USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005 1

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Research Note

RMRS-RN-25WWW

March 2005

Background

In the summer of 2003, we began studying how institutional incentives impact the 

decisions homeowners make to mitigate wildfire risk on their property. Hodgson (1996) 

has predicted that homeowners take action to reduce their risk of loss due to wildfire 

based on motive, means, and opportunity. Our research was originally designed to ascertain whether formal institutional arrangements, in particular homeowner insurance 

and government programs, provide incentives for homeowners to mitigate wildfire risk. 

While the original intent of the study was to focus on the role of institutional arrangements and incentives, our open approach led to a somewhat different study focus. When 

asking homeowners about the kinds of mitigation actions they were undertaking and 

their motivations for these taking these actions, we realized that formal institutional 

arrangements were not a major motivator for homeowners. Therefore, the interviews 

focused on informal social arrangements and other factors that homeowners told us 

were motivators for them to undertake mitigation efforts. Ultimately, the results of the 

study could be used to inform program implementers charged with encouraging homeowners to mitigate wildfire risk.

To pursue the larger goal, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews. This 

approach allowed us to explore and pursue the interests of individual homeowners as 

each explained what he or she knew about fire, fire risk, and fire mitigation. Rather 

than composing a pre-fabricated set of questions which binds the subject to confined 

answers, this approach allowed study participants to explain the justification and importance of these issues to them and their lives. It also facilitated the study participants 

guiding the research and the researchers.

Five communities in Larimer County were selected through the assistance of the 

Larimer County Wildfire Safety Specialist (CWSS), who has extensive experience 

working in wildland interface communities who face the threat of wildfire. With his 

expertise, the communities where study participants were recruited were chosen based 

on fire history and general level of mitigation activity.

Obtaining the Sample

Purposive or judgmental sampling was used to choose key informants. This nonprobability type of sampling allows the researcher to “select a sample on the basis of 

knowledge of a population and the purpose of the study” (Babbie 2001). This approach 

in exploratory research ensures that a wide variety of perspectives are captured.

Characteristics of the communities and community leaders were used to determine 

which communities might represent a wide range of activity levels in response to the 

risk of wildfire. This process allowed us to choose communities that have had different 

proximities to large fires and different community and organizational characteristics. 

Mitigation of Wildfire Risk by 

Homeowners

Hannah Brenkert, Patricia Champ, Nicholas Flores

Abstract—In-depth interviews conducted with homeowners in Larimer County’s Wildland-Urban 

Interface revealed that homeowners face difficult decisions regarding the implementation of 

wildfire mitigation measures. Perceptions of wildfire mitigation options may be as important as 

perceptions of wildfire risk in determining likelihood of implementation. These mitigation options 

are often viewed as trade-offs between wildfire risk and preferred landscapes. Study participants 

reported, however, that one-on-one information sharing with fire experts as well as an increased 

understanding of the flexibility of mitigation options encourage implementation of wildfire mitigation measures.

Hannah Brenkert is 

a graduate student 

with the University of 

Colorado-Boulder’s 

Department of 

Sociology.

Patricia Champ is 

an economist with 

the USDA’s Forest 

Service’s Rocky 

Mountain Research 

Station.

Nicholas Flores is an 

associate professor 

with the University of 

Colorado-Boulder’s 

Department of 

Economics.

Funding for this 

research was provided 

by the Front Range 

Fuels Treatment 

Partnership and the 

Rocky Mountain 

Research Station 

under Cost Share 

Agreement 03-CS11221617.
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005

Community leaders were identified by the CWSS and contacted for in-depth, semistructured interviews. These interviews were intended to explore both individual level 

perception and behaviors regarding wildfire and wildfire mitigation for each community leader as well as community level information regarding structure, composition, 

and other organizational information. Interviews with community leaders were then 

used as a forum to ask for contact information for potential study participants.

The advantages of using this approach are several. Most importantly, the experience 

and work history of the CWSS made his expertise invaluable to this research endeavor. 

The CWSS is an expert in wildland fire and the threats to wildland-urban interface 

communities. Second, he has been working on wildland fire issues at both the community level and with individual residents. Third, his experience with these communities 

makes him a reliable expert in identifying key informants who can report on both community and individual level fire mitigation activity.

Despite these advantages, there are some disadvantages of this approach. Initial 

reliance on the CWSS for identifying key informants limited us to individuals who interact with the CWSS. This may be an issue since many interviewees suggested that 

government distrust is widespread among members of their communities.

Another possible disadvantage with relying on the CWSS to help identify key informants is that both formal and informal positions in such communities may be highly 

politicized. Several study participants reported that “small town politics” played a 

significant role in their communities, and the CWSS may not be privy to how these 

dynamics may facilitate or undermine participation among those identified, or more 

importantly, lead to biased suggestions for potential interviewees.

Finally, the researchers’ association with the CWSS, a Larimer County employee 

whose charge it is to promote wildfire mitigation activities, may lead study participants 

to report a higher level of mitigation behavior than actually practiced. Further, asking 

community leaders to identify those who do and do not engage in mitigation could appear to be a witch-hunt to those who do not participate.

Study Area

Larimer County has experienced a high rate of population growth in recent years. 

Between 1970 and 2000, the population of Larimer County grew 179 percent. As 50 

percent of the County is public land (see figure 1), much of the population growth is occurring in the wildland urban interface.

Programs Available

All communities in our study have the option of accessing Larimer County’s Wildfire 

Safety Program grants, which are designed to “assist homeowners, homeowner groups 

and fire departments to reduce the threat of wildfire on their properties and districts.” 

These program grants function at both the community and individual homeowner level. 

For the community, the grants may assist in the development of community collection sites in which the material will be chipped or ground by outside contractors or by 

Larimer County personnel. Further, they may provide fire departments up to $1000 to 

burn collected materials at the community collection site.

For individual homeowners, the grants may provide up to $1000 for forest management work on their property and require a 50 percent match that can be accomplished 

with professional or volunteer workers. More information on this program may be found 

at http://www.co.larimer.co.us/wildfire/2003_grant.htm

Various communities have utilized existing organizational structures for fire education and to promote community-level activities. Interviews conducted in the summer 

and fall of 2003 were intended to explore homeowner knowledge, familiarity, and participation in such community-level activities.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005 

3

Figure 1—Public lands in Larimer County.
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005

Community Descriptions

Five Larimer County communities were targeted based on their fire experience, 

proximity to recent fires, and community organizations. (See figure 1 for location of 

communities on Larimer County map.)

Big Elk Meadows (BEM)

Big Elk Meadows is a gated community on the Boulder County/Larimer County line. 

It is located off Highway 36, on County Road 47 (32 miles from Boulder, 26 miles from 

Longmont, and 14 miles from Lyons).

The community contains about 150 homes with 52 of those occupied by year round 

residents. The part-time residents stay for varying lengths of time and most of these 

residents visit during the summer season.

The total BEM private acreage is 400 acres. Most of the lots vary from 1/4 acre to 2+ 

(but usually under 3). Some homes are on two lots and the community has two large 

landowners: one with 35 acres, another with 30 acres. Big Elk also has common areas 

such as the lakes and a greenbelt of public area to the rear of all properties. National 

Forest land surrounds the community and there is one road that crosses the community.

There are two significant community organizations in BEM: the Volunteer Fire 

Department (VFD) and the Big Elk Meadows Association (BEMA). All study participants belong to the BEMA and many also belong to the VFD. Both organizations have 

publications that are released on an approximately quarterly basis, detailing community events and news. Through the homeowners’ organization and the VFD, the Larimer 

County Wildfire Safety Specialist has supported a slash pile and education efforts. The 

homeowners are working directly with the Colorado State Forest Service on the slash 

site and the education efforts. The VFD burns the slash. About 60 percent of the homeowners participate in these efforts.

The VFD began building a fire station in the summer of 2003 and has been working 

to bolster its fire response capacities by applying for grants for improved equipment. 

The VFD is operated through donations from study participants as well as from outside 

sources. For example, the Cherryvale Fire Department in Boulder County donated one 

of the trucks used by the VFD in BEM.

The VFD relies heavily on volunteers to fight fires and support firefighters by controlling traffic, announcing evacuations and managing other fire related tasks. Since 

the Big Elk fire in 2002, the department boasts having 20 trained wildland firefighters 

and approximately 30 other volunteers.

The Big Elk fire struck the community in the summer of 2002, during which half the 

valley burned. It was evacuated twice through reverse-911 calls.

Little Valley (LV)

Off of Highway 36 and Fish Creek Road in the mountains just southeast of Estes 

Park, Little Valley rises out of the valley, affording amazing views of the Estes Valley. 

The community is surrounded by National Forest land and public access to both Johnny 

Park and Pierson Park is possible on Little Valley roads.

The community is composed of 76 property owners and approximately 80 lots, with 

lot sizes averaging less than one acre. Several members of the community own more 

than one lot and there are many undeveloped lots within the community. Approximately 

half of the homeowners are part-time residents.

The community has existed since the mid 1960s. The primary community organization is the Little Valley Home Owners’ Association (HOA), though community members 

play important roles in the Road District that encompasses both Little Valley and the 

surrounding area between LV and 36. The HOA is active and boasts a high level of participation. In 2001, the HOA Board rewrote the community covenants, updating them 

to include strict restrictions on building and building materials in the community. The 

covenants were passed at a community meeting and more than 90 percent of the residents have signed on to the new covenants.

The HOA serves as the primary mechanism for organizing community events, many 

of which involve education about wildfire and wildfire mitigation and is considered a 

“success story” by the CWSS.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005 5

Little Valley received a reverse 911-evacuation order in the summer of 2002 in response to the threat of the Big Elk Fire. The community depends on the Estes Park 

emergency response services for fire protection and other emergency services.

Pinewood Springs (PWS)

Pinewood Springs is situated along the Highway 36 corridor that runs from Lyons (8 

miles to the southeast) to Estes Park (13 miles to the northwest). This community also 

encompasses Estes Park Estates (EPE). While technically a separate subdivision, EPE 

relies on PWS for emergency services and is part of the same Fire District and served 

by the same Fire Board. EPE does have a distinct Water and Road Board. Lot sizes in 

PWS and EPE vary, with the average lot between 1-10 acres.

Primary organizations include Special Improvement District (Road Board) and 

Water Board, Fire Board, and Home Owners Association (HOA). The HOA is a small, 

voluntary organization that has historically played only a small role in community activities and organizing.

The Volunteer Fire Department of Pinewood Springs plays a role in fire risk and 

mitigation education, though the VFD’s time is often consumed by activities related to 

Highway 36, such as motor vehicle accidents.

While this community has been generally characterized as inactive in terms of community level response to wildfire threat, interviews indicate that there was a flurry of 

mitigation activity in the summer of 2002, as the smoke and flames of the Big Elk fire 

were just over the ridge. During the fire, PWS received a reverse-911 prepare to evacuate call, but was never ordered to evacuate.

After the Big Elk Fire in 2002, there was much more interest in mitigation activities. 

In October 2003, PWS had a Wildfire Awareness Event. Volunteers from the Red Cross 

went door to door with the members of the VFD to invite homeowners to the Wildfire 

Awareness Event. The VFD began offering site assessments and subsidies for the work 

needed to mitigate properties, charging $100 to implement the needed mitigation work 

(performed by volunteers from the Fire Department). The Larimer County Wildfire 

Specialist used money from the National Fire Plan (NFP) to match funds that the VFD 

collects such that the VFD receives both $100 from each participating homeowner and 

$100 from Larimer County. This has become a profitable fundraiser for the VFD.

The Larimer County Wildfire Specialist has also used NFP money to provide a chipper and crew to deal with the slash removed from properties. The program has been 

so successful (currently 43 homeowners have requested a site assessment) that the 

Colorado State Forest Service and the Larimer County Wildfire Specialist are training 

members of the VFD to do site assessments.

Rist Canyon (RC)

The Rist Canyon area includes Stratton Park, Davis Ranch, and Whale Rock northwest of Fort Collins. It is an area of approximately 90 square miles and has properties 

that average over 10 acres. Several property owners are tree farmers and may own over 

100 acres. The area has about 750 households, though only 250-300 actually live in the 

community. The rest are absentee landowners or seasonal residents.

With 26 active volunteers, the VFD of Rist Canyon plays a vital emergency response 

role in the area. The VFD responds to motor vehicle accidents, health emergencies, and 

fire calls in a 120-square-mile response area. The Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire department receives no tax revenues. It functions based on public donations, a yearly art 

auction, and occasional grants.

Characterized as the “country club of Rist Canyon,” the VFD also plays a vital social 

role in the area. Fire risk and mitigation education has been an important part of community activities and the VFD has organized a community collection site. The Larimer 

County Wildfire Specialist has funded the use of a chipper to process the slash from the 

collection site.

Spring Gulch (SG)

Spring Gulch is located off County Road 71, off of Highway 36 and just north of 

Lyons. The dirt roads of this community are private, limiting the number of non-residents in the area. Lots in Spring Gulch average around 12-15 acres though they can 

vary from 5 to over 50 acres. The high meadows and forested areas are marked by distinct rock outcroppings.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005

The residents of Spring Gulch have focused much more on preparedness for a wildfire than on mitigation. The residents organized the 116 families into emergency groups 

for Y2K. These groups now constitute emergency groups, each with group leaders. 

Emergency measures that have been implemented in the community since the organization of these groups include a train whistle, which is sounded when a fire is spotted, 

and red flags that rest at the two entrances of the community that alert residents coming into the community if there is a fire. A Watchline, which allows residents to call in 

to receive up to date information of fires and other emergencies, was also established. 

During the Big Elk Meadow fire, the Watchline received over 900 calls.

In addition to the Emergency Preparedness Group (EPG), Spring Gulch has a Road 

Board that charges each household a yearly fee for road maintenance, which includes 

plowing and gravelling by volunteers in the winter and road base maintenance in summer. The community does not have a homeowners association or any covenants.

Spring Gulch’s emergency services come from the Lyons Volunteer Fire Department. 

In 2003, the VFD worked with Larimer County Wildfire Specialist to set up a collection 

site. Colorado State Forest Service paid to chip and burn piles on private property. In 

2003, there was apparently little to no interest in money from the Larimer County Fire 

Specialist or CSFS. The Emergency Preparedness Group has, however, worked with the 

Lyons VFD to learn what to do and not do in the event of a fire. When fires occur, members of the EPG meet the VFD at the entrance of the community to help the response 

team navigate the roads and arrive at the fire along the most efficient route.

The Interviews

Interviews with community leaders led to snowball sampling, in which each community leader was asked if he or she had contact information for individuals in the 

community who were both active and inactive in terms of fire mitigation. Each community has a community phonebook with names, addresses, and phone numbers, such 

that study participants were not strictly bound to only reporting acquaintances. It is 

anticipated, however, that the contact information given generally tended to represent 

those who were more active and socially involved in the community than those who 

were not. Anecdotal evidence supports this in that many study participants reported 

knowing of neighbors who did not mitigate, but the contact information for such residents was very difficult to obtain and once obtained, the response rate was extremely 

low. All of the study participants reported having done some kind of fire mitigation work 

on their property.

Sample

The sample consisted of 35 study participants obtained through 29 interviews representing 30 distinct households. The age of study participants varied from mid 30s to 

mid 70s with an average age in the early 50s. Almost all study participants were White, 

with one Hispanic (Larimer County is 93 percent White and Colorado is 83 percent 

White, according to US Census 2000). Nineteen of the study participants were women 

and 16 were male. While most of the interviews were one-on-one, five couples were 

interviewed together.

Methods

Interviews lasted from 45 minutes to 2 hours. All interviews were tape recorded and 

later transcribed. Contextual notes were taken by the interviewer and inserted into the 

transcripts during transcription.

Twenty-two of the interviews were conducted in the respondents’ homes, three were 

interviewed at their workplace, and four were interviewed in alternative locations 

such as restaurants and coffee shops. Interviews in respondents’ homes allowed the 

respondent to describe, point to, and show important topographical, land use, and proximity concerns. All interviews were opened with a general question regarding fire, fire 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005 7

mitigation, and fire risk. This approach was used to allow respondents to define the 

issues that were most relevant to their understanding and response to fire in their community. After an initial dialogue had begun, the interview switched to a semi-structured 

approach in which basic demographic information was collected. This information was 

collected in a conversational style, allowing the respondent to explain and tell relevant 

information related to key themes that included:

• History of residence

• Experience with wildfire

• Knowledge of wildfire risk before and after moving to the WUI

• Knowledge of mitigation options

• Mitigation activities and motivation

• Perspectives on fire risk, insurance, responsibility

While the project began with a set of loose questions, it was approached as an exploratory research project, meaning that as issues emerged from interviews, they were 

incorporated and explored in subsequent interviews. Thus, while we began with an 

initial set of questions, these remained loosely defined and were intended to explore 

general themes more so than to extract particular information, ideas, or notions. These 

questions were subject to change, allowing the study participants to help shape the 

reformulation.

Findings

While this project originally intended to focus on the institutional factors, such as 

formal programs and homeowner insurance, that promote or impede wildfire mitigation 

activities, in-depth interviews revealed that homeowners were involved in a much more 

complex set of decision-making processes. While institutional factors reportedly play a 

small role, homeowners consistently stressed three non-institutional factors: (1) the informal social processes by which they learn about and form opinions about wildfire risk; 

(2) their perceptions of the biophysical landscape including fuel load and topographical 

features of their property, the community, and nearby public lands; and (3) perceptions 

of mitigation options particularly in terms of the efficacy of household adjustments in 

reducing the risk of wildfire ignitions and severity.

It was also clear that among the study participants:

• There is a fairly sophisticated understanding of fire, fire behavior, and fire risk.

• Generally, there is a sense that there is an abundant amount of information 

available about fire, fire mitigation, etc., but the process of implementation was 

reported to be the challenge. It was described as having an entire manual on how 

to fix your car: all the information may be available, but actually popping that 

hood and getting out the tools and getting to work is a daunting task.

• Study participants were very clear on reporting the biophysical characteristics of 

their properties including the lay of the land, location of the house, and proximity 

to unmitigated property as factors that they use to assess their fire risk.

• Though some study participants reported supporting insurance company plans 

to drop homeowners who do not properly mitigate according to their criteria, 

most study participants reported a sense of frustration and even betrayal at the 

idea. Some expressed concern that they have been paying into a system that is 

now obliged to cover them. Overall, however, study participants reported that 

they would change insurance companies if they are asked to make changes they 

weren’t comfortable with.

• Many study participants reported having fire-contingency plans, though these plans 

vary considerably across households. Overall, study participants reported making 

lists to use to organize a quick evacuation. Some study participants reported having emergency mitigation plans in which if a fire comes and is truly threatening, 

they would cut favorite trees that they otherwise were unwilling to cut.

• Most study participants felt that their fire mitigation efforts have made a difference in terms of their fire risk, but those close to National Forest land reported 

feeling that their efforts will only prevent property damage if fire starts on their 

property, not if it starts on National Forest land.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005

• It was clear that study participants understood that wildfire risk does not occur 

on an individual property scale. Study participants suggested that mitigation on 

private properties, through the creation of defensible space, for example, would do 

little if that property were surrounded by private or public land, such as National 

Forest land, that was not mitigated. In some cases, such as Little Valley, this situation rallies some neighbors to get involved; among other study participants in 

the same community, however, it seems to leave a sense of “why bother?”

• Interviews with couples unexpectedly provided the opportunity to gain insight 

into the ways in which divergent attitudes between the couple on mitigation are 

discussed. Wildfire mitigation actions were the result of the couple negotiating on 

the issue. Rather than simply weighing out technical information regarding wildfire risk and mitigation options, decisions about cutting trees or making changes 

to landscapes appear to involve sentimental and emotional considerations that 

were clearly negotiated between married couples.

• Study participants reported concern with the number of access roads, the quality 

and accessibility of these of roads, and distances to services such as fire departments.

• One-on-one information tailored to a particular property seemed to move people to 

actually take action. This type of information was largely provided by the CWSS. 

Nonspecific general information, such as pamphlets or presentations at town 

meetings, did not emerge as information that motivated homeowners to take action.

• The source of information matters. Study participants said they trust the information they receive from the CWSS but are not sure if they would take action based 

on the advice of someone from the insurance company or other source considered 

to be less trustworthy.

Implications for Wildfire Mitigation Programs

The qualitative approach used in this study does not allow us to make generalizations 

about all Larimer County residents living in WUI communities. Given the diversity 

among these communities, such generalizations may not be appropriate in any case. 

Many of the study participants recognized the risk of wildfire and made some effort to 

reduce the risk on their property. The formal programs within Larimer County have 

likely contributed to this situation. It appears that the individualized information provided by the CWSS is what moves individuals who are ready to take action to actually 

undertake mitigation activities. Study participants felt they knew what they should do 

in general to mitigate the risk of wildfire but did not necessarily know how to go about 

actually developing and implementing a mitigation plan. The CWSS was mentioned by 

many study participants as an important person for providing the needed information. 

Individuals who had followed the advice of the CWSS expressed pleasant surprise with 

how flexible mitigation efforts could be and experienced some unexpected benefits such 

as improved wildlife viewing.

At this time, homeowner insurance does not play a big role in providing homeowners with incentives to mitigate. State Farm is threatening not to provide insurance to 

homeowners who do not mitigate their risk of wildfire. At the time of this study, none 

of our study participants had been threatened with the loss of their insurance. If it is 

possible to switch homeowner insurance due to such a threat, many homeowners said 

they would do that. If homeowner insurance is to provide incentives for homeowners to 

mitigate their risk of wildfire, it may need to be an industry-wide effort.

The fuel loads on proximate National Forests are important. Homeowners seem to 

have a sense of the landscape-level risk. Some homeowners cited the hopelessness of 

their own efforts given the current wildfire risk on an adjacent National Forest. While 

this issue needs to be investigated more formally, fuel treatment programs on public 

lands may provide incentives for homeowners to take action on their private lands. If a 

formal investigation finds fuel loads on National Forest lands impact actions on private 

lands, this is another issue that wildfire education programs could consider capitalizing 

on.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-25WWW. 2005 9

The emotional, non-rational aspect of mitigation decisions is important to consider 

when developing programs and dealing with homeowners. The provision of rational, 

scientific information may not be effective in this situation. As mentioned earlier, individualized information may be most effective.

Caveats

Overrepresentation of those who mitigate against fire risk

The sampling design deployed for this exploratory work was intended to assess homeowners’ understandings and concerns regarding wildfire and their knowledge and 

willingness to engage in mitigation. As an exploratory project, the loose structure of the 

interviews allowed the study participants to lead the discussion and highlight issues 

that were most relevant to their wildland urban interface living experience. Ideally, we 

were interested in interviewing homeowners who were both enthusiastic and actively 

engaged in mitigation as well as homeowners who had the “let it burn” attitude that 

was so widely reported.

Contacting those skeptical of mitigation was difficult. While study participants willingly reported on neighbors who were emphatically against mitigation, when asked for 

contact information for these individuals, they were consistently unwilling or unable to 

provide such information.

Thus the sample obtained overwhelmingly consists of individuals who engage in or 

are supportive of mitigation efforts, at least at a general level, and includes several 

extremely active individuals. There were several study participants who reported engaging in only “some mitigation.”

References

Babbie, Earl. 2001. The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Hodgson, R.W. 1996. Community programs. P. 242-258. In: R. Slaughter (ed.), California’s I-zone 

urban/wildland fire prevention and mitigation. California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection, Sacramento, CA.
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following 

media. Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Rocky Mountain Research Station

 240 West Prospect Road

 Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 

sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office 

of Civil Rights, Room 326 W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific 

information and technology to improve management, 

protection, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is 

designed to meet the needs of the National Forest managers, 

Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations, 

academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving 

ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource 

inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, 

forest engineering technology, multiple use economics, 

wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may 

be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper