stories of success and experiences with wildfire and fire mitigation. • Influence how future generations view fire by reaching youth now 64 with relevant, interesting, interactive messages and activities. • While the 2002 wildfire season has opened a “ window of opportunity,” before it closes, community fire mitigation and prevention education actions need to be taken immediately .

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

We want to emphasize again that The People and Fire Project is a beginning effort towards increasing community participation in the National 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 mobilizing greater community resources in the critical struggle to reduce catastrophic wildfire risks in the wildland urban interface in the Rocky Mountain West.

65 Appendix A—Map of Study Areas

66 Appendix B—Research Methods

Previous Community-Oriented Fire Research Over the past 20-25 years, social scientists have actively sought to understand the values and attitudes of community members about wildfire. As a part of the National Fire Plan, The National Wildfire Coordinating Group commissioned a report on the human dimensions of fire management. The report, entitled Burning Questions: A Social Science Research Plan for Federal Wildland Fire Management, was completed under the leadership of Gary Machlis, University of Idaho. This report includes a policy analysis, a literature review, and needs assessment with regard to the contributions of social science research to improved fire management. In a section of the report entitled “Public Perceptions, Education, and Risk Communications,” (p. 94), the following paragraph provides an overview of some previous research: An extensive body of research literature exists on public attitudes towards resource management policies (Bright and Manfredo 1997; Reading et al. 1994; Steel et al. 1994; Tarrant et al. 1997). Public perceptions of fire and public acceptance of fire management policies have been the subject of extensive experimental and case-study research. Public attitudes can play a role in policy formation and decision-making by, for example, influencing policies regarding prescribed fires. They can influence support for hazard mitigation strategies in areas prone to wildfires. At the individual level, perceptions can affect how people respond to fire risks in the wildland-urban interface. Thus, an understanding of public attitudes and beliefs about wildland fires and resource management policies are important for federal land management agencies, concerned with wildland fire management. (Machlis, et al. 2002, p. 95) While much research has been focused on individual attitudes and perceptions of fire management, often focusing on what has come to be called “public acceptability” of fire as a management tool, there seems to be considerable need to examine community willingness, or capacity, to work through partnership or cooperative processes to support fire mitigation and management planning. That is, much previous research has examined the respondent’s views about the risks of prescribed fires, the effects of smoke, or perceptions of impacts on wildlife or watersheds, among many fire management questions. From 67 such studies, fire and resource managers have sought to improve their decisions about where and how to use prescribed fire, how to reduce hazardous fuels or improve fire safety messages, before and during major fire events. In this manner, fire management of both natural and prescribed fires has been related to community concerns and impacts. However, we believe that a significant gap exists in the social science literature concerning wildland fire with regard to “community It was deemed preferable that the engagement,” and citizen and leadership capacity for participation in various interest-oriented stakehold- planning, mitigation, and prevention education. It is in this light that we ers include persons who knew have undertaken the People and Fire in Western Colorado research project, assessing not only the ways that citizens define the “wildfire problem,” something about citizen concerns, and characterize “values at risk,” but how they describe the capacity of about surrounding forest lands, their own communities to work with fire managers and prevention and mitigation staff to reduce wildfire risk and improve public safety. about beliefs regarding natural and Because of this project’s primary emphasis on inventorying and prescribed fire management, and arraying “community understandings” about wildfire management and about what it would take to reach mitigation, we have developed a research approach to elicit qualitative descriptions of local beliefs, values and concerns about resources and common understandings about capacities to work collaboratively within the “wildland-urban interface.” wildfire mitigation planning and We relied most heavily on community-based focus or discussion groups, conducted in 29 distinct communities in approximately one- decision making. third of the counties in the state of Colorado, a region where there is preponderance of the public land.

Stakeholder Selection Diverse stakeholders were chosen from a variety of interest areas such as recreation, ranching, wildlife, real estate, and local government to participate in the focus groups. However, and perhaps more impor- tantly, stakeholders were selected for a balanced knowledge of both community and fire issues. Stakeholders were not necessarily formal community leaders or professional experts about fire, although some of these persons 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 lands adjacent to a given community, hopefully they would also be open to listening to other viewpoints in a balanced group discussion. Most strategically, they needed to be willing to assist in describing what others believe or think about fire and appropriate management solutions, in a manner that could be utilized to build convergence and collaboration around a community based fire mitigation and education plan.

68 The sample for this research was therefore not chosen randomly and evenly throughout Western Colorado. Rather, the participants represented the attitudes and values of the social and cultural places where they lived and worked, or what many analysts refer to as a “sense of place.” (See the list of places where focus groups were held throughout western Colorado, Appendix C.) Places in Western Colorado vary dramatically as a result of recent economic and demographic changes. There are traditional ranching communities like the west end of San Miguel County, and second home 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 of New Migrants and Part-time Residents,” 2001.)

Focus Group Questions Four general areas of inquiry were pursued with each focus group. The items shown under each area below signify topics that the group facilitator 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 see them?

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 a governmental perspective, or any specific interest group positions? · Do you have a sense of what the most important community values are related to wildfire and improving community safety?

3. Capacity for Community Dialogue · What conditions would need to exist in your community, in order for you and others to develop a productive dialogue on fire issues and/or any actions to reduce community risks? Examples of “conditions” could be a level of trust among key parties, a sense that participation in

69 the dialogue would result in productive outcomes, or having reasonable access to information and knowledge about fire risk and environmental conditions. (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 talk productively about the wildfire issues and potential measures to improve community safety? · Where do people prefer to obtain information about community issues of this nature? (Radio, TV, newspaper, workshops, etc.) · Are any particular means or methods of receiving information more acceptable 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 group that would visit sites where efforts are being made to reduce wildfire risks in your community as a part of a learning dialogue?

Engaging Stakeholders in a Context of Increased Collaborative Stewardship In the conduct of community planning management, but they were not necessar- and decision-making processes, it is rather ily professional, scientific “experts”; routine to ensure that stakeholder identifica- • Stakeholders were engaged on the basis of tion is representative with regard to a broad their active participation in envisioning and range of socio-economic and demographic creating a civic conversation about fire characteristics. Typically, stakeholder selection impacts and mitigation measures; would take into account employment, length • Stakeholders were viewed as representing of residence, political power, and age, among communities of place, having social, many other societal dimensions. While the experiential, and historical knowledge of a importance of these factors is unquestioned in particular place, rather than as isolated, broadening resource stewardship, in the individual respondents who were merely context of developing community-based fire sources of data or factual information; mitigation efforts, this research project em- • Local organizations were utilized to facili- phasized a stronger sense of community tate stakeholder nomination and selection capacity building, establishing civic dialogue, process, and convened the focus groups, in networking, relationship formation, and public order to increase the capacity of individual conversation, and therefore strongly influ- communities and regions to collaborate ences the stakeholder engagement process. with fire management and education staff In this light the PFIWC Project estab- in the ongoing implementation of the lished a stakeholder identification and selec- National Fire Plan; tion process based on the following condi- • Stakeholders were asked about their tions, assumptions, and attributes: interest in serving as monitors in subsequent fire-risk reduction and education • A priority on stakeholder knowledge of efforts, if such opportunities were to local communities and their values; become available in their community study • Stakeholders were selected because of area. their strong knowledge about fire and fire 70 Appendix C—Community Locations of Focus Groups Focus 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 in western Colorado.

• Total number of participants was 277.

71 Appendix D—Short Biographical Sketches of the Study Area Facilitators

The People and Fire in Western Colorado Project had the good fortune of being able to rely upon five consultant facilitators. Without their diligence and steady commitment it would not have been possible to undertake a community-oriented, research project of this magnitude. Brief sketches of their professional backgrounds are provided below. Obviously, they have many other skills and experiences than this brief summary allows.

Study Area One: Chuck Sperry conducted the focus groups in the Northwest area. At that time he was a research consultant, associated with the Rocky Mountain Center for Economic Democracy, an organization he founded to address worker-owned business coopera- tives. Chuck has worked with the Office of Community Services on previous research, in particular assisting with a series of community group case studies that have been funded by the Economic Assistance Programs of the US Forest Service (USFS) to improve community sustainability. 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 with three national forests in Western Montana, which are undertaking a multi-forest planning effort. Chuck’s academic background ranges from forestry, to economics, and group dynamics.

Study Area Two: Jack Taylor is a facilitator and mediator with the Rocky Mountain Resource Center in Dillon, Colorado. He has conducted previous group and strategic planning work through the North- west Council of Governments, which sponsored the People and Fire research work in Area Two. In addition to his facilitation work, Jack is also involved in court-sponsored mediation programs, which focus on developing ways for offenders to compensate the persons or communities that they have victimized. He is continuing to work with the Northwest COG on community research and assessment, and will undoubtedly be able to assist with community fire mitigation and planning in this area.

72 Study Area Three: Colin Laird is associated with Healthy Moun- tain Communities, located in Carbondale, Colorado. Colin is one of the founders of the healthy communities movement in Colorado, which addresses the well-being of communities and regions on a multi-faceted basis. In other words, a healthy community is one that has good educational systems, access to health care, and is safe and sustainable, among many other factors. In this case, a community can be viewed as healthy if it has a fire mitigation and prevention education plan and action strategy. In the past Healthy Mountains Communities has been active in affordable housing, regional transportation, and community planning.

Study Area Four: Jim Spehar is a private consultant, based in Grand Junction, Colorado. He has a background in organizational development and planning. One of his previous experiences has been in tourism development in rural areas, working to develop a western Colorado regional network, the Rural Resort Region, which aimed to address the social impacts in a regional resort economy. In this capacity, Jim has worked with many communities and local governments in this region. Jim also has a background in local government as a former Mesa County Commissioner and is a member of the Grand Junction City Council.

Study Area Five: Marsha Porter-Norton has also been involved in the healthy communities movement, serving as the first executive director of Operation Healthy Communities in Durango, Colorado. Prior to returning to Southwest Colorado, her native home, Marsha worked in youth development in Denver. Her knowledge of Southwest Colorado, and her experience in coordinating several dozen healthy communities initiatives, has enabled her to develop strong relationships with citizens, local governments, and civic leaders. Marsha has been associated with county fire planning in Southwest Colorado, in particular facilitating the La Plata County Fire Plan. Besides her work on People and Fire, she continues to be involved in fire mitigation demonstration projects and related prevention education activities for this region, through funding from the National Fire Plan.

Special Note: We also appreciate the organizational sponsorship provided in developing the community focus groups by the Northwest Council of Governments, Gary Seversen, Executive Director, Healthy Mountain Communities, Colin Laird, Executive Director, and the Painted Sky Resource and Conservation District, Rick Isom, Executive Director.

73 References

Books, articles, unpublished reports Focus Groups Summaries, People and Fire in Western Colorado. 2002. 29 focus groups divided into five study areas. Durango, CO: Office of Community Services, Fort Lewis College. Machlis, Gary, et al. 2002. Burning Questions: A social science research plan for Federal wildland fire management. National Wildfire Coordinating Group.

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.

Websites National 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.