United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-260

September 2011

A Qualitative and 

Quantitative Analysis 

of Risk Perception and 

Treatment Options as 

Related to Wildfires in 

the USDA FS Region 3 

National Forests

Ingrid M. Martin,

 Wade E. Martin, 

Carol B. Raish
Martin, Ingrid M.; Martin, Wade E.; Raish, Carol B. 2011. A qualitative and 

quantitative analysis of risk perception and treatment options as related to 

wildfires in the USDA FS Region 3 National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-260. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 57 p.

Abstract

As the incidence of devastating fires rises, managing the risk posed by these 

fires has become critical. This report provides important information to examine 

the ways that different groups or disaster subcultures develop the mentalities or 

perceived realities that affect their views and responses concerning risk and disaster 

preparedness. Fire risk beliefs and attitudes of individuals and groups from four 

geographic areas in the Southwest (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Region 3, Arizona and New Mexico) surrounding the Kaibab, Tonto, Santa Fe, and 

Lincoln National Forests are presented. Using both quantitative and qualitative 

methods, we collected information from three distinct groups: general public, 

informed lay public, and local experts. In addition, personal interviews were 

conducted with a group of policy experts in the science of wildfires and climate 

change. A primary finding indicates that all of the groups that we interviewed 

expressed a strong desire for land managers to manage the public lands proactively 

in order to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. However, respondents expressed 

different preferences regarding the management approach that should be used. One 

important observation was that respondents in each of the three distinct respondent 

groups prioritized their preferred means of communication differently.

Keywords: wildfire, risk perceptions, risk communication, risk mitigation, disaster 

subcultures, attitudes, beliefs, prescribed fire

Authors

Ingrid M. Martin, Department of Marketing, California State University, Long 

Beach, and Integrated Resource Solutions, LLC, imartin@csulb.edu.

Wade E. Martin, Department of Economics, California State University, Long 

Beach, and Integrated Resource Solutions LLC, wmartin@csulb.edu.

Carol B. Raish, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, craish@fs.fed.us.

Acknowledgments

We thank Pam Jakes and Stacey Menzel Baker for their helpful comments. This 

research was supported, in part, by funds provided by the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. RJVA 07-JV11221602-176.

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.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Contents

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................1

1.1 Research Process......................................................................1

1.2 Prior Research ..........................................................................2

1.3 Research Setting, Methods, and Techniques..............................2

1.4 Details of the Multi-Phase Research Process .............................2

2.0 The Role of Fire......................................................4

3.0 Perception of Risk..................................................6

3.1 Perceived Vulnerability.............................................................6

3.2 Acceptable Level of Risk...........................................................8

3.3 Why People Take Action...........................................................8

3.4 Individual Risk Mitigation Efforts...............................................9

4.0 Responsibility .......................................................12

5.0 Treatment Options...............................................13

5.1 Overall Goals and Benefits of Treatment.................................13

5.2 Overall Challenges to Treatments............................................14

5.3 What Facilitates Treatment......................................................15

5.4 Prescribed Fire........................................................................15

5.5 Thinning.................................................................................16

5.6 Chemical Treatments ..............................................................17

5.7 Combination of Treatments.....................................................17

5.8 Characteristics of Successful Treatment Projects......................17

5.9 Trends within Each Region......................................................18

5.10 The Role of the Forest Service...............................................18

6.0 Trust in the Forest Service...................................20

6.1 Trust Issues—Kaibab NF..........................................................20

6.2 Trust Issues—Tonto NF............................................................20

6.3 Trust Issues—Santa Fe NF .......................................................21

6.4 Trust Issues—Lincoln NF.........................................................21

7.0 Communication and Collaboration ...................23

8.0 Education Programs.............................................25

9.0 National Policy Experts Perspectives.................27

10.0 Possible Steps for the Forest Service ...............30

11.0 Conclusions........................................................33

References...................................................................34

Appendix A. Interview Guide ...................................35

Appendix B. Survey to the General Public ..............36

Appendix C. Survey of General 

Population—Results...............................................48
Policy 

Experts

Local 

Experts

Informed 

Lay Public

General 

Public

Climate 

Change 

Influences

External 

Factors*

Figure 1—Conceptual framework of stakeholders. *External factors are Congress, fire science, etc.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 1

Various factors have emerged to increase risk of catastrophic wildfires in our National Forests. Years of 

suppression of natural fires, an increase in human populations living in and around the forests, changes in climate 

such as prolonged droughts, and beetle infestations are just 

some of those factors. With the rising occurrence of devastating fires, managing risk has become critical. This report 

provides background information to examine the ways 

in which different groups or disaster subcultures1 develop 

the mentalities or perceived realities that affect their views 

and responses concerning risk and disaster preparedness. 

Fire risk beliefs and attitudes of individuals and groups 

from four geographic areas in the Southwest (U.S. Forest 

Service, Region 3, Arizona and New Mexico) surrounding 

the Kaibab, Tonto, Santa Fe, and Lincoln National Forests 

(NF) are presented. Our research shows differing views and 

attitudes among: local experts, involved public, and general 

public. In addition, we investigate the policies that guide 

public land management decisions concerning wildfire using a set of interviews with experts from various agencies at 

the national level (figure 1).

We explore stakeholder groups’ views on the role of fire 

and on wildfire risk and vulnerability. Pursuing the topic of 

risk in greater detail, we examine acceptable levels of risk 

and what factors motivate people to take actions to mitigate 

risk on their property and in their community. Information 

concerning assignment of responsibility for risk mitigation 

actions forms another part of the investigation.

We also present detailed discussions concerning preferred 

forest treatment options to reduce the risk of wildfire on 

public lands surrounding communities and which factors facilitate treatment implementation. Trust levels varied across 

the geographic areas, as well as among individuals within 

each area, but general patterns were apparent. In addition 

to historic and contemporary trust issues, we explore the effects of agency communication and education programs on 

trust and on public perceptions of risk. We compare trust 

levels, agency communication efforts, and educational programs across the four geographic areas. These topics are 

examined in the context of both historic and contemporary 

relationships and trust that individuals and communities 

place in relevant Government agencies, primarily in the U.S. 

Forest Service (FS) (figure 1).

1.1 Research Process

In this study, we review and evaluate community and 

individual knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and 

practices concerning fire and fuels management in southwestern forest, woodland, and grassland ecosystems in both 

historic and contemporary contexts. Published and archival 

information on indigenous and traditional burning practices 

formed the historic background for the research conducted 

with adjacent communities and user groups on NFs and 

Grasslands in the FS Southwestern Region (Region 3). 

Information was collected by means of focus groups and 

one-on-one interviews with locally knowledgeable individuals and the involved public from four Forests and one 

Grassland. Successful public communication programs were 

examined, as well as the public’s perceptions of the role of 

the FS concerning fire and fuels management. This body of 

issue development research was used to produce a survey 

instrument to assist us in gathering the desired information 

across the entire Region.

Although fire is increasingly recommended as a vegetation management tool on both public and private lands, 

controversy often inhibits its use. Insufficient communication and understanding between land managers and the 

public contribute to these difficulties. The term “public” 

refers to a very diverse set of stakeholders that bring an 

equally diverse set of knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and practices regarding fire and fuels management. 

These stakeholders include the general public, involved 

lay public, local and regional experts, and national-level 

policy workers. Understanding the diversity of stakeholder 

opinions and concerns is critical to efficient and equitable 

decisionmaking.

Often, managers lack information concerning the public’s knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and practices 

regarding fire and fuels management. Managers have inadequate data on the socioeconomic consequences of differing 

fire management practices to adjacent communities. They 

lack necessary information on community and user group 

preferences for fire management and vegetation restoration techniques. In many cases, the public is not sufficiently 

engaged in the design and implementation of fire and fuels 

management programs, leading to an incomplete understanding of community desires and concerns by public land 

managers. This frequently results in a refusal to accept agency initiatives, which hinders program implementation. In the 

aftermath of the devastating fires of 2000 through 2009 in 

the Southwest, it is especially important to understand public perceptions and values in the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) areas.

In order to design and implement successful, socially acceptable fire and fuels management policies and programs, 

land managers require an accurate, current body of data on 

1.0 Introduction

1

 Disaster subcultures refers to a cultural adaptation in coping with 

recurrent threats and the cultural defense used by a group to 

adapt to cognitive, behavioral, individual and collective behaviors 

used by people in response to a disaster that has struck or has the 

potential to strike in the future (Tierney and others 2001).
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

the previously mentioned topics concerning fire. They need 

adequate information on community and user group preferences for fire management and vegetation restoration 

techniques, as well as information on the socioeconomic 

consequences of different fire and incident management 

techniques. To obtain and make good use of these data, as 

well as the secondary data collected to support this research, 

managers must understand the means, methods, and implications of involving the public as partners in the design and 

implementation of fire and fuels management programs.

We conducted a literature review of published and unpublished archival sources to develop a database concerning 

fire attitudes and use among historic Native American, traditional Hispanic, and Anglo-American groups in the region. 

Information was drawn from historic, ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and archeological materials. This body of data 

served as the background framework to guide our research 

(see Daniel and others 2007), and it was designed to provide 

managers with important insights into a potentially useful 

body of traditional local knowledge and techniques for fire 

management and use that have been practiced successfully 

in the area for generations.

In the data collection process, we focus on designing 

and implementing strategies to gather information on public 

knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and practices relating to fire use and fuels management and to the role of fire 

in southwestern ecosystems. The public’s perceptions about 

the role of the FS in fire and fuels management, an evaluation of its current role, and information on problems and 

concerns related to fire and fuels management were also collected. Information was elicited on desired public outcomes 

from fire and fuels management programs and on possible 

public responses to different fire and fuels management 

techniques.

In order to understand how these views may vary with 

cultural conditioning, residence location, and past experience, as well as to include the varied user groups of 

the Southwest, we collected data from Native American, 

Hispanic, and Anglo-American communities. Given the very 

different groups and their respective stakeholder sub-groups, 

we developed a strategy to collect broader and more generalizable information using data collection techniques that 

were suitable for each group. For example, using direct mail 

surveys was not a feasible approach for the rural Hispanic 

population in northern New Mexico. Instead, identifying 

and talking with community leaders was a more effective 

way to uncover information that enhanced our understanding of what factors lead to public acceptance of hazardous 

fuels reduction, rehabilitation, and restoration alternatives 

across varying cultural and user groups.

1.2 Prior Research

In our research on historical published information relating to fire use, management, and attitudes among indigenous 

and traditional peoples, we examined reviews from various 

parts of the United States and Canada (Dobyns 1981; Kay 

1994; Lewis 1973, 1985; Pyne 1982, 1995; Stewart 1955a, 

1955b; Williams 2002). Although they provided an important background, the studies generally did not include the 

Southwest. To remedy this deficiency, we entered into a 

cooperative agreement with Quivira Research Associates 

to conduct a review of the southwestern literature (Condie 

unpublished paper; Condie and Raish 2003). A review of 

southwestern unpublished sources, such as archival documents, photographs, and maps, was conducted by consulting 

historian Thomas Merlan (03-JV-11221611-051). These 

studies are reported elsewhere (Condie unpublished paper; 

Condie and Raish 2003).

Studies of community fire issues that are being undertaken by a variety of researchers at both national and regional 

levels also helped structure research questions for this study. 

The work of Martin and others (2009) in the Colorado Front 

Range was used as a comparative base for the work being 

conducted for this project. The Colorado project by Martin 

and others (2009) that involves interviewing in multiple 

communities in Colorado and Oregon, was designed to consider the role of information in the acceptance of various 

treatment options for fire and fuels management, as well as 

the impact of experience and knowledge on risk perceptions 

and risk-mitigating behaviors (see Martin and others 2007, 

2008; Martin and others 2008; Martin and others 2008; 

Martin and others 2009). Their research also examines attitudes, beliefs, and practices concerning various fire and risk 

management strategies.

1.3 Research Setting, Methods, 

and Techniques

Information was collected on public knowledge, beliefs, 

attitudes, preferences, and practices relating to fire use, fuels 

management, and the perceived role of fire in southwestern 

ecosystems. The techniques used to gather this information 

were (1) the development of an historical documentation of 

fire in the Region, (2) interviews with locally knowledgeable 

individuals from adjacent communities and user groups, 

(3) focus group meetings on targeted forests and grasslands 

throughout the Region for issue and questionnaire development, (4) surveys of forest and grassland users from all 

forests and grasslands throughout the Region, and (5) interviews with national-level policy experts on fire and climate 

change.

1.4 Details of the Multi-Phase 

Research Process

Our research was a multi-phase process taking place 

in fire-prone communities in New Mexico and Arizona 

over a four-year period that included two high fire damage 

seasons (2004 and 2007). The stakeholders that were interviewed were the involved publics in these areas because 

they were at the forefront of the discussions, research, and/

or governance. The interviews included residents as well as 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 3

government representatives from local and regional offices, 

business leaders, volunteer firefighters, and city and county 

representatives. The population of participants, who were interviewed both through a mail survey and face-to-face, were 

categorized based on their level and type of involvement 

with issues related to wildland fire.

The categorization scheme included four groups. The first 

group was the general public, defined as those individuals 

living within a 15 mile radius of a NF. Information from this 

group was obtained via a mail survey (see Appendix B). The 

second group included individuals from the WUI who were 

identified as the involved lay public (e.g., Homeowner’s 

Association [HOA] participants, recreationists, representatives from environmental groups, and extractive user 

groups). Information from this group was obtained using a 

focus group format. The third group was made up of individuals who were primarily responsible for implementing 

wildland fire policy such as local firefighters or local fire 

management officers (FMO). These individuals were identified as local experts. The fourth group included those whose 

primary responsibility was to establish guidelines and policy direction for implementation of wildland fire policy, 

such as members of State and Private Forests and National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group (Bureau of Indian Affairs 

[BIA], Bureau of Land Management [BLM], National Park 

Service [NPS], USDA FS, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency [FEMA], National Association of State Foresters 

[NASF], etc.) as well as experts on climate change and wildfires. These individuals were identified as policy experts. 

Individual interviews were conducted with the latter two 

groups.

The local experts and involved lay public were asked 

the same set of questions with some customizing to fit each 

group. We used QSR, a qualitative data analysis program, 

to aid in analyzing the results of the interviews. The second 

part of the process was a mail survey that was sent to a random sample of the general public (residents in New Mexico 

and Arizona), and the response rate was 25.1%.2 This group 

lives within 15 miles of a NF, and its level of actual risk 

tended to be lower than the involved lay public group because of its proximity to the Forest. The survey results 

provided information on the general public’s beliefs and 

perceptions of risk from the perspective of a resident that 

was not directly involved in wildfire issues. Individuals classified as policy experts were identified through a snowball 

sampling technique and were interviewed either face-to-face 

or via telephone using a set of specific questions designed to 

help better understand how policy was developed and communicated within and across agencies. The policy experts 

were responsible for the development and implementation 

of policies within and across agencies both in Washington, 

DC, and across the United States. They were identified as 

experts in wildfire management and climate change policies based upon their positions as policy advisors and/or 

decision-makers.

One focus of this report is to discuss the themes that 

emerged in this research from the perspective of the communities and the (sometimes opposing) perspectives of the 

various government agencies and businesses. The second 

focus of this report is to provide the results of the general 

population survey and to communicate similarities and 

differences in the results between the two methods. These 

results are integrated into the discussion of the qualitative 

analysis with some additional quantitative analysis presented in the Appendix C. The interview guides we used for 

face-to-face and telephone interviews are found in Appendix 

A. Discussions were focused around four general topics: 

(1) the role of fire in the NFs, (2) the risk of catastrophic 

fires and the reasons why respondents do/do not take action 

to mitigate that risk, (3) the forest/fuels treatment options 

available to mitigate risk, and (4) the role of the FS in protecting the forests. We also present an in-depth discussion 

and analysis of the perspectives of three of the four stakeholder groups. The results and summary of the interviews of 

the policy experts are presented in Section 9. Our objective 

in this discussion is to identify where there is potential for 

communication and education by the FS so as to improve 

relationships with the stakeholder groups. In the final section of this report, we seek to link the voices of the other 

three stakeholder groups with the policy experts so that opportunities to improve communication and education can be 

implemented.

2

 We were concerned that the low response rate would result in nonresponse bias. To check for such bias, we conducted a set of focus 

group meetings and administered a subset of the survey questions. 

The results from this survey were treated as a hold-out sample 

and analyzed separately following Dillman (2000). A set of t-tests 

confirmed that there were no significant differences between the 

two groups (Martin and others 2009).
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

For many years, fires were seen as a threat to the forests and the natural resources derived from them and, therefore, as something to be prevented. Smokey Bear and his 

well-known “Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires” message, 

the longest running public service campaign in the United 

States, were created in 1944 in response to a national fear 

of the threat that fire posed to the lumber industry, which 

was critical to supporting the war effort of the time. Since 

then, the perception of fire and the contribution of forest fire 

suppression to the preservation of forest resources appear to 

have come full circle.

In the general public survey, respondents said they 

believed that they were moderately well-informed and motivated to learn more about the connection among wildfire 

risks, the role of fire, and defensible space actions (table 1). 

This was consistent in each of the four locations. In addition, 

respondents said they felt that information about wildfires 

was moderately relevant to them, providing an opportunity 

to further inform residents.

Keeping in mind that the interviews and focus groups 

were conducted with involved lay people as well as local and 

regional policy experts, we did not assess respondents’ levels of knowledge and motivation to learn more about fires. 

Overall, we found that Region 3 stakeholders expressed a 

respect for forest fires as “part of the natural life of the forest.” Further, many said they view forest fires as playing an 

important role in contributing to the health of the forest, with 

some stating that forest fires are a “[natural] cleanser of our 

ecosystem” and others expressing that fires provide “important nutrients back into the soil.” As such, there appeared 

to be strong support for allowing natural fire cycles to take 

place rather than suppressing them, as was previously done. 

There was a wide-ranging view that fires should be allowed 

as part of “the natural thinning [of the forest] and not trying to rush out there and fight [them].” Suppressing fire was 

often seen as going against nature. As an HOA representative on the Tonto expressed, “Historically, the forests...have 

been cleared naturally by forest fires.”

Interviewees largely shared the opinion that a history of 

fire suppression is one of the primary contributors to the current condition of the NFs, including the sharp increase in 

forest density, the widespread bark beetle infestation that 

is killing trees, and, ultimately, the rise in fuel loading that 

has led to a greater risk of catastrophic fires. The increase 

in catastrophic fires is widely regarded as the consequence 

of all the years of putting out every fire there was instead of 

allowing it or looking at it as part of the natural ecosystem. 

However, despite a general disagreement with suppression 

as a policy for managing the forest, suppression was considered necessary at some level due to the perceived risk of 

catastrophic fires under existing forest conditions. As expressed by a representative from the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department in Kaibab, fire suppression is necessary “when 

you’ve got buildings and [the] public to protect.” This is especially the case in areas that are considered WUI, where 

the threat to lives and property from letting fires burn is perceived to be too high. Under the current conditions, there 

was significant fear in the population of the devastation a 

large fire can cause. As one resident and former Fire Chief 

on the Santa Fe NF expressed, “If we have a catastrophic 

fire, it’s going to kill dozens with widespread destruction.”

A closer look at the differences in perspectives by interviewee type showed significant differences in the value they 

place on fire. Agency and professional forest management 

staff at the local and regional levels that were interviewed 

said they valued fire as a natural cleanser for the forest and 

as a means of controlling fuel loadings. On the other hand, 

the typical surveyed WUI resident was just as likely to value 

the aesthetic and practical role that fire plays in contributing 

to vegetation and grass growth as he/she is to value its role 

in reducing fuel loadings, contributing to safer conditions 

in the forest, and contributing to the natural balance of the 

ecosystem.

An analysis of the perceived role of fire across Forests 

showed that interviewees on the Santa Fe NF recognize the 

vital role that fire plays in maintaining the natural balance in 

the ecosystem. Respondents were twice as likely to cite this 

as a reason they believe fire is a good and necessary part of 

the forest as they were to cite any other reason. Other top 

reasons that residents of the Santa Fe said they believe fire is 

good are fire’s role in the healthy regeneration of grass and 

vegetation, followed by fire’s role in controlling the density 

of the forest and reducing fuel loadings.

2.0 The Role of Fire

Table 1. How well-informed and motivated are WUI residents?

Arizona New Mexico

Overall

Knowledge mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

How well-informed 4.77 (1.52) 4.61 (1.46) 4.75 (1.56) 4.84 (1.55) 4.96 (1.56)

How relevant is information 4.65 (1.58) 4.69 (1.48) 4.38 (1.68) 4.79 (1.62) 4.71 (1.54)

How motivated to learn 4.78 (1.68) 4.76 (1.68) 4.38 (1.71) 4.93 (1.64) 5.15 (1.66)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = not at all informed/motivated to 7 = very well informed/motivated
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 5

These strong opinions about the role of fire were mirrored when looking at state-level differences in perceptions 

of policy (table 2). Where interviewees in New Mexico 

tended to express a strong appreciation of fire for its role in 

the natural balance of the ecosystem, controlling forest density and fuel levels, and contributing to healthy vegetation 

re-growth, Arizona interviewees showed no strong opinion. 

Respondents were just as likely to value those attributes as 

they were to value fire’s role in creating meadows and helping to create good habitat for wildlife. These differences 

could be attributed to the different cultures as well as to the 

fire history of the areas, among other factors. The results 

of the survey of the general public revealed that residents 

near all four Forests said they believe that “managing naturally ignited fires” is a moderately effective treatment option 

(M = 4.34, SD = 1.47).

Table 2. Effectiveness ratings of forest treatment options.

Arizona New Mexico

Forest treatment Overall

options preferences means (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Prescribed fire 4.86 (1.50) 4.81 (1.55) 5.11 (1.19) 4.66 (1.51) 4.90 (1.70)

Managing natural 4.34 (1.47) 4.42 (1.44) 4.38 (1.46) 4.20 (1.52) 4.37 (1.52)

ignited fire

Selective thinning 5.11 (1.42) 4.85 (1.56) 5.02 (1.34) 5.30 (1.37) 5.33 (1.33)

(small wood)

Selective thinning 4.21 (1.73) 4.07 (1.71) 4.31 (1.68) 4.30 (1.75) 4.21 (1.86)

(large wood)

Prescribed fire and 5.18 (1.44) 5.09 (1.54) 5.46 (1.22) 5.15 (1.44) 5.03 (1.52)

thinning small wood

Prescribed fire and 4.43 (1.74) 4.38 (1.73) 4.75 (1.76) 4.43 (1.63) 4.10 (1.85)

logging

Goats 4.75 (1.69) 4.63 (1.55) 4.49 (1.81) 5.01 (1.67) 4.92 (1.79)

Salvage logging 4.69 (1.78) 4.50 (1.92) 4.67 (1,69) 4.74 (1.74) 4.96 (1.74)

Thin diseased trees 5.55 (1.54) 5.52 (1.64) 5.54 (1.22) 5.61 (1.51) 5.58 (1.48)

Do nothing 2.08 (1.45) 2.41 (1.69) 1.81 (1.24) 1.83 (1.05) 2.32 (1.66)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = not at all effective to 7 = very effective
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

There was a high level of awareness among the residents of Region 3 concerning the threat that wildfires represent to them, to their community, and to the forest, overall. 

This awareness was largely accompanied by a respect for 

wildfire as a natural part of living in the forest and, therefore, 

an understanding that is expressed by many that by choosing to “[live and work] in a heavily wooded forest...risk [of 

wildfires] is part of our life.”

Awareness of the increased risk of catastrophic fires created by current forest conditions and the need to mitigate that 

risk through treatment was highest among full- and longtime residents of the forest, as well as among people who had 

recently experienced a catastrophic fire. As the FMO on the 

Santa Fe NF put it, “These people have had enough scares 

over the last few years with fires that they’ve become very 

smart about fire.” Because of their experience, these groups 

see fire as inevitable and understand that it’s not a matter of 

“if fire comes through, [but] when.” They view creating a 

defensible space around their homes as a priority to mitigate 

their risk—so much so that New Mexico has a strong defensible space funding program called the 20-Communities 

Cost Sharing Program, which is funded by the National Fire 

Plan. The Program is a grant program, administered by the 

State of New Mexico, that reimburses landowners up to 70% 

of the cost of clearing hazardous fuels on their land. The 

success of the 20-Communities Cost Sharing Program has 

resulted in the program being expanded to over 300 communities in New Mexico.

 Risk perceptions were lowest among part-time and seasonal residents, especially those who lived out-of-state. As 

one resident on the Lincoln NF put it, “summer snowbirds...

don’t spend a lot of time worrying about fire abatement. It’s 

mostly the permanent residents.” Awareness of the risk was 

low among people who were new to the forest and did not 

have a good understanding of what the natural state of the 

Southwest forests should be. According to a Lincoln NF volunteer, “[The forest is] so dense...that it is a disaster waiting 

to happen.”

Residents’ perceptions of risk were also driven by their 

level of knowledge and experience with wildfires. In the general population survey, we asked how much information and 

experience respondents had concerning wildfires (Appendix 

C: table 7). We asked how informed they were about wildfire risks, how personally relevant they found information 

on wildfires to be, and how motivated they were to learn as 

much as possible about wildfires. We also asked them what 

type of experience they had with large-scale wildfires, including such aspects as being evacuated and losing homes or 

structures. Finally, we asked them to report what type of information they had been exposed to over the last year related 

to wildfires. Possible sources of information were Federal, 

State, and local agencies; media reports; neighbors; environmental organizations; and fire departments.

3.0 Perception of Risk

3.1 Perceived Vulnerability

Many said they view suppression and the removal of fire 

from the forest as major contributing factors to the forest 

being overgrown, as fire has not been allowed to play its natural role in removing debris and small trees from the forest. 

A resident of the Nambe Pueblo in New Mexico discussed 

the importance of the cultural knowledge of fire as a means 

to “...clean up the duff and probably also take out a good 

part of the little seedlings so just the bigger ones live.” The 

fact that this natural thinning of the forest was not taking 

place was seen by many, including a member of the Firewise 

Communities in Jemez and on the Santa Fe NF, as “the reason why [the forests are] in such bad shape...because the 

fuels are so high.” These high-density fuel levels were seen 

as key factors contributing to an increase in catastrophic 

fires, especially to the devastating crown fires witnessed in 

many of the area’s recent forest fires. While all fires have 

the potential to cause widespread devastation, there was a 

perception that crown fires are more destructive and less 

manageable than ground fires. As one farm owner of Apache 

descent on the Santa Fe NF stated, “If you can keep [fire] on 

the ground, you can protect anything on the ground. When 

this thing starts coming at you from the top, then you’re 

lost...you’ve lost it.”

The Southwest Region had also experienced drier than 

normal weather in recent years, which was seen as a contributor to the increased risk conditions. As a retired Fire Chief 

on the Tonto NF stated, “...with the drier weather patterns 

that have come along, the larger [the] fires that are happening.” Dry weather conditions limit the moisture available to 

the trees, which already compete for water because of the 

increasingly dense condition of the forest. The lack of moisture creates unhealthy trees and gives rise to an environment 

suitable for widespread disease in the forest and a rise in the 

risk of catastrophic fires. Beetle infestation is on the rise, 

which results in large numbers of dead trees in the forest. 

As a resident and HOA representative on the Tonto stated, 

“The way the trees are dying, there’s going to be a bigger 

risk for fire. [Bark beetles] are killing trees and that’s just, 

it makes it 10 times worse. Dead trees go up, you know, it’s 

like pouring gasoline on them.” Because of these conditions, 

people said they feel that any fire has the potential of being 

a catastrophic fire.

Another factor that increased residents’ feelings of vulnerability to catastrophic fire is the perception that the majority 

of fires that have burned through the Region were caused 

by humans and were not naturally ignited. One major factor 

that was seen as contributing to the rise in human-caused 

fires is that there are more people living in and around the 

forest than ever before. Further, people are moving into the 

forests who do not understand them and how to live safely in 

them given the current conditions. As a County Supervisor 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 7

in the region of the Tonto NF put it, “We have a lot of people 

moving into the area that have not lived here before.... They 

have a tendency to just want to let everything crowd right up 

against their house. They love their trees!” Another factor 

that was perceived to increase the feelings of vulnerability 

is residents not treating their properties, either because, as 

the County Supervisor near the Tonto NF stated, they “don’t 

understand what the requirement is out here in order to reduce the fuel loadings to where it’s manageable” or simply 

because “they don’t want to do it.” This perception of vulnerability from untreated land was often attributed to FS 

land. As an HOA resident near the Tonto NF put it, people 

feel that even if “everyone has expended a lot of effort to 

clean their own private property, that doesn’t do any good 

if the fire originates from a horribly overgrown forest...onto 

the private land.” There is strong sentiment that the FS has 

forsaken its responsibility to reduce fire risks on public land 

and has instead placed the onus of responsibility on private 

owners, local governments, and State Forestry.

Analysis of the perception of vulnerability across interviewee type revealed no major differences in the factors 

associated with a high level of vulnerability between the typical resident and local experts (fire professionals). Both of 

these groups expressed a strong opinion and concern about 

the causes of the high level of vulnerability associated with 

their location, such as their proximity to public lands and 

neighbors who don’t treat their own land. However, resident 

respondents were much more likely to express a feeling of 

vulnerability associated with their proximity to FS land. In 

fact, the average resident respondent was two times more 

likely to express feeling threatened by their proximity to unmanaged and heavily fuel-laden FS land than they were to 

express feeling threatened by the condition of their neighbor’s property. Local experts, on the other hand, seemed to 

make no differentiation between the threat caused by unmanaged FS land and neighbors with untreated properties. One 

interesting point of differentiation between the two groups, 

however, shows local experts largely attributed to luck that 

no major catastrophic fire had devastated their area.

A look at differences in the perception of vulnerability 

across forests showed residents near the Santa Fe NF expressing feelings of vulnerability more so than residents of 

any other Forest. Factors contributing to this anxiety were 

a general feeling that it’s a matter of time before a major 

catastrophic fire devastates their area; a feeling that there are 

more people in the forests, and that this increase in population is contributing to the increase in probability of fire; and 

a fear of loss of property and lives should a major fire break 

out. Residents of the Lincoln NF also expressed that the increased population living in the forest contributed to their 

feelings of vulnerability over the threat of a major fire in 

their area; however, they did not see loss of life and property 

as a significant concern. No strong opinion was evident in the 

Arizona Forests with regard to perception of vulnerability.

In the general population survey, we asked how residents 

in the WUI felt about their safety, including how vulnerable 

they believed they and their property were to the potential 

impact of wildfires (table 3). We also asked them what they 

believed the perceived likelihood was of a wildfire happening near their property and how severe they would expect 

that wildfire to be. The low to moderate perceptions of the 

wildfire vulnerability emerged across all four locations. 

When asked about their feelings of vulnerability, respondents expressed that they believed that the possibility of 

wildfires affecting them and their property was moderate. 

The belief that a catastrophic wildfire could happen near 

their property was low for southern Arizona and moderate 

for the other three regions. One distinction that emerged 

was with the perception of severity of a wildfire if it were to 

occur. New Mexico and northern Arizona groups said they 

perceive the severity of a wildfire to be moderately severe, 

whereas southern Arizona groups perceive the severity to be 

much less.

It is possible that this was due to the ecology and the topography of the region. According to a local FMO, there is 

less dense timber country in one part of the southern Arizona 

region, which tends to be more of a grassy mesquite bosque 

with a lower fire risk than dense timber country. In addition, 

according to another fire professional in the Sonoran Desert 

portions of southern Arizona, that area is not fire-adapted. 

Fires in this vegetation type cause cacti loss and change the 

ecosystem to savannah and invasive grasses that make the 

area more fire prone. Because of these conditions and the 

proximity of Phoenix’s dense population, fire response in 

the Sonoran Desert is rapid with immediate suppression. It 

might be for those reasons that the general public in southern 

Table 3. Vulnerability, risk, and severity of wildfires.

Arizona New Mexico

Perceived Overall

vulnerability mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

How vulnerable are you?a 3.33 (1.96) 3.66 (1.95) 2.68 (1.75) 3.45 (2.03) 3.49 (2.01)

How vulnerable is your home?a 3.24 (2.05) 3.58 (2.05) 2.56 (1.91) 3.37 (2.13) 3.44 (1.99)

Likelihood of wildfireb 3.51 (2.69) 4.13 (2.72) 2.62 (2.62) 3.67 (2.64) 3.36 (2.58)

Severity of wildfireb 5.02 (3.25) 5.27 (3.15) 3.91 (2.94) 5.42 (3.43) 5.38 (3.33)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = not at all vulnerable/likely/severe to 7 = very vulnerable/likely/severe

a These measures are based upon a 7-point scale.

b

 These measures are based upon a 0 to 10 rating.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Arizona believed the impact of wildfire in the next couple of 

years would be significantly lower than did members of the 

general public in the other three regions.

3.2 Acceptable Level of Risk

While residents expressed that they understand and are 

willing to accept some level of risk from living in the forest, it is important for land managers to understand that not 

all risk is acceptable. Self-imposed risk, the risk residents 

take on by choosing to live in the forest, is acceptable; the 

risk imposed on them by others is generally not acceptable. 

An example of this dichotomy comes from a fifth generation 

resident of the Lincoln NF who said, “I love my trees and 

I’m going to keep them, and I don’t think fire is going to start 

on my land, but I live near NF land and since the FS isn’t taking care of their land they’re creating a danger and imposing 

it on me...homeowners see that as wrong.” Other neighbors 

can also create this risk because of a choice or other limitations that prohibit them from treating their own property. 

This includes neighbors who own property or land but do 

not live near the forest full-time and do not maintain it, as 

one resident near the Lincoln NF stated, “They can care less 

about clearing out their property or not...because they are 

not going to live there anyway.” Private property issues tend 

to arise in these types of situations—“Don’t tell me what to 

do on my land!” People, such as a County Representative in 

the Tonto NF region, said they view ordinances that require 

people to clean up their properties as the only recourse to 

deal with this risk because “if your neighbor has got dead 

trees and so forth on their property right next to you and 

he’s not willing to do anything about it what recourse do you 

have if you don’t have something on the books?”

A form of imposed risk that was somewhat acceptable is 

the risk that is inherent in treatments such as prescribed fire. 

While people recognized there is always the risk of a prescribed fire going out of control, they are generally willing 

to accept that risk since they view it as less risky than doing 

nothing and increasing the threat of a catastrophic fire. As a 

NF representative on the Santa Fe NF stated, “Catastrophic 

fires, wildfires, generally have more of an effect on sites 

than prescribed fire because they’re roaring and going usually when they start burning high density fuel types. And 

certainly the prescribed fire can be controlled around a site 

or through sites much more so.”

3.3 Why People Take Action

Many factors contributed to motivating people to treat 

their property and create defensible spaces around their 

homes. Among these factors was an increased awareness 

of the threat of and damage caused by catastrophic fires 

that comes from experience with wildfire. People are more 

motivated and open to treatment immediately after a fire. 

This high level of motivation, however, is often not maintained as apathy sets in and as time passes. As a retired Fire 

Chief on the Tonto NF observed, after a fire “there [is] a 

great awareness for a short period of time, but then usually, I would say within two months, everybody [is] back to 

business as usual.” The fact that the immediate impact of a 

fire and the increased feelings of vulnerability seemed to be 

the strongest factors moving people to action suggests the 

importance of education and other outreach efforts to raise 

awareness of the current conditions and what each person 

can do to mitigate their risk. In other words, using immediate 

experience as a “teachable moment” can be very effective. 

However, this requires being prepared to take advantage of 

that often short two-month window.

Another factor that seemed to motivate people into action 

is the fact that they generally care about preserving the forest, and not just simply their property. They want to restore 

the beauty of the forest that has been compromised by the 

increase in density of trees and fuel loadings. As a resident 

near the Santa Fe NF stated, “You used to see this beautiful, 

dense forest and now all [you] see is fuel.” There is recognition from many, voiced by a Woods Watch representative 

on the Kaibab NF, that failure to address the density issue 

through treatment will result in “nature [taking] care of the 

problem through the bark beetle infestations and through 

catastrophic wildfire.” The realization that it is possible for 

land owners to thin out their property and “create that defensible space...in an aesthetic manner” is a motivator because, 

as one resident of the Santa Fe NF stated, the owner can have 

the satisfaction of “[having] a piece of land that’s defensible 

[that is] still beautiful.” This was important to many who 

chose to live in the forest.

While these perceptions on why people take action to 

mitigate their risk of catastrophic fire generally hold true 

across interviewee type and forest, it is interesting to note 

the strong perception on the Lincoln NF that personal interest (e.g., the idea that “all of my personal treasures are in my 

house”) was the number one reason why people decide to 

take action.

In terms of perceptions on why people don’t take action, 

local experts and the involved lay public alike expressed the 

strong opinion that people near the forest chose to live there 

because they love to have trees around them, and it is that love 

that encourages them to resist removing the trees, therefore 

creating defensible spaces around their homes. A look across 

Forests for reasons why people chose not to take action also 

revealed some interesting differences. Representatives interviewed on the Kaibab NF were just as likely to state apathy 

and lack of awareness as the reasons why people don’t take 

action to mitigate risk. On the Tonto NF, apathy was, by 

far, the number one reason why people chose not to take 

action. In fact, a look at perceptions across the two states 

showed Arizona interviewees sharing the strong opinion that 

apathy was the number one reason, whereas for the resident 

New Mexico interviewees, love of trees was the number 

one reason. This suggests the need for more education and 

outreach programs in Arizona to raise awareness and prevent apathy from setting in. For New Mexico, programs 

such as the 20-Communities Cost Sharing Program can be 

marketed more heavily to encourage both full- and part-time 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 9

homeowners to put effort into mitigating the fire risk on their 

property, while also teaching them that they do not have to 

clear-cut their property in order to make it defensible.

Despite compelling reasons in favor of treatment, significant challenges abound. Not the least among these 

challenges is the high cost and labor-intensive nature of undertaking various treatment options on one’s property. While 

most “believe [treatment] needs to be done...[some are limited because they either] can’t physically...[or they] don’t 

have the money to hire someone to do it,” or both. This is 

especially true for the elderly. The labor-intensive nature of 

defensible space actions also presents a challenge for the FS, 

which has limited resources and an increased demand for reporting and administrative duties. People said they perceive 

the FS as not having the manpower to both apply treatments 

and meet other duties. As one retired Fire Chief in the Tonto 

NF stated, “Looking at it very aggressively, you go out there 

and tell somebody they need to cut down three-quarters of 

their trees and the first thing they want to do is run you off 

with a shotgun.”

3.4 Individual Risk Mitigation Efforts

To determine how respondents in the general public survey used their knowledge and the information that they had 

to mitigate wildfire risks on their properties, we asked them to 

tell us the likelihood of their undertaking 11 defensible space 

actions3 (table 4):

1. creating a 30-ft defensible space around your home,

2. planting fire-resistant plants around your home,

3. putting a fire-resistant roof on your home,

4. putting fire-resistant undersides on decks and balconies,

5. removing dead branches from your roof,

6. making sure your home is easily identifiable from main 

road,

7. making sure all trees are planted away from structures,

8. making sure all trees are planted away from utility lines,

9. working with neighbors to prune and clear common areas,

10. stacking firewood away from structures, and

11. contacting the local fire department for a personal fire 

safety inspection.

The options for each item were: 1 = already done, 2 = will 

do in next month, 3 = will do in next 2–3 months, 4 = will do 

next year, 5 = probably will not do (0 = not applicable).

The southern Arizona respondents had undertaken significantly fewer defensible space actions. In fact, southern 

Arizona residents were in sharp contrast to the other three 

sites when it came to 7 of the 11 risk mitigating actions. 

Southern Arizona and southern New Mexico respondents 

were significantly less likely to undertake the defensible 

space action of “working with neighbors to clear common 

areas.” In addition, a significant number of respondents from 

the southern regions stated that they would not undertake 

this action, unlike respondents from the northern regions of 

both New Mexico and Arizona. We found that a number of 

residents in both southern Arizona and northern New Mexico 

would not undertake the “stacking wood away from structures” action (20% and 25%, respectively), while respondents 

in southern Arizona were significantly more likely to have 

undertaken this action (45.5%). We also found that southern 

New Mexico was the only site where a significant percent 

of respondents stated that they would not “plant trees away 

from utility lines” (55%). Finally, for the defensible space 

action of “contacting the local fire department for a personal 

fire safety inspection,” we found that there was much variation across locations. About 25% of respondents in southern 

Arizona and both sites in New Mexico had already undertaken this action, while about 25% said they would not do 

it. In contrast, 50% of respondents in northern Arizona had 

already undertaken the action, while 30% said they would not 

take the action. There was variation among the four regions 

in 7 of the 11 defensible space actions, but there was a pattern 

among the regions in the other 4 actions (table 4)

If residents believe that certain factors will be effective at 

mitigating wildfire risks, it seems logical that they will undertake those actions (table 5). We asked residents to tell us how 

effective they thought each of the risk reduction actions was 

at preventing wildfires from impacting their property and their 

lives. The pattern of perceived effectiveness of each of the 

defensible space actions was consistent across all 4 regions 

for all 11 actions. For the most part, respondents said they felt 

that the actions were effective at reducing the risk of wildfires 

damaging property or injuring individuals—the overall rating 

was quite high (6.0 out of 7, table 5).

Residents were asked how confident they were in their ability to undertake the 11 risk reduction behaviors (table 6). But 

it is also important to understand what affects that decision. 

Implementing these tasks can be very costly both physically 

and financially. Therefore, we measured respondents’ confidence levels at undertaking each of the defensible actions as 

well as their overall confidence in their ability to protect themselves and their property. A pattern emerged for the degree of 

confidence (moderately high) that respondents in all locations 

had in their ability to undertake all but three of the defensible actions. The first was putting fire-resistant undersides to 

decks and balconies on a home. This lower confidence could 

have been because some residents did not have balconies and 

decks, so this was not perceived as relevant to their situation. 

The second action was planting trees away from houses and 

structures. The reasoning for this lower confidence level could 

have been that many people were not willing to cut down trees 

close to their structures or do not intend to plant more trees. 

The third action was working with neighbors to clear common areas. This could have been due to the lack of organized 

HOAs or other community organizations or the desire for isolation from neighbors. 3

 These 11 items are based upon information provided by the Fire 

Safe Council of California.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Table 4. Defensible space actions.

Arizona New Mexico

Defensible Overall

space action mean northern region southern region northern region southern region

30-foot defensible space 58% 64% 47.2% 65.3% 50%

already done done already already done already done already done

Plant fire-resistant plants 56% 61.8% 38.2% 53.5% 72.5%

already done already done already done already done already done

Fire resistant roof 62% 66.3% 47.3% 73.5% 50%

already done already done already done already done already done

Fire resistant undersides 55% will 64.1% will 35.2% will 45.3% will 79% will

not do not do not do not do not do

Remove dead branches 81% 77.2% 67.3% 92.3% 90%

already done already done already done already done already done

Easily identify house 83% 93.3% 63.6% 83.8% 85%

already done already done already done already done already done

Trees planted away from 62% 66% 52.7% 63.4% 60%

house already done already done already done already done already done

Trees planted away from 63% 72.8% 52.7% 71.8% 55%

utility lines already done already done already done already done will not do

Work with neighbors 48% 57.6% 42% 49.3% 55.3%

already done already done already done already done will not do

and 33% will 34.2%

already done 

Stack firewood away from 63% 68% 45.5% 62.8% 68.5% 

house already done already done already done already done already done

& 20% will & 25% will

not do not do

Fire safety inspection 34% 48.9% 21.8% 28% 30%

already done already done already done already done, already done

& 32% will & 37% will & 21.8% will 21% do & 45% will

not do not do not do in next not do

3-6 months, 

& 24% will 

not do

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 11

Table 6. Confidence to undertake these defensible actions.

Arizona New Mexico

Defensible Overall

space action mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

30-foot defensible space 5.17 (2.35) 5.62 (2.16) 4.58 (2.15) 5.30 (2.15) 4.47 (2.65)

Plant fire-resistant plants 5.71 (1.79) 5.88 (1.74) 5.61 (1.98) 5.62 (1.72) 5.63 (1.86)

Fire resistant roof 5.79 (1.92) 6.20 (1.46) 5.25 (2.30) 5.87 (1.97) 5.26 (2.10)

Fire resistant undersides 4.75 (2.48) 5.31 (2.27) 4.75 (2.57) 4.59 (2.46) 3.73 (2.60)

Remove dead branches 6.30 (1.31) 6.54 (0.92) 5.95 (1.86) 6.27 (1.42) 6.20 (0.94)

Easily identify house 6.35 (1.29) 6.53 (0.97) 5.90 (1.93) 6.58 (0.95) 5.94 (1.45)

Trees planted away from 

house 4.98 (2.33) 5.13 (2.23) 4.90 (2.41) 5.10 (2.30) 4.54 (2.52)

Trees planted away from 

utility lines 5.17 (2.47) 5.35 (2.35) 5.32 (2.53) 5.35 (2.37) 4.08 (2.71)

Work with neighbors 4.82 (2.32) 5.07 (2.03) 4.91 (2.44) 4.75 (2.39) 4.21 (2.60)

Stack firewood away from 

house 6.05 (1.79) 6.13 (1.77) 5.98 (1.93) 6.26 (1.42) 5.47 (2.17)

Fire safety inspection 5.72 (1.72) 5.83 (1.64) 5.60 (2.04) 5.72 (1.69) 5.59 (1.55)

Overall confidence 5.72 (1.20) 5.78 (1.22) 5.98 (1.32) 5.56 (1.04) 5.54 (1.26)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = not at all confident to 7 = very confident

Table 5. Effectiveness of each risk reduction action.

Arizona New Mexico

Defensible Overall

space action mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

30-foot defensible space 5.31 (2.03) 5.32 (2.06) 5.28 (2.14) 5.37 (1.87) 5.16 (2.23)

Plant fire-resistant plants 5.20 (1.76) 5.36 (1.82) 5.21 (1.41) 4.97 (1.75) 5.26 (2.02)

Fire resistant roof 5.93 (1.54) 6.10 (1.59) 6.17 (0.99) 5.88 (1.56) 5.65 (1.89)

Fire resistant undersides 5.12 (2.04) 5.01 (2.16) 5.55 (1.67) 5.19 (1.86) 4.81 (2.44)

Remove dead branches 6.15 (1.40) 5.94 (1.56) 6.33 (1.28) 6.24 (1.37) 6.24 (1.14)

Easily identify house 5.94 (1.38) 5.97 (1.41) 5.95 (1.10) 5.89 (1.53) 6.00 (1.31)

Trees planted away from 5.41 (1.81) 5.32 (1.88) 5.38 (1.77) 5.53 (1.66) 5.39 (2.04)

house

Trees planted away from 5.28 (1.97) 4.97 (2.07) 5.69 (1.73) 5.49 (1.89) 5.13 (2.35)

utility lines

Work with neighbors 5.10 (2.12) 4.82 (2.07) 5.47 (2.06) 5.23 (1.89) 5.11 (2.37)

Stack firewood away from 5.97 (1.69) 5.74 (1.97) 6.21 (1.34) 6.14 (1.42) 5.89 (1.81)

house

Fire safety inspection 5.23 (1.79) 5.41 (1.83) 5.28 (1.56) 4.90 (1.84) 5.42 (1.83)

Overall effectiveness 6.00 (1.28) 5.96 (1.37) 6.12 (1.15) 5.92 (1.29) 6.02 (1.25)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = not at all effective to 7 = very effective
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Aheightened awareness of risk often translates into a strong sense of individual responsibility among residents for mitigating their risk from future fires. As a fourth 

generation resident on the Kaibab NF stated, “The majority 

of people here feel like that is their land, and their responsibility [is] to manage it, take care of it.” This perception often 

resulted in a strong motivation to engage in active treatment 

and maintenance of one’s property. Even with treatment, 

however, residents understand that they are not immune to 

the risk of catastrophic fires. As one resident on the Lincoln 

NF put it, “I don’t think anybody, including us, [is] fooled 

into thinking that we’ve completely protected ourselves 

from the wildfire...if anything...we’ve done enough work 

that we will have slowed the progress of a ground fire, or 

even a crown fire...to the point where we could, hopefully, 

evacuate the site in time and have no human injuries if there 

were a fire.” In fact, it was because of this heightened awareness of the wildfire risk that some reported feeling a low 

sense of confidence that the treatments they have already 

done on their property are enough—instead they were wanting “to go back and...clear another deeper layer.”

Throughout Region 3, respondents tended to express the 

opinion that the responsibility for mitigating the risk of catastrophic fire lays with each individual rather than a specific 

agency. Respondents were nearly three times more likely 

to express that individuals should be responsible for their 

own protection than they were to say that the responsibility lays with the FS, and very few respondents think that 

responsibility should be shared between the individual and 

the FS.

Another important factor in understanding the general public’s perception of wildfire risks mitigation is to 

understand where the public places responsibilities for this 

mitigation process (table 7). The responsibility for protecting oneself, property, and lands is another issue that has been 

found to determine what homeowners will do to mitigate 

wildfire risks. We asked the public the degree of responsibility of individual homeowners, HOAs, local governments, 

and the FS in mitigating the risks of wildfires. The responses 

continue to help us construct a picture of how residents in the 

WUI view the process of mitigating wildfire risks for all parties concerned. The results indicate that across all locations, 

respondents believe strongly that homeowners are responsible for protecting themselves and their property. Likewise, 

they said they believe that HOAs should be held responsible 

for protecting homeowners and private property. This could 

be due to the issue that occurs when some homeowners do 

little or nothing to mitigate fire risks on their property, resulting in a potentially negative spillover effect on others in the 

community. Respondents also said they believe that county 

and city governments along with the public land managers 

are responsible for working to mitigate wildfire risks. All in 

all, the overarching belief is that mitigating wildfire risks is 

the responsibility of all members of the community, including the FS.

4.0 Responsibility

Table 7. Responsibility for protecting against wildfires.

Arizona New Mexico

Overall

Responsibility mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Homeowners’ responsibility 6.36 (0.94) 6.35 (0.98) 6.43 (0.93) 6.40 (0.88) 6.24 (1.01)

HOA’s responsibility 5.83 (1.43) 5.75 (1.45) 6.09 (1.30) 5.67 (1.63) 5.89 (1.21)

Local government responsibility 5.59 (1.52) 5.57 (1.39) 5.62 (1.54) 5.65 (1.55) 5.50 (1.70)

US Forest Service responsibility 5.27 (1.56) 5.11 (1.55) 5.31 (1.59) 5.37 (1.56) 5.31 (1.60)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = not at all responsible to 7 = very responsible
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 13

The threat that wildfire poses to property and lives under current conditions is particularly critical, especially in 

the WUI, where, as one resident near the Lincoln NF stated, 

“You can’t react fast enough to defend the town...the fires 

just move too fast when they get going.” Therefore, there 

is a strong belief that the risk of catastrophic fires must be 

mitigated through human intervention (use of treatments). 

The presence of differing opinions from stakeholders and 

interest groups alike, as well as the need to integrate science 

into the process, presents a challenge to policymakers at the 

national level and to those who implement the policy locally. 

Here, we discuss the perceptions of how treatments can best 

be used to serve the needs of stakeholders and to facilitate 

the management of public lands to preserve these Forests 

as national treasures. We discuss prescribed fire, thinning, 

chemical treatments, and the combination of treatments.

In the survey of the general public, respondents were 

asked to rate their level of agreement with two statements: “Forest treatment options to reduce the risks of 

wildfire should be focused around communities/should be 

implemented across the entire NF” (table 8). Respondents 

expressed the preference that forest treatment implementation should focus on the entire NF, including wilderness 

areas, as well as areas around communities using these treatments. Respondents rated a high level of agreement with the 

statement “Prescribed fires should only be used once the usable wood material is removed through commercial logging/

removed through thinning projects.”

5.1 Overall Goals and Benefits 

of Treatment

A group of USFS Region 3 personnel respondents made 

the point that “what’s good for people is not necessarily 

good for the landscape....” Populations in the WUI are projected to continue increasing, with more and more homes 

being built in fire-prone areas such as hill slopes where there 

is a high danger of mudslides, etc. People are also moving 

into areas prone to stand-replacing fires, thereby increasing 

the risk of devastating destruction. The Region 3 personnel 

respondents said they believe that thinning is favored by the 

public as a treatment option although most thinning projects 

do not cover the entire landscape. They also said they believe that the public is not being educated about the overall 

goals, benefits, and risks of each treatment.

While some perceived benefits are unique to a specific 

treatment, overall the perceived goals and benefits of each 

treatment are similar: (1) to preserve the ecosystem, (2) to 

restore forest health, and (3) to mitigate the risk of catastrophic fires. This is represented by the sentiments of a 

member of the Firewise community adjacent to the Santa Fe 

NF who stated that to restore “forests so that they can sustain fire without threatening the [health of the] forests or the 

home” should be the goal. To have a healthy forest requires 

maintenance. As one resident of the Lincoln NF stated, you 

cannot just let nature take its course because “[the forests] 

will continue to burn until [they] all burn down or we thin 

[them].”

Treatment is seen as vital to reducing the number of trees 

in the forest, many of which are dead or dying due to beetle 

infestation. As a representative of the Board of Supervisors 

in Globe, Arizona, stated, “Our biggest concern now is these 

dead trees. We need to remove them from the forest so that 

fuel loadings are reduced. Some of the dead or downed trees 

are still usable, but if we just let them rot, then it is just more 

fuel for fires.” Reducing density also benefits the forest by 

decreasing the competition for moisture. This improves 

the health of the remaining trees, especially in drought 

5.0 Treatment Options

Table 8. Forest treatment options.

Forest Arizona New Mexico

treatment Overall

preferences mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Focus on communities 5.22 (1.52) 5.28 (1.52) 5.10 (1.56) 5.33 (1.48) 5.12 (1.55)

Focus across entire Forest 4.97 (1.85) 4.59 (1.94) 5.39 (1.81) 5.23 (1.66) 4.69 (1.92)

landscape

Use fire after commercial 4.63 (2.05) 4.46 (1.99) 5.39 (1.81) 5.23 (1.66) 4.69 (1.92)

logging

Use fire after thinning 5.22 (1.66) 5.09 (1.60) 5.26 (1.76) 5.50 (1.55) 4.92 (1.77)

projects

Let it burn unless lives are 4.13 (1.91) 4.24 (1.69) 3.78 (2.04) 4.16 (1.94) 4.36 (2.00)

threatened

No prescribed fire if smoke 3.18 (1.74) 3.16 (1.71) 3.07 (1.71) 3.23 (1.78) 3.31 (1.84)

is health problem

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

conditions. As one resident near the Santa Fe NF stated, 

“[The forest is] so thick with trees that the trees can’t get 

their nutrients, can’t get water.” Finally, another perceived 

benefit of reducing the number of trees is allowing grass and 

vegetation to grow, which is critical to preventing the growth 

of seedlings and helping to minimize the risk of crown fires. 

Left untreated, tree crowding not only jeopardizes the health 

of the forest through increased beetle infestation, but it also 

increases the threat of catastrophic fire. Table 9 provides the 

findings on the perceived effectiveness of the treatment options, as currently implemented.

5.2 Overall Challenges to Treatments

A significant challenge to deciding which treatment options should be used and how they should be implemented 

on the forest was the variety of opinions of different stakeholder groups. A representative of the communities near 

the Santa Fe NF stated that when it comes to thinning, “it’s 

sort of an informal debate in the public of what’s good for 

the forest. Some of them believe that you shouldn’t cut a 

tree.” With regard to prescribed fire, many share the belief 

expressed by a resident near the Lincoln NF that “people are 

concerned because they know that controlled burns can get 

out of hand. Other people are glad that something’s being 

done to help solve the problem.”

The biggest challenge, according to some groups that 

we interviewed, is what are perceived as extremist views 

held by some environmentalist 4 and special interest groups. 

These groups were seen as being against many forms of 

treatment because of the perceived impact of the treatment 

on wildlife and the ecosystem. Respondents’ perceptions 

can be attributed to the rise in lawsuits that present significant challenges to mitigating wildfire risks. For example, as 

one resident near the Lincoln NF observed, “The Southwest 

Center for Biological Diversity (SCBD) has been suing the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the FS to stop their forest thinning because they say it threatens the [spotted] owl.” There 

was an increased perception among the involved laypeople 

that the NFs are being managed in the courts.

Respondents also said they believe that inflexible laws 

and regulations are challenges to treatment implementation. 

Interviewees said they believe these laws are often set by 

politicians in Washington, DC, who, according to a large 

number of Region 3 stakeholders, do not have a good understanding of the conditions of the forests. As one resident 

of the Lincoln NF and member of the Timberon HOA stated, “People who do not live in the forest don’t understand 

the necessity for clearing.” This lack of understanding was 

perceived as causing a lack of political support to make the 

necessary resources available to mitigate wildfire risks.

Respondents expressed that the challenge of mitigating 

the threat of catastrophic fire is “a long-term problem” that is 

only going to get worse. As such, they see the need for treatment to be ongoing because, as a State Farm representative 

near the Lincoln NF stated, “By the time you get through, 

then you’ve got to turn around and re-treat what you treated before.” This opinion applies to both public and private 

lands.

Analysis of the perceptions of challenges to treatment 

by interviewee type showed a strong shared belief by local 

experts, involved lay public and environmentalists/special 

interest groups that the biggest challenge to treatment is 

the difference in values of the people who make up the forest communities. Local experts and the involved lay public 

showed an appreciation for the huge undertaking that treatment implementation represents given the current conditions 

of the forest, as well as the high cost associated with treatment options. The involved lay public respondents said they 

felt that ordinances or the lack thereof also were obstacles 

in their ability to carry out treatments. Local experts saw 

resistance from various groups to treatment as one of their 

major challenges. 5

Different perceptions of challenges were also found 

at the state and local levels. For the State of Arizona, respondents expressed that environmentalists seemed to pose 

the biggest challenge to people’s ability to carry out treatments. At the individual Forest level, however, the Kaibab 

4 Many individuals that we interviewed would frequently refer to 

“environmentalist” as an obstruction to various treatment options 

as discussed here. When asked to define the term, they would 

generally provide examples such as the Southwest Center for 

Biodiversity, Forest Guardians, and other organizations.

Table 9. Effectiveness of various forest management practices.

Arizona New Mexico

Overall

Effectiveness mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Current management practices 4.08 (1.25) 3.93 (1.30) 4.04 (1.03) 4.25 (1.31) 4.13 (1.35)

Current mechanical removal 3.94 (1.33) 3.89 (1.40) 3.65 (1.25) 4.16 (1.34) 4.06 (1.24)

Current thinning projects 3.87 (1.27) 3.91 (1.25) 3.49 (1.17) 3.96 (1.31) 4.18 (1.30)

Current prescribed fire projects 3.87 (1.34) 3.81 (1.43) 3.81 (1.05) 3.99 (1.34) 3.87 (1.51)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = not at all effective to 7 = very effective

5 Focus group interviews were used to supplement the results to the 

open-ended questions in the general survey.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 15

NF managers’ biggest challenge seemed to be resistance to 

treatment; whereas on the Tonto NF, the biggest challenges 

were ordinances and limited resources for treatment. In New 

Mexico, the overwhelmingly biggest challenge was the different values and cultures in the population, with the huge 

undertaking and cost of the various treatments also being 

important considerations. Another significant concern in the 

Santa Fe NF was the limited road access that presented problems for wildfire mitigation efforts.

5.3 What Facilitates Treatment

An increased awareness of the conditions on the forests, and the benefits of treatment to mitigate the risk of 

catastrophic fires that are associated with those conditions, 

is essential to facilitate treatment. As one resident of the 

Lincoln NF observed, “People here are aware of the fire 

danger; and they want something done. And they appreciate 

when things do get done.” Being able to see first-hand the 

effect of treatment increases the awareness of the benefits of 

treatment and the willingness to treat. As one HOA representative on the Tonto NF stated, when residents “can see where 

treatments have occurred and their effect on how fire spread, 

and you have that evidence...if the house is really cleaned 

up within the community, it typically didn’t burn down. [The 

fire] basically jumped away from it.”

Another factor that facilitates treatment is collaboration 

among the FS, the local community, and local agencies such 

as the fire department. As a county representative near the 

Tonto NF stated, “Any time we can get cooperation, the 

understanding, we like to have that because enforcement is 

always the last tool we choose to use, but I think we still 

have to have it available to us.” In addition to having laws 

and regulations in place, having adequate funding is also 

critical to facilitating treatment.

Interviewee responses also showed a strong and shared 

belief by the lay public, local experts, and local government 

representatives that having the right ordinances in place 

plays a significant role in facilitating treatments and ensuring that they are effectively undertaken.

5.4 Prescribed Fire

The biggest perceived benefit of prescribed fire was that it 

is the best way to safely reintroduce fire into the forest after 

years of suppression. As a resident near the Santa Fe NF stated, “A low to moderate-intensity under-burn would reduce 

the accumulation of small trees that have sprouted since the 

last burning. If left unchecked, the small trees and shrubs 

would develop into fuels, which would contribute to crown 

fire.” This treatment option was the preferred treatment of 

environmentalists because it is perceived to most closely 

mimick the natural fire conditions. As a representative from 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department on the Kaibab NF 

observed, “The mosaic [prescribed fire] creates—it misses spots and leaves spots and encourages brushy growth, 

which is important for a lot of wildlife species from a lot of 

perspectives.” In terms of cost and labor intensity, managed 

burns are seen as highly effective in treating large areas and 

especially areas that are difficult to reach.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to carrying out prescribed 

fire was the fact that conditions need to be “near perfect” 

before a fire can be ignited. As a member of the Firewise 

communities near Santa Fe, New Mexico stated, the FS 

“cannot go and have a controlled burn in the forest...when 

they’ve got communities that can potentially be overrun by 

a fire and destroyed.” The right conditions include appropriate weather and adequate fuel loadings and staff to support 

the treatment. As one Ranger District representative on the 

Santa Fe NF stated, “making sure nobody [is] off-district, 

fighting somewhere else” must be a priority determination. 

Scarce resources present a challenge for carrying out prescribed fire. Because of the limited resources available for 

fighting fires nationwide, the support needed to carry out 

prescribed fires is sometimes not available because staff 

members are being used elsewhere.

Controlling a prescribed fire presents another challenge. 

There is significant awareness that a burn can easily get out 

of control and cause devastating effects. This is in no small 

measure attributed to the fact that, as one resident near the 

Lincoln NF stated, “...we hear about the ones that get out 

of control. The ones that weren’t, we don’t hear about it.” 

Many recognize the benefits of prescribed fire but adopt a 

“Not in my backyard” attitude out of fear that the FS will 

lose control of the burn.

Smoke, which is an inevitable part of prescribed fire, is 

also a challenge. While some are bothered by smoke that 

is a result of prescribed fire, there is also a significant understanding that is echoed by a resident near the Lincoln 

NF who stated, “There are some unpleasant aspects of [prescribed fire], but you have to live with it because the benefit 

is really worth it.” Others, however, experience significant 

health issues as a result of the smoke. To mitigate these issues often means more expense because people have to be 

given the option and funding to temporarily relocate. The 

program in Flagstaff, Arizona, that provides the at-risk public with funding to relocate during a prescribed burn is a 

good example of a proactive policy.

No significant differences could be found when the 

benefits associated with prescribed fire were analyzed by interviewee type, by forest or by state. Some differences were 

found, however, in the perception of challenges associated 

with prescribed fire. At the interviewee type level, local experts and the involved lay public shared a strong belief that 

smoke presented the biggest challenge to carrying out managed fires. In fact, local experts said the presence of smoke 

was overwhelmingly the number one challenge to carrying 

out prescribed fire. Similarly, these groups also shared the 

strong belief that both the need for conditions to be right 

before carrying out a prescribed fire and objections from environmentalists and special interest groups constituted the 

biggest challenges to burning projects.

At the individual Forest and state levels, a strong belief 

emerged on the Kaibab NF that smoke and health concerns 
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

that were largely associated with smoke were the main 

challenge to the prescribed fire treatment. Similarly, the 

presence of smoke was the largest challenge associated 

with prescribed fire in Arizona. In New Mexico, however, the need for conditions to be right before carrying out 

a prescribed burn was the number one challenge to prescribed burning, with respondents near the Santa Fe NF 

being much more likely to see this as a problem.

The results from the survey of the general population 

provide some support for the belief that prescribed fires 

are a valued part of forest treatment options (table 10). In 

the survey, respondents were also asked to rate the effectiveness of managing naturally ignited fires. There were no 

significant differences across the four regions—the overall 

sentiment was that this strategy is a moderately effective 

way to manage public lands for potential fires. However, 

this sentiment was significantly higher in the southern 

Arizona area (M = 5.11). This could be due to the region’s 

vegetation type as well as its smaller number of catastrophic fires. According to a local FMO, in many of these areas 

in southern Arizona, ranchers value prescribed fire as a 

means of regenerating grasses and removing encroaching 

woody vegetation.

5.5 Thinning

Thinning was viewed by respondents as the best way 

to remove fuel from the forest given current conditions 

that limit the ability to conduct prescribed fire, especially 

in the WUI. As one homeowner on the Lincoln NF stated, 

communities are “surrounded by forests...[it is perceived 

that being] thinned appropriately...would at least give this 

community a chance if there is a greater fire in the forest.” 

Also, people see utilization of wood as important. They 

would prefer to see timber utilized for firewood or other 

uses rather than just burning the potentially valuable natural resource.

Specific challenges associated with thinning smalldiameter timber on both public and private lands had to do 

with concern that too many trees would be taken or that 

large trees would be logged. There was also a great deal of 

concern over the removal of big trees, which are seen as the 

most valuable resource of the forest—“Everybody always 

wants to know how many and how big.” Environmentalists 

are especially averse to thinning as a treatment option because of what some respondents perceive as their “fear that 

we’re [FS] going to use the sheltered fuel breaks as a timber sale, and we’re going to cut larger trees than they want 

us to cut.”

The high-density condition of the forest makes thinning 

costly and labor-intensive. As one resident near the Santa 

Fe NF stated, “The cost of taking down trees is enormous.” 

Commercial operations such as mills, logging, and timber 

industries have in the past been able to take on the cost of 

removing small-diameter trees because of the value of big 

trees. Today, most mills and logging companies have left 

the forests, which presents a problem for these communities with the loss of both jobs and important tax revenues. 

Because of a renewed interest in utilization, thinning is 

seen as having potential for stimulating economic development in the forest. However, utilization would be based 

on small-diameter timber. This constraint raises question 

over the commercial value of small-diameter products, 

and further, as one resident near the Santa Fe NF stated, 

Table 10. Effectiveness ratings of forest treatment options.

Arizona New Mexico

Forest treatment Overall

options preferences mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Prescribed fire 4.86 (1.50) 4.81 (1.55) 5.11 (1.19) 4.66 (1.51) 4.90 (1.70)

Managing natural ignited 4.34 (1.47) 4.42 (1.44) 4.38 (1.46) 4.20 (1.52) 4.37 (1.52)

fire

Selective thinning— 5.11 (1.42) 4.85 (1.56) 5.02 (1.34) 5.30 (1.37) 5.33 (1.33)

(small wood)

Selective thinning— 4.21 (1.73) 4.07 (1.71) 4.31 (1.68) 4.30 (1.75) 4.21 (1.86)

(large wood)

Prescribed fire and 5.18 (1.44) 5.09 (1.54) 5.46 (1.22) 5.15 (1.44) 5.03 (1.52)

thinning small wood

Prescribed fire and 4.43 (1.74) 4.38 (1.73) 4.75 (1.76) 4.43 (1.63) 4.10 (1.85)

logging

Goats 4.75 (1.69) 4.63 (1.55) 4.49 (1.81) 5.01 (1.67) 4.92 (1.79)

Salvage logging 4.69 (1.78) 4.50 (1.92) 4.67 (1,69) 4.74 (1.74) 4.96 (1.74)

Thin diseased trees 5.55 (1.54) 5.52 (1.64) 5.54 (1.22) 5.61 (1.51) 5.58 (1.48)

Do nothing 2.08 (1.45) 2.41 (1.69) 1.81 (1.24) 1.83 (1.05) 2.32 (1.66)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

1 = not at all effective to 7 = very effective
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 17

“Logging companies are not going to go into NFs until 

there is money to be made.” Diameter restrictions pose a 

challenge because commercial operations to remove smalldiameter timber are not profitable due to the high cost of 

treatment and the lack of a market for the timber. Adding to 

the cost of large-scale/commercial thinning is the fact that 

virtually no mills remain in the region, making it necessary 

to transport logs out of the area. As one timber representative on the Kaibab NF stated, “...transportation in today’s 

logging costs...is about half your cost. You can cut trees 

and split them and load [them onto a] truck for the same 

cost, on average, of what it takes to haul them to the mill.”

Finally, another concern with thinning is the residual 

materials such as slash and chipping debris that are the 

result of these treatments. As one representative of forest management operations on the Lincoln NF stated, “If 

you put it back in the forest, you still have a fire problem.” 

However, some people said they feel that, despite this challenge, thinning does help because not all fuels are equally 

volatile. As one timber representative from the Kaibab NF 

stated, “A ton of fuel falling naturally off the trees—your 

dead limbs and needles and whatnot—I think is a lot more 

volatile than this ton of fuel generated from timber harvest 

activities.”

An analysis by interviewee type of the challenges associated with thinning showed that a major challenge to 

thinning as a treatment option is the fear that thinning will 

result in “clear cutting” and that the residual material from 

thinning will lead to more fuel in the forest if not disposed 

of properly. This is a primary concern for respondents from 

New Mexico.

When we looked at the results from the survey of the 

general public in Region 3, we found that selective thinning 

of small-diameter trees was viewed as moderately effective, while selective thinning of large trees was perceived 

as less effective. This is similar to the belief voiced by the 

interviewees in focus groups and in in-depth interviews.

5.6 Chemical Treatments

Chemical treatments are seen as a way of treating the 

bark beetle infestation without having to remove trees. 

However, there were many concerns about chemical use 

and whether it poses exposure risks to community residents. Overall, while there was not a clear understanding 

of chemical treatment, the perception was that “it’s toxic, 

really toxic;” and chemical treatments were seen as not 

only harmful to humans but to wildlife as well. This perception was coupled with the fact that when “spraying for 

noxious weeds, they [FS] were not really informing people 

of where they were spraying, which is a problem for people 

who are chemical sensitive.” Aerial spraying of chemicals 

can pose just as much of a challenge because of the inability to control where the chemicals go. Safety issues aside, 

spraying is viewed as one of the most expensive treatment 

options at an estimated cost of $2000 per acre.

5.7 Combination of Treatments

There is some belief that the best way to manage the 

forest is through a combination of treatments. Often, this 

combination includes thinning and burning. As a resident 

of the Kaibab NF with an advanced degree in Forestry 

stated, “Doing both always has the best kick. You only get 

partial benefit from just burning or thinning.” The combination of thinning and burning was viewed by many as “the 

only way to prevent any major damage from fires getting 

out of control—to get back to the natural fire regime is to 

thin it enough and then to burn it.”

Due to current forest conditions, thinning is perceived 

by the public as a necessary first step to remove some of 

the small growth trees that can easily result in a devastating 

fire, even with prescribed fire. Similarly, fire is the essential 

follow up to a thinning treatment because of the residual material that often is left after thinning. As one resident near the 

Santa Fe NF observed, residents want “to thin and burn the 

slash because you wouldn’t gain anything by cutting down 

all the trees and brush and leaving the slash there.” Slash 

or chips that are left after thinning need to be removed so 

that they do not create additional ground fuel. Burning is 

the most labor- and cost-effective way of dealing with this 

residual material. As one District Ranger representative on 

the Santa Fe NF stated, “If we can get in there and do mechanical treatment and use prescribed fire, we can maintain 

an ecosystem that’s at low risk to the type of catastrophic 

fires that are threatening homes and watersheds and everything else.”

In the survey of the general public, respondents said they 

believe that a combination of prescribed fire and thinning 

(preferably small wood rather than large trees) is a moderately effective strategy. Similar to the results from the 

comparison of the two types of thinning treatments (small 

versus large), prescribed fire with small timber thinning was 

preferred significantly more than with large trees (table 10).

5.8 Characteristics of Successful 

Treatment Projects

Characteristics of some of the most successful treatment 

projects include a high level of awareness of the need for 

and benefit of treatment, and available funding and good 

cooperation among neighbors and between the community 

and the FS. Successful programs are often those where, as 

one retired Fire Chief on the Tonto NF stated, people are 

“[encouraged]...to clean up their properties, both from a risk 

reduction and forest health standpoint. And, if they do that, 

then we give them a place where they can get rid of materials 

for free rather than having to pay a fee at the local landfill.” 

Consistent with the qualitative interviews, the “do nothing” 

strategy was not perceived as a viable alternative for any of 

the regions.

In the survey of the general public, respondents were 

asked to rank their top three preferred treatment options, 
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

and, for the most part, the results were remarkably consistent across all four regions (table 11). What emerged from 

this analysis is that overall, respondents prefer treatment options that do not involve the use of prescribed fire although 

they recognize the effectiveness of this treatment (tables 

10 and 11). Selective thinning, salvage logging, and thinning diseased/infested trees were consistently preferred by 

respondents. The one exception was that the use of goats 

as a means to reduce brush and vegetation was preferred in 

New Mexico. Another interesting point that emerged is that 

selectively logging large-diameter trees was not preferred 

by respondents in any region along with the option of doing nothing. It should be noted that these preferences were 

ranked without considering the cost to implement the various treatment options.

Additionally, other types of treatments that were not discussed in the qualitative (interviews) study but that were 

measured in the quantitative (mail) survey included the possibility of using goats to reduce fuel loadings, salvage logging 

from trees that were blown down or burnt, and thinning diseased trees from bark beetle infestations. These strategies 

were viewed as effective across all of the regions, but there 

was a significant difference between perceived effectiveness 

ratings for the three treatments. Thinning diseased trees was 

viewed significantly higher than using goats or salvage logging (M = 5.55 versus 4.75 and 4.69, respectively; table 10). 

Overall, the results showed that “doing nothing to mitigate 

wildfire risks” was not perceived as a desirable option by 

the public. This is also seen when looking at the means by 

location. What is interesting is that, for the most part, there 

was a consistent perception of effectiveness of each of the 

treatment options across all four sites.

5.9 Trends Within Each Region

Another way to look at the preferences that the general 

public had for the various types of forest treatment options 

is by each region (table 11). A description of the ordering of 

these preferences provides an overview by region that can be 

partially explained by each region’s ecosystem characteristics, fire history, and socio-cultural and economic attributes. 

The northern Arizona respondents had strong preferences 

for (1) thinning diseased trees, (2) using prescribed fires 

combined with thinning of small-diameter trees, (3) thinning of small-diameter trees, (4) using prescribed fires, and 

(5) using goats as a way to thin fire-prone underbrush. There 

were small variations in preferences for the southern region 

of Arizona: (1) thinning diseased trees, (2) using prescribed 

fires combined with thinning of small-diameter trees, (3) using prescribed fire, (4) thinning of small-diameter trees, and 

(5) using prescribed fire combined with large-diameter logging. The difference that stands out most between the two 

regions is the preference for using goats compared to the 

preference for using prescribed fire combined with largediameter logging.

The two New Mexico regions were very similar in their 

preference ordering for treatment options with only a minor 

difference in salvage logging and the use of goats. Northern 

New Mexico respondents had stronger preferences for 

(1) thinning diseased trees, (2) thinning of small-diameter 

trees, (3) using prescribed fire combined with thinning of 

small-diameter trees, (4) using goats as a means to thin fireprone underbrush, and (5) salvage logging. The southern 

New Mexico region had a preference ordering of (1) thinning 

diseased trees, (2) thinning of small-diameter trees, (3) using prescribed fire combined with thinning of small-diameter 

trees, (4) salvage logging, and (5) using goats as a means to 

thin fire-prone underbrush.

5.10 The Role of the Forest Service

“The role of the FS is to focus on our lands...play a big role 

in emergency response...but we can’t be an all-encompassing 

fire service,” said a Region 3 management team member. The 

FS works in close cooperation with the state since the state 

represents the non-Federal lands, but problems arise when the 

public thinks that the FS will put all fires out. The agency is 

now moving away from “putting out the fire by 10 a.m. which 

encourages the mentality of suppress all wildfires....”

Overall, there appeared to be a general dissatisfaction 

with the role that the FS has played in managing the forests. 

Poor management by the FS is seen by respondents as the 

Table 11. Preferred treatment options.

Arizona New Mexico

Treatment option All locations northern region southern region northern region southern region

Most preferred Selectively thinning Selectively thinning Selectively thinning Selectively thinning Selectively thinning

treatment option small-diameter trees small-diameter trees small-diameter trees small-diameter trees small-diameter trees

and diseased trees

(salvage logging)

Second most Salvage logging Thinning and Salvage logging Goats to reduce Goats to reduce

preferred and using goats logging brush and brush and

treatment option diseased trees vegetation vegetation

Third most Thinning and Salvage logging Thinning and Thinning and Thinning and

preferred logging diseased logging diseased logging diseased logging diseased

treatment option trees trees trees trees
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 19

primary reason for the conditions that have created the threat 

of catastrophic fires. As one homeowner on the Lincoln NF 

stated, “It has all started with the fact that [the FS is] not 

thinning the forest. We’ve got wildfire problems, we’ve got 

drought problems, and we’ve got fire problems, all because 

the forest is not getting thinned.” Frustration sets in further 

with the belief that “most of the people in the FS that have 

the responsibility for management, they know what needs to 

be done” but they fail to take action. The FS has been seen 

as trying to manage around the needs of all stakeholders, but 

there is disagreement so a consistent policy isn’t followed. 

As one fifth-generation resident of the Lincoln NF stated, “I 

think the way about it is for the District Rangers to make 

some management decisions...and do their job, and they’re 

not doing that.”

In the general population survey, respondents were asked 

to rate how effective the FS is at managing public lands to 

reduce the risk of fire, implementing commercial logging 

programs, implementing thinning projects, and implementing prescribed fire programs on NF lands (see Appendix C: 

table 4).

In general, respondents had a neutral evaluation of the 

effectiveness of these policies. This could be due to respondent’s lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of FS 

management policies or how to determine their effectiveness.

Despite a significant level of dissatisfaction voiced 

by the involved lay public with regard to management by 

the FS, there is a great deal of public understanding of the 

constraints the FS faces in trying to carry out its responsibilities. Not the least of these constraints is the nature of the 

FS as a “national [bureaucracy],” and as one resident of the 

Lincoln NF stated, it is “run on the political opinion of the 

whole nation.” The agency depends on congressional support for funding and is held to regulations, such as National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), that are seen as inflexible to guide its management policy, which limits the ability 

of rangers to make decisions based on local or changing 

conditions. This is viewed as a significant challenge since 

there is a general belief that, as one timber representative on 

the Kaibab NF stated, the FS has skilled and knowledgeable 

“personnel [who] know how to manage the resource, they 

know how to get certain results. The problem is regulations 

tie them in knots.”

As one County Representative on the Tonto NF stated, 

without funding, “the NEPA process and all of the other 

things that need to be done, [the FS] can’t get out in front of 

anything...[and it is] always reacting.” Given current conditions on the forest and the immense job of treating the forest, 

people said they understand that there is no “possibility of 

the FS ever having enough money to thin and carry away 

[enough of] the trees and the brush” to bring it back to a 

manageable state, stated a resident on the Santa Fe NF.

Lawsuits also create a challenge for the FS in carrying 

out its duties. According to the Region 3 Fire and Aviation 

Management Team, “...the agency has had litigation over 

fire and fuels management, especially over mechanical 

treatments....” There have been some lawsuits against the 

fire management plans on the Lincoln, Carson, ApacheSitgreaves, and the Tonto NFs. Those plans have been 

withdrawn and fire use has been halted until the problems 

are resolved.

As one member of the Globe, Arizona, Board of 

Supervisors stated, “Lawsuits from the environmentalists always put a stop to [treatments]. We try to understand that...

and we are trying to cooperate with them.” However, doing 

so is both time consuming and costly and takes away from 

the agency’s efforts on the ground. As one FMO puts it, the 

agency has “...analysis paralysis. We analyze and we plan 

and we do all of these things to the best possible ninth degree 

that you can go to but we don’t ever get it implemented and 

down on the ground and working.” As the same FMO put 

it, the ability of the FS to move projects along at a quicker 

pace is dependent on “changes in legislation or policy or 

more authority given out here on the local level for rangers 

or supervisors.”

When looking at how the role of the FS is evaluated by 

interview type, the involved lay public had strong opinions 

concerning agency shortcomings. Residents said they view 

poor communication by the FS as their biggest concern, 

followed closely by the perception that the FS staff is ineffective, that the FS is unresponsive, and that not enough 

treatment is being done by the agency. Likewise, strong 

opinions are present when looking at strengths of the FS. 

The involved lay public, environmentalists, and local government representatives tended to express that they have a 

good working relationship with the FS. Residents tended to 

believe that the FS is doing a good job of communicating 

with them individually.

At the forest level, strong opinions on the shortcomings of the FS are visible around the Santa Fe NF, where 

interviewees tended to express the opinion that the FS has 

ineffective staff and that they are not doing enough treatment 

of the forests to mitigate the risk of catastrophic fires. Other 

major concerns for this group are that the FS communicates 

poorly with the community and that the FS is unresponsive 

to the needs of the community.

However, some respondents near the Santa Fe NF said 

they feel very strongly that they have a good working relationship with the FS and also that the FS has a good and 

knowledgeable staff and that they know action is needed 

on the forest to mitigate the risk of fire. On the Kaibab NF, 

respondents not only said they feel like they have a good 

relationship with the FS but also that the agency does well at 

communicating with them and that adequate action is being 

taken by the FS to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

Finally, respondents from the Lincoln NF also said they feel 

that they have a good working relationship with the agency, 

and they feel strongly that the FS actions to mitigate risk are 

for the benefit of the community.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Trust has been shown to be critical to gain and maintain public acceptance of an institution and its plans, strategies, and management decisions. Research on “social trust” 

for public agencies such as the FS has found that the amount 

of trust the public has in the FS has a direct impact on the 

public’s acceptance of fire management policies (e.g., Winter 

and Cvetkovich 2008). Winter and Cvetkovich (2008) indicate that the social trust in FS policies has dropped recently, 

not as a result of a loss of confidence but rather that the concerned public “...requires more information than they had in 

the past to arrive at determinations of trust....” The presence 

or absence of trust in the FS is strongly related to positive 

feelings concerning the agency, and it seems to result from 

both historic and contemporary factors. Agency communication patterns and education efforts also play into the trust 

equation. Comments from respondents in several geographic 

locations indicated a lack of trust from the following perceptions of the agency, its personnel, and its programs. More 

commonly expressed views were the beliefs that the FS is 

politically driven, is authoritarian and not collaborative, 

is unresponsive to the concerns of communities, is overly 

afraid of litigation, and speaks with multiple voices (fire 

suppression versus ecological perspectives, for example). 

Concerning litigation, a community activist told us, “I think 

the FS also overreacts to the threat of lawsuits to the point 

that they give up on projects simply because the threat is 

there.” In addition, many consider the agency to be highly 

bureaucratic. As one stated, “They may be technical people, 

but they’re basically bureaucrats. They get tied up in the paperwork and nothing ever gets done.”

Trust levels do vary within the geographic areas under 

study—seemingly related to historic relationships, communication, and agency education/outreach programs, among 

other factors. In order to examine this variation, we discuss 

trust levels, communication, and education efforts from the 

four locations considered in this study.

6.1 Trust Issues—Kaibab NF

Interviews with those associated with the Kaibab NF 

indicated trust issues derived from regional and national 

environmental/advocacy groups. One group questioned 

the credibility of the FS to discuss wildfire risk. As one 

respondent said, “I think it’s important for it to be run by 

an independent body. I don’t think the agency has the credibility to [educate the public about wildfire risk]. That’s my 

opinion.” Some said they believe that there is confusion 

concerning whether the agency wishes to suppress all highintensity fires or to return fire safely to the ecosystem (as 

preferred by the group). Additionally, perceived political influences on the forest do not promote trust and credibility. 

The notion that environmentalists are causing destructive 

wildfires, presumably promoted by the agency, has been 

very destructive for environmental groups and their trust in 

the FS. However, one environmental group member noted 

that on a recent fire, the Kaibab NF did not take “...cheap 

shots at anyone. The message was fire is good, they finally 

moved away from blaming environmentalists to ‘look we’ve 

suppressed fire for 70 years, we’re going to let these things 

burn.’” Another environmental group said they do not trust 

the FS on the north rim of the Grand Canyon because the 

agency is using categorical exclusions in the NEPA process 

and taking out larger trees in thinning projects. Rhetoric 

surrounding the Healthy Forest Initiative has also caused 

mistrust. Respondents from extractive user groups also 

mentioned a lack of trust on the Kaibab NF that stems from 

declining timber production in local forests that has negatively affected jobs and community employment.

6.2 Trust Issues—Tonto NF

Interviews conducted in central Arizona near the Tonto 

NF showed strong trust between local fire professionals 

and FS fire officials with very positive relations on both 

sides (feelings that were also heard from stakeholders on 

the Kaibab NF). Individual working relationships and personal interaction contribute to these good relations. Tonto 

NF fire personnel stressed that they work hard to maintain 

good communications and relations with local communities, 

the County Board of Supervisors, and the Native American 

populations. One cooperator added the following when discussing local FS officials: “I have no real complaints about 

cooperation from our local rangers or supervisor. When we 

get beyond that [with regional or National FS people] is 

where we don’t have as close a relationship on a day-to-day 

[basis] or as much contact as we’d like to have.”

Local government officials were divided in their opinions 

of the agency. Some county officials said they feel that there 

is not a joint effort between the county and the Tonto NF in 

determining priorities and policy direction. For example, the 

local government works well with the Tonto NF on wildfire issues and burn pits but not on managing the forest. 

These forest management problems lead to a lack of trust 

between the county government and the FS. These specific 

forest management problems deal with grazing and stocking 

rates on the forest. A County Supervisor told us, “We are 

not getting the cooperation from the FS that we feel maybe 

we should have. We should be communicating a little bit 

more and [be allowed] to participate in those communications [discussions].” The county officials praised the Forest 

Supervisor and District Rangers for their cooperation on fire 

issues with the county. They feel they also get cooperation 

from officials in Washington, DC, but feel frustrated with the 

amount of time it takes for decisions to filter down through 

the agency. They also stressed the importance of direct contact with local agency people.

6.0 Trust in the Forest Service
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 21

In general, members of the public expressed trust for 

people they have worked with through the Regional Payson 

Area Project (RPAP) that includes the FS, and they feel the 

RPAP people know what they are doing. One interviewee 

stated, “Most people expect that the FS, if they’re given the 

task of management, they should be managing [the forest] in 

a responsible way.” He also said that often, people do not understand that it takes a long time to implement actions with 

the laws, costs, and agency structure that are associated with 

management. According to one Tonto NF employee, most local people seem to support active forest management, while 

some of the regional environmental groups are opposed and 

seek litigation opportunities. Opposition from environmental groups to targeted activities is common across the forests 

of the region. Variation seems to relate to the nature of the 

forest’s resources and its management activity level.

6.3 Trust Issues—Santa Fe NF

Moving into northern New Mexico, we began our interviews with communities, user groups, and the general public 

near the Santa Fe NF. A large portion of the land in northern 

New Mexico is former Spanish land grants that were lost 

by local communities after the U.S. conquest of Mexico in 

1848. Much of this land now lies within NF boundaries. 

Many local people said they believe that the Federal government and the FS took the land away from the Hispanic 

people of the area and that now the FS is not responsive to 

their needs. As one land grant member told us, “[The FS is] 

not that receptive to our concerns. That’s a big problem they 

have. They won’t talk to us. They don’t talk to us. We write 

them letters and yet they [don’t] talk to us.”

A local activist stated that many long-time residents 

believe that the land was taken care of by their ancestors 

before it went to the FS—now, it has been clear cut and is 

overgrown. Many Hispanic residents and ranchers who responded to the interviews said they are frustrated with the FS 

and its perceived lack of respect for the body of traditional 

knowledge and experience on the land that is provided by 

the residents. They feel the FS does not respect traditional 

forest uses such as ranching, fuel wood gathering, and small 

logging operations. One person summed up the feeling that 

“...the FS must understand that these are our lands historically.” Thus, there is a long tradition of distrust surrounding 

the Santa Fe NF that manifests itself in many difficulties 

that FS staff members encounter when working with local 

communities.

In addition, both logging industry representatives and 

environmentalists said they distrust the motives and commitments of the FS. Logging industry representatives had the 

opinion that the FS is not sincere and cannot provide/guarantee a supply of smaller-diameter materials for retooled mills. 

The environmental groups, many headquartered in Santa Fe, 

distrust FS thinning projects, believing they are excuses to 

restart logging programs. As one group member stated, “...

[there] is the feeling of distrust that they are going to hide 

the concept—the idea of logging large trees under the guise 

of forest restoration.”

Many interviewees noted that some District Rangers do 

not live in the community where they work, creating a rift between the FS and the local community. The agency practice 

of moving personnel, especially District Rangers, is seen as 

a significant barrier to continuing communication and developing trust. In addition, many said they are frustrated with 

agency decisions, which they feel are politically driven and 

do not favor local communities. In general, interview results 

indicated that residents near the Santa Fe NF have a higher 

level of public distrust and negative views concerning communication than any of the other Forests we studied.

6.4 Trust Issues—Lincoln NF

Respondents from the northern section of the Lincoln 

NF expressed higher trust levels than those surrounding 

other Forests (significantly more than the Santa Fe NF). 

Comments such as “the FS are the experts,” “the FS knows 

best,” and “the FS has the responsibility to manage the forest and knows what needs to be done” were common. Many 

user groups, visitors, and local officials indicated productive 

relationships with the FS, featuring effective communication 

and collaboration.

On the other hand, some veteran resource users and resource-dependent communities do not share the high level of 

trust shown by others. Many veteran loggers said they do not 

trust the agency—they are not willing to be “beaten down” 

by the FS again, feeling that the FS now awards the few remaining logging and thinning contracts to minorities. Most 

of the interviewed ranchers said they support the Lincoln 

NF’s burning policies and would like them to be more aggressive. The ranchers indicated a willingness to work with 

the agency to get the burning done. Many residents throughout the forest suggested that the FS would do more if it could 

but “their hands are tied” due to the Endangered Species Act 

and the threat of litigation from environmental groups.

There is concern about working with the Lincoln NF as a 

partner because of the fear that the FS will not be able to accomplish the work. Most seemed to believe that the agency 

has good intentions to treat and manage FS lands but is often 

constrained by planning requirements. This is a somewhat 

more positive view than was demonstrated on the other 

Forests (especially on the Santa Fe NF) and by some in the 

southern section of the Lincoln NF, where various amounts 

of intentionality are attributed to FS inaction. “[There is]...

politics up here [and] the FS is a huge target and they get 

blamed for everything.... Nobody up here trusts the FS, individuals yes, but...”

There are more problems with trust in the southern portion of the Lincoln NF. This portion of the forest has more 

threatened and endangered species that must be considered, and the communities are more resource-dependent. A 

few people in the area voiced the opinion that the Federal 

government should not own land that it cannot effectively 

manage. Some said they feel that the FS simply does not 
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

have the commitment to complete projects, and this is exemplified with a “we can’t do it mentality.” “...‘paralysis by 

analysis’ is what they’ve got...it’s the culture of their organization [and] the people that are in it have been brought to 

thinking that ‘my hands are tied.’” One Government official 

said he/she feels that the FS is too concerned with national 

interests to be responsive to local people.

Treatment projects move along more rapidly in the northern portion of the Lincoln NF (which has fewer threatened 

and endangered species, more resources, and the proactive 

community of Ruidoso), and FS approval and trust are stronger in this area. However, some homeowners feel that the 

agency is not doing enough to take care of its land, which 

then poses a fire threat to adjacent private land. As was 

common in all of our interviews, members of the local fire 

departments throughout the forest are very supportive of the 

FS, feeling that the Lincoln NF is working closely with them 

and treating them as partners. Many survey respondents feel 

that the FS should partner with local governments and communities and stand up to the environmental group threats of 

litigation in order to accomplish desired projects.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 23

Communication and collaboration between the FS, other agencies, user groups, and communities elicits both 

positive and negative comments concerning the forests of 

the region. Effective communication is exemplified by the 

Southwest Region Fire Group that is part of the Southwest 

Coordinating Group (SWCG). One environmental group 

leader on the Kaibab NF stated, “I feel that our ability to 

communicate and collaborate with the FS here is the worst 

it’s ever been.” High turnover among FS employees is 

viewed as a major part of the problem. Lack of continuity 

in staffing is seen as a problem not only on the Kaibab NF 

but also on all of the forests in the study area. Both environmental and industry group members expressed that the 

undesirable mobility of staff results in a loss of institutional 

and community knowledge. Thus, there is what is viewed as 

a lack of consistency in how the FS interacts with the public 

and makes decisions.

Some respondents said it is easier to collaborate with the 

BLM. Essentially, they indicated that members of the BLM 

are more willing to collaborate and engage in a transparent 

way with no screens between the agency and the collaborators. This perception may be related to agency culture. The 

FS officials seem to feel “[they] are the experts and that’s 

that,” according to one environmental group leader. Those 

who work with the Kaibab NF said the agency has moved 

back into an authoritarian posture and away from collaboration because collaboration has not provided what the agency 

wanted. Conflict has not been reduced to the level the agency wanted to get its job done.

Despite trust issues between environmental and user 

groups on the Kaibab NF, many respondents from HOAs, 

adjacent communities, and user groups said they believe that 

personnel of the Kaibab NF communicate relatively well on 

a variety of issues and levels. Many said they feel that the 

FS does a good job of notifying people about prescribed fires 

and wildfires, paying particular attention to those with smoke 

sensitivities. Others disagreed, stating that the FS could do 

a better job of notifying people who are sensitive to smoke. 

As one resident stated, “Smoke is real, it bothers people, and 

smoke needs to happen. We need to stop pretending it’s not 

going to happen and actually deal with how it’s going to happen and educate people and set up programs to help people 

who have health problems with it when it is happening.” 

Many said they feel that the Flagstaff Fire Department does 

an excellent job with this task. The city program that pays 

for people to leave the area during city fires was viewed very 

favorably. Others feel that the impact of smoke on the tourist 

sector warrants further consideration. The problem of smoke 

appears to be a much bigger issue on the Kaibab NF than 

on the other regional Forests. This may be because of wind 

conditions in the area. It could also be that smoke problems 

are just beginning to emerge as a regional issue in the area 

of the Grand Canyon.

An interviewee stated that the Kaibab NF is responsive to 

the public and leadership seems to know what it is doing. On 

the other hand, others complained that the Forest employees 

are non-responsive, do not return calls, and do not get the 

word out about burning. This latter point was exemplified in 

the quote by one interviewee who stated that “...when I have 

called to complain, it’s always I’m the only person on the 

planet who has ever called and complained, which I know is 

not true if you talk to other people.”

Several interviewees indicated that they have better relations with the Kaibab NF than with other agencies and 

Forests. A Flagstaff city employee said he/she believes that 

the city and the Forest staffs communicate well, while another respondent added that the agency is good about asking for 

comments and soliciting public opinions. “As far as coordination with the FS and communication and relations between 

the city and the district...I personally and professionally, in 

my, in my position here, have never had a problem. They 

have been overly helpful.” FS employees also were of the 

opinion that communication has improved over the years. 

With some exceptions, relatively good communication between the FS and local governments was noted on all of the 

Forests studied. Professionals from varying agencies may 

“speak the same language,” leading to positive views regarding communication.

Suggestions for better communication in the area included calls for greater coordination among agencies involved in 

fire management. Again, some groups blamed poor communication for a high turnover rate of forest employees, while 

others stressed that they have positive discussions with local employees but that the “true” decision-makers at the 

FS are “back east” or in Washington, DC. Over and over, 

the importance of local, personal contact using both formal 

and informal techniques was mentioned—not only on the 

Kaibab NF but also on the Tonto, Santa Fe, and Lincoln NFs. 

It seems that there is much greater trust and communication 

when people know the local agency personnel, develop relationships with them, and feel comfortable with them.

One concern about communication that was voiced by 

residents near the Tonto NF is that the FS does not “get out” 

the need for volunteers and volunteer work. Much volunteer 

work can be difficult to coordinate and communicate, but 

the consensus among these interviewees was that the community is willing and able to help out. This type of comment 

was not heard on any of the other Forests. An increased use 

of volunteer programs was seen by interviewers as a way to 

build trust between the FS and the community.

There were complaints from the public affected by the 

Rodeo-Chediski Fire that people did not receive enough 

specific information concerning where the fire was burning, 

the condition of their property, and when they could return 

home. One FS employee stated that residents “...want to 

know when they can go home, and, again I just think it was 

7.0 Communication and Collaboration
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

unrealistic, but I’m wondering if there was a way to communicate with them [so] that [they] would have calmed down. 

Instead of just ‘can’t give you that’ or ‘I don’t know.’” Gaps 

in communication relate to the often heard call for closer 

coordination between fire management agencies. Suggested 

reasons for communication gaps included mistakes in dispatch and differing perceptions of fire danger and risk 

between Federal agencies and individual fire chiefs.

Other problems included complaints that the Tonto 

NF does not follow up on requests (even those from 

Congressional representatives), presents answers to the public instead of listening to the public, gives opinions on forest 

condition but never seeks solutions from the public, and does 

not define terms, such as thinning. On the other hand, many 

groups stressed ways in which communication is improving. 

A local fire department employee described activity-defined 

communications and the importance of identified contacts 

within the county and at the FS as examples. Information 

on interviewees’ opinions of solid communication sources 

again stressed the importance of both formal and informal 

communication channels and direct, local contacts.

The pattern seen on the Kaibab and Tonto NFs concerning positive relations between local and agency professionals 

also held true on the Santa Fe NF. An official from the city 

of Santa Fe said he/she feels that “[the FS has] been very 

cooperative in terms of communicating with us as to what 

they’re currently doing and what they plan to do in the future.” Local government officials (both Hispanic and Anglo) 

expressed much greater trust in the agency and seemed to 

be much more supportive of its actions and communications 

than other stakeholders. An example is the communication 

that exists between the local government and the Forest in 

notifying government officials of the timing of prescribed 

fire and related projects.

A major factor in improving communication and trust 

is solid cooperation between the agency and the public. A 

number of interviewees in the communities surrounding the 

Santa Fe NF commented that the Forest representatives only 

interact with local people when they want something. “Of 

course, [the FS] did a lot of talking when they had the fire 

because they needed our cooperation and stuff like that because they had to access the fire from the [land] grant. The 

fire started in their land and burned into our land.” In addition, the agency is viewed as having poor communication 

skills, as seen in such statements as: “The District Ranger 

is never available, nor does he return phone calls.” “Region 

3 has no ability to communicate with communities—they 

must stand up to the environmentalists and really listen to 

communities.” Several community facilitators said they 

believe that the FS in Region 3 uses or withholds communication with the public as a means of wielding power and 

control over the public.

Other respondents on the Santa Fe NF said they feel 

that communication within the FS is flawed. One facilitator activist stated that there is no mechanism to transfer 

knowledge from the Research Branch to the National Forest 

System and vice versa—such as between fire ecologists and 

fire managers. Others said they feel there is poor communication between varying FS levels—such as districts, the 

supervisor’s office, and the regional office. “Nothing makes 

its way up or down the hierarchy.” “There’s lots of moving 

parts and nothing gets done.” This view was also held by 

county government officials working with the Tonto NF.

A number of stakeholders on the Lincoln NF said they 

would like to see the FS not just talk about project proposals, 

but listen to others and work together toward solving some of 

the long-term problems. They also said they feel that people 

who have lived in the area for a long time should be recognized by the FS as valuable resources with a considerable 

amount of knowledge and practical experience. This group 

expressed that communication should be a two-way process. 

One state official in the area had the opinion that, historically, the National Forest System side of the FS does not work 

very well with its communities, but she is seeing pockets of 

FS activity and improvement within this realm. She said she 

believes that it helps to have the Regional Forester telling 

the Forest Supervisors and District Rangers “you will [do 

this project].” The FS, in her view, should stand up and make 

decisions since they are “the experts.”

Positive comments on communication were also presented by various stakeholders. “We had a conversation and our 

relationship with the FS, I think, is good. It’s very good. I 

feel very open with communication and up front; of course 

they have their priorities, and we have ours, but we usually 

get along well.” Members of the small-diameter wood business owners on the Lincoln NF found the FS very helpful 

in facilitating and maintaining two-way communication between the agencies and the businesses. The Mescalero Tribe 

would like to see more communication and collaboration 

with the local ranger district about thinning and burning 

projects. As mentioned previously, local fire department employees said they believe the FS is visible and available and 

communicates well with them.

An important aspect of effective public outreach that was 

noted by many people throughout this area is identifying 

key members of Federal, State, and local governments and 

utilizing their interpersonal skills to communicate the important messages. Other respondents said they believe that 

neighborhood communication and action spurs homeowner 

motivation, especially among part-time homeowners, where 

communication can sometimes be difficult.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 25

The overall response was that the FS needs to take advantage of “teachable moments” right after fires. The 

FS does a good job of getting information out to the public, 

although it may not be what they want to hear (Region 3 

Fire & Aviation Management Team). “We are giving information but we are not getting feedback from the public. We 

need to keep in mind that agencies and homeowners have 

different objectives—the public wants their concerns heard 

and they want to know what is going on during fires and 

in preparation for fires.” The Kaibab NF is known for its 

fire education programs, with many positive comments for 

the Fire Information Officer. The Forest is involved in presentations at local venues and festivals and provides forest 

tours as well as tours to demonstration properties that show 

examples of defensible space. “[The FS is] actively involved 

in trying to disseminate information, and they do a good job 

of that. They put on tours and get people out there. They 

are really involved with the Forest Festival.” Although we 

received some comments indicating that the FS could do a 

better job of educating the public about the benefits of prescribed fire and defensible space, most respondents said they 

feel the Forest is doing a good job. FS staff is also involved 

in Kindergarten through 12th grade conservation education 

efforts, with a specifically tailored program for each grade. 

A large portion of the program focuses on fire-related issues. 

“We have a K through 12 program, which we’ve had for 

some time. We’ve actively pursued reverse learning, come 

in and teach the kids and let them teach the parents. It’s quite 

effective. It’s easier for kids to come to it and learn it, often, 

than it is for older people.”

The Tonto NF has partnered with local fire departments, 

for example RPAP, and has put information on the timing 

of prescribed fire on the radio and in the newspaper. The 

Tonto NF outreach efforts include visits by Smokey Bear 

to schools; distributing flyers, brochures, and homeowner 

Firewise information; and setting up large displays at public events. A FS interviewee discussed partnership efforts: 

“We partner a lot with the Globe Fire Department.... They 

partner with us on a lot of public education during the summer months.... We’ve actually hired one of their people as a 

Public Information Officer.” The Tonto NF has hired several 

people to provide full-time public involvement concerning 

fire prevention information, school presentations, homeowner education programs, and media education programs.

Interviews with staff in the Supervisor’s Office in Santa 

Fe indicated that the staff felt that typical public involvement processes for fire education are not effective. The staff 

is interested in understanding the local communities’ views 

and attitudes concerning wildfire and prescribed fire. They 

feel that with a better awareness of their public, they will 

be able to better educate people and more effectively target 

education programs. They feel that effective communication 

is vital to their success and they recognize the importance 

of interactive, on-the-ground communication. As one staff 

member said, “Communication is important and the faceto-face—really taking time to discuss those concerns.” 

Unfortunately some staffers stated that the FS does not have 

enough money for these types of programs, thereby hindering public acceptance of proposed projects. The FS has 

more requests than it can handle from the public regarding 

defensible space, requesting help with slash removal, and 

providing chippers for the communities. The public wants 

FS communications to be in clear, understandable language—no jargon. Everyone that we interviewed said they 

believe that the Firewise program is an effective homeowner 

education and communication tool for the FS in conducting fire risk mitigation efforts. As another staff member said, 

“The Firewise projects that are going on, I think, has been 

really good in terms of being a mechanism to communicate 

with the public and giving us some tools to go and to be able 

to explain what it is we’re doing.”

 Personnel on the Jemez District of the Santa Fe NF said 

they believe that long-term residents are more active in 

wildfire hazard mitigation actions than residents who have 

recently moved to the area. In their opinion, the Firewise 

communities have been effective in organizing communities 

into undertaking risk reduction actions through state implementation grants. The Jemez District has provided support to 

Firewise efforts by doing individual home hazard analysis, 

where needed, and by providing information and guidance. 

The personnel offer “chipper days” and find places where 

the community can take its residual slash. The FS believes 

that these communities understand that fuel reduction work 

needs to happen on both private and Federal properties to be 

most effective.

Members of the public reiterate some of the concerns of 

the Supervisor’s Office staff on education, while adding others. They also believe that public meetings do not educate 

effectively; they suggest door-to-door communication as a 

good way to get communities involved. There is much support for the FS providing education programs on the bigger 

picture of living with fire in the Southwest, restoring the 

forest, and discussing the necessity of fire as a part of the 

ecosystem. As one homeowner put it, “Let people know that 

this is how it is.”

On a positive note, residents of the WUI and Firewise 

communities rely on the FS for knowledge and community 

outreach. Most of these people find key individuals in the 

agency on whom they can rely for accurate information. 

Several FS people were commended for their outreach abilities. In the Cuba District of the Santa Fe NF, the community 

is very supportive of the FS in this regard. The Cuba District 

employees said they believe they are effective at motivating 

people in this area to undertake defensible space measures 

on their property. They feel they have a good track record 

with prescribed fire and that the public trusts them. Still, 

8.0 Education Programs
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

communication skills are perceived to be lacking on other 

areas of the Santa Fe NF, and the public recommends that 

the Forest hire people who know how to communicate with 

diverse communities.

 Almost universally, interviewees support FS education 

on the benefits of prescribed fire and natural ground fire. 

These homeowners believe that having the FS or local fire 

department do a home site visit or property risk assessment 

is very effective. However, the person who provides the assessment should listen to residents’ concerns and not dictate 

what should be done. A homeowner attested to the effectiveness of the FS inspector by saying, “...he made the same talk 

30 times. He was very patient. ...they didn’t tell people what 

they had to remove or anything. Let me make it very clear—

very diplomatic.” Some residents said they would like to see 

the FS be flexible and offer options to homeowners concerning mitigation programs. “You can still have trees; creating 

defensible space does not mean clear cutting.” Examples 

of other mitigation options are increasing insurance rates, 

stacking firewood away from houses, and cleaning the roof.

 As mentioned on the Tonto NF, FS and County Fire Risk 

Reduction pamphlets should feature pictures of regional or 

local topography and home styles that seem relevant to the 

targeted audience. Other outreach suggestions from local 

facilitators included using local venues such as HOA meetings to get the fire message out; using non-confrontational, 

science-based approaches (such as the Nature Conservancy’s 

Fire Learning Network); and using neighborhoods and 

schools. The facilitators advocated a listen and educate approach with positive reinforcement because forcing a fire 

risk agenda on homeowners does not work. Despite serious 

trust and communication problems with various groups and 

communities near the Forest, many of the WUI residents apparently desire FS assistance and are willing to listen to fire 

risk mitigation messages.

A major topic of communication among the stakeholders 

on the Lincoln NF was the way in which the agency communicates its fire message and conducts its education programs. 

Some people said they believe the FS should focus on educating about wildfire risks and what to do to reduce the risks 

of wildfires. One stakeholder noted, “People who live in or 

adjacent to the NFs need to realize that it’s a risk they take 

if they live here.” There is a fairly pervasive belief in this 

part of the state that schools and youth should be targeted for 

wildfire education. One person said they believe that public outreach about “responsible use” of the forest should be 

paramount and that the FS needs to “find a better way to [communicate with]...the public through a new ad campaign.” 

Other suggestions include working with volunteer groups, 

such as the boy scouts or girl scouts, making presentations in 

schools and churches to get parents involved, sending out information in the mail, and utilizing films and documentaries 

to demonstrate that “thinned” homes are the ones that are 

often saved in a forest fire. The local fire department is also 

very active in working with homeowners through Firewise 

workshops and home inspections and by sending out flyers 

and listening to concerns.

The FS holds monthly public meetings in the southern part 

of the Lincoln NF and attends the local fire department meetings, which is viewed by many as effective public outreach. 

However, one stakeholder said he/she believes that the FS 

needs to commit time and resources to educate, listen, and 

make presentations at local clubs—involving the public early 

and often in decisions regarding forest health and prescribed 

fire. Further, the FS should undertake a “non-traditional” 

public involvement process, where decision-makers should 

listen to the public and “do what someone wants to do from 

time to time instead of just saying thanks for your input and 

they are just going through the motions.”

The 20 Communities Cost Sharing Program (administered through New Mexico State Forestry) has brought State 

Forestry, the FS, local governments, and private property 

owners together to address wildfire risks and the need to 

thin forests throughout this area. This funding mechanism 

has been essential in galvanizing efforts to create defensible 

space around and within communities as well as in creating opportunities to open up communication among the FS, 

other agencies, and homeowners.

Beneficial fire education programs stem from effective 

communication and acceptance of the protocols. A summary 

of suggestions for sound means of communicating fire information to the public includes focusing messages on the 

American public, in general, as well as on homeowners, specifically, and presenting messages in easily understandable 

lay terms. Both short-and long-term education programs are 

needed, such as the K through 12th grade program initiated 

by the Kaibab NF.

Others also recommend that more intense adult education 

efforts be implemented in the summer when both full-and 

part-time residents are present. An HOA member stated, 

“We make sure we have a meeting in the summer when most 

of the people are here.” The local fire departments have 

asked neighbors to contact absent owners about clearing 

vacant lots. Residents said they find that homeowner meetings, flyers, door-to-door communication, and web sites are 

effective outreach tools. They also commented that printed 

material is more effective if pictures represent the regional 

ecosystem. Fire professionals discussed the importance of 

demonstration projects in visible areas to reach people concerning defensible space measures.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 27

Personal interviews were conducted with policy experts to provide a better understanding of current policy issues, 

how policy is developed, and how policies are implemented 

at the regional and local levels. The interviews were conducted either face-to-face or in conference calls between the 

researchers and the respective policy expert. Six interviews 

were conducted and the individuals were identified based on 

referrals from local, regional, and national experts. The following is a synopsis of the important themes that emerged 

from these conversations.

An overall theme that emerged, voiced by Kirk 

Rowdabaugh (Director, Office of Wildland Fire Coordination, 

US DOI, Washington, DC) was a statement of importance of 

social science research in understanding public wildland fire 

risk perceptions and the role those perceptions play in lay 

decisionmaking. He states that:

We, as Program Managers, may have overestimated the value that citizens have put on their 

houses and underestimated the value they place 

on the landscapes around their homes. I think 

that social scientists could help us understand 

the way people evaluate risk. I’m interested in 

the sociological implications for our policies 

and whether or not we truly are taking into account the values of society, if we have that right 

or not. I think there are, of course, two different 

questions: one is how people make decisions—

how they value risk—and then the other is what 

they value.

In addition, major themes and needs that were identified from our interviews included the development of a new 

wildland fire decision support system (WFDSS), improved 

means of coordination and communication among agencies, 

supporting communities in their fire prevention and management efforts, air quality and smoke management, and 

climate change/changing fire environments.

Tom Zimmerman (Program Manager for Wildland Fire 

Management Research Development and Application, USFS 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho) discussed 

his work in developing a WFDSS that will be an improvement over previous models. The WFDSS will promote better 

decisionmaking and will potentially lead to a greater ability 

to manage exponentially increasing fire suppression costs. 

According to Zimmerman, the Federal wildland management policy has now been revised to allow a single wildfire 

to be designated for the multiple objectives of resource benefit and protection—adaptive management that responds to 

a dynamic situation. In the past, a fire was managed for only 

one objective. The primacy of fire suppression is giving way 

to the realization of the multiple benefits that fire can provide. Wildland fires are now referred to as either “planned 

wildland fires” (prescribed burns) or “unplanned wildland 

fires.” If an unplanned wildland fire occurs in an area where 

there has been authorization through land use plans to use 

fire to accomplish resource benefits, then it can be allowed 

to burn. If the fire occurs in an area with potential for damage to humans, structures, roads, etc., then the “protection 

objective” is invoked and suppression mechanisms are 

implemented.

Rowdabaugh also expressed that the primacy of suppression is being questioned. He states that as times change, 

agencies cannot continue to put every fire out, deferring risk 

to a later date. “One big change,” he says, “is designating 

wildfire for resource benefit as well as suppression at the 

FS.”

Improving coordination and communication among agencies involved in fire management was discussed by Rich 

Lasko (Assistant Director, USFS Fire and Fuels Ecology, 

Washington, DC) as well as by Rowdabaugh. Lasko mentioned the formal mechanisms of interagency coordination 

such as the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, the National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), the Fire Executive 

Council (FEC), and the Western Fire Leadership Coalition. 

He believes these groups are important because they bring 

together people who may be engaged with fire programs but 

not at the national implementation level. These groups are 

important in strategy and policy. The FEC represents the 

Fedeal leadership of fire management, the highest level in 

the agencies that deal with fire.

Improving communication among agencies and to the 

field, as well as reforming fire finance and budget development/formation, are also issues of concern. Rowdabaugh 

believes that communication across agencies is not perfect 

but that is not due to lack of effort. Interests of the interagency fire management programs and the specific agencies 

do not always line up, but in general, the interagency groups 

are able to work with agencies so that implementation at the 

field level is not impacted. He also stresses that decisionmaking should not only consider effects on Federal partner 

agencies but also on state, tribal, and local member groups. 

Lasko mentions the long chain of communication within the 

FS—he would like to see crisper, more direct communication that is in sync with the way information moves today 

and that is not based on writing a letter. “We’ve got to figure 

out a way to speed up our messages.” However, he does feel 

that interagency communications are pretty good, considering the presence of two large bureaucracies (USDI agencies 

and the USDA FS), which may cause some time lag.

Several interviewees focused on the role and importance 

of providing assistance to communities in the form of money, 

education, training and assistance with Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans (CWPPs). Jim Hubbard (USFS Deputy 

Chief, State and Private Forestry, Washington, DC) described the role of State and Private Forestry in working with 

9.0 National Policy Experts Perspectives
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

the 50 State Forestry organizations as the delivery agents 

to private landowners. According to Hubbard, assistance to 

landowners takes three forms: (1) annual grants to State Fire 

Assistance, (2) Fire Learning Networks, and (3) Firewise 

programs. The money comes from Washington, DC, and the 

states then allocate it where they believe it will be most effectively used. Donald Griego, Chief of Fire Management, 

New Mexico State Forestry, and Chairman of the SWCG, 

based out of Santa Fe, New Mexico, also described working with CWPPs to identify problem areas in the community 

plan and to rank what areas have the highest need for Federal 

funding. The SWCG spearheads interagency coordination 

among land management agencies in New Mexico, Arizona, 

and a portion of Texas focusing on wildland fire suppression 

and coordination of fuels treatments. The group acts as an interagency team that supports field units to complete projects. 

When the communities with the highest need are identified, 

the Forestry Division provides funding and prescriptions to 

communities to treat high fuel levels.

Coordinating between institutions is important because 

there are many gaps in coverage. Treatment on either Federal 

or private land does not help to protect the at-risk communities. Griego commented, “By us mandating that they work 

together...and complete the entire project to protect the 

whole community—I think that helps.” The coordinating 

group also encourages people to introduce prescribed fire 

into the landscape to avoid catastrophic fires. In addition, 

Griego mentioned that New Mexico uses Firewise widely 

to educate communities. Rowdabaugh also stated that “how 

we’re doing” in fire fuels (management) and community relations is one of his keen interests. He believes that State 

Foresters are the mechanism by which Federal partners are 

able to direct influence onto non-Federal properties. Lasko 

continued with thoughts on the importance of the interface 

with local communities. As he said:

It’s not just a fuels problem.... The other component is the community interface—how the 

community is prepared for fires. So the communities themselves have to be built in an 

appropriate way for the environment they live 

in. We’re trying to develop a good picture of 

what needs to happen at those...levels and then 

how to integrate those to come up with a strategy, an appropriate strategy for the National 

Forest System.

Lasko continued by outlining his role as a Fire and Fuels 

Ecologist. According to him, the FS has good capabilities in 

the areas of fuels and preparedness, but needs work in the 

area of sustainability of structures in communities against 

fire. He feels that National FS fire professionals have a strong 

relationship with the FS research branch, but he would like 

to see more research on the effectiveness of fuels treatments and the longevity of that effectiveness. Specifically, 

he would like to see a methodology that would rate a site in 

terms of its effectiveness against fire—to determine whether 

or not the treatment has been successful.

In our interviews, we asked the experts to consider the 

topics of climate change and air quality/smoke management. Griego, Zimmerman, and Lasko discussed smoke 

management issues and implications for air quality. Griego 

mentioned that the EPA has come out with new smoke regulations so New Mexico Forestry Division and the Federal 

land management agencies must engage in meetings with 

the public to produce new guidelines. Without public input, projects could be restricted on State, private, or Federal 

lands. Zimmerman stated that smoke management, production, and air quality are not built in to the WFDSS model yet. 

“That’s an area where we need to move quickly,” he said. 

Zimmerman’s group is interested in linking its part of the 

model to that of the Blue Sky Group in Seattle because there 

is much promising work to be done jointly. Lasko focuses on 

short-term conditions versus long-term conditions concerning air quality issues, stating that there is a need to display 

the effects of the FS Fire and Fuels Ecology work and program on those issues. He states that the FS should be looking 

at the impact of all fires on air quality as management decisions are made. Human health and safety must be considered 

in management decisions. According to Lasko, his group has 

been working with FS research to develop ways to monitor 

air quality conditions to give people the information they 

need to make better decisions. The air quality issues are significant right now and there are many political constraints. 

Lasko states, “What we need to do is be able to display those 

trade-offs (between short-term success and smoke) and then 

allow people to make decisions.”

We had considerable interest in discussing the views 

of our informants concerning climate change and the possibility of changing fire environments. Not surprisingly, 

our most detailed discussion on the topic was provided by 

Allen Soloman, USFS National Program Leader for Global 

Change, Washington, DC. His work is focused on global 

climate change and its influence on management policies 

for forests. He believes Congress should fund an effort to 

develop an integrated assessment model on climate change 

because currently only “bits and pieces” are being studied. He also stated that there is funding for climate change 

proposals for Research Stations, but Station Directors are 

autonomous when it comes to prioritizing how to use their 

share of research dollars. According to Soloman, many of the 

research heads view climate change as a national problem, 

not their specific area problem, so they are not spending on 

climate change projects. Thus, according to Soloman, there 

is a need for an integrated assessment at the national level.

Soloman continued his discussion by stressing the importance of adaptive management under conditions of changing 

climate stating, “We are at the very beginning of integrating climate change into the management and maintenance 

of forest management.” Griego also indicated that there has 

just been a “taste of climate change.” He says that we are 

starting to see fires in areas that we haven’t seen fires before—that we’ve just seen the tip of the iceberg so far.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 29

Soloman argues for the need to educate people so that 

management actions such as thinning and prescribed fire can 

be understood and accepted. Managing forests for carbon 

storage is an appropriate management objective for healthy 

forests that are fire-resistant. Policymakers and stakeholders 

on the ground need to view forests as more than just a “stock 

of carbon” in Soloman’s view. He advocates moving things 

out of the forest into long-life products or into biofuels to replace fossil fuels, leaving room for more carbon to be stored 

in a dynamic rather than a static system. He sees a growing 

belief among some stakeholder groups, such as the Sierra 

Club and Defenders of Wildlife, that active/adaptive management is important. Supporters of the Endangered Species 

Act must understand that removing some of the biomass 

in old growth stands is not going to conflict with management for the spotted owl, for example. These species, within 

their ecosystems, can all be managed together, according to 

Soloman.

Working at a more specific, localized level, Hubbard explains how selection of high priority treatment areas is being 

driven by climate change. In his opinion, there is a change in 

fuel conditions because of climate that goes beyond drought. 

Fuel moisture content is lower, the fire season is longer, temperatures are higher, and humidity is lower. He describes this 

as a long-term situation that will shift priorities for treatment 

because of season, fuel conditions, long-term effects, and 

insect/disease outbreaks that are closely tied to increased 

susceptibility from climate changes.

Tom Zimmerman discussed how climate change conditions are being incorporated indirectly into the previously 

mentioned WFDSS model. He explained how the effects of 

extended fire season are measured and tracked through the 

national fire danger rating system and weather forecasting. 

The effect of climate change on fuels, fuel moisture, local 

conditions, and fire behavior are reflected through the fire 

danger tracking, the fuel moisture monitoring, and the fire 

weather information used as inputs into the fire behavior 

model. Zimmerman continued that we need flexible policies 

to respond to dynamic conditions with the FS pushing to include climate change factors in modeling efforts. According 

to Zimmerman, there is no question that the fire environment 

is changing, resulting in dramatically rising fire suppression 

costs. He added that we may be setting new baseline data 

in terms of fire season length, fire season intensity, and duration of individual fires, among others. According to him, 

better documentation of these changes is needed because 

the current fire situation may not be one that can be better 

managed—it may be one that requires a different kind of 

management or a different scale of management and budget. 

The better the information we have, the better the decision 

support system will be. Realization of the need for budget 

change at the Federal level is evident with the passage of the 

Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement 

(FLAME) Act 2008.

Rowdabaugh also responded that climate change is one 

of the adaptive management challenges of the future, stating that fire management policies need to anticipate the 

likely consequences of a rapidly changing fire environment. 

According to Rowdabaugh, there are huge challenges at the 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels. As he said:

It is my hope, and the reason I actually sought 

this job, was to be able to participate in the development of appropriate policies to address 

those macro-changes in the fire environment 

(climate change, cyclical drought, overstocking 

and cross-management, insects and disease, demographic trends). All of that will translate into 

policies about how we address wildland fire, and 

how we manage vegetation, and how we partner 

with our non-Federal partners in and around 

the interface.

He concluded, “If our policies fail to account for the likely consequences of climate change, then we will have failed 

completely.”

These experts stressed the value of on-the-ground implementation of national-level policies and coordination efforts. 

The majority of these experts have served at various field 

levels in their agencies. They recognize the importance of 

work that is relevant to those implementing projects at the 

regional and local levels. In addition, the importance of interagency coordination and cooperation is a major concern 

of this group. They discussed the view that coordinated action among multiple agencies can overcome critical gaps that 

occur when projects are only undertaken on lands owned by 

one agency or individual rather than on a landscape basis. 

Several also mentioned that working with FS researchers, 

especially on developing criteria for assessing the effectiveness of fuels treatments and on monitoring air quality 

conditions related to both managed fires and wildfires, can 

be very helpful. All of the experts interviewed identified the 

necessity of integrating global climate change scenarios into 

adaptive forest and fire management policies, and all considered climate change the great management challenge of the 

coming years.
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

I

nterviews with communities, user groups, local government personnel, homeowners, and agency staff from the 

four forests across the region provide some valuable takehome messages for the FS. Many may seem obvious but are 

highlighted by the information we have received during this 

set of in-depth discussions and interviews with the various 

stakeholders on the four NFs as well as the regional survey 

of the general public.

The Santa Fe and Lincoln NFs demonstrate some of the 

problems faced by the agency in the region. Trust and communication are deemed to be lacking on the Santa Fe NF 

with members of the local communities. However, the relationship with local government officials and fire departments 

seems to be quite positive. When comparing this Forest to 

the Lincoln NF, it can be seen that the Santa Fe NF has a 

variety of factors leading to both historic and contemporary 

distrust, which complicate communication and fire education efforts. Many rural communities surrounding the Forest 

are resource-dependent and fear lost access to resources that 

have provided their livelihoods for generations. Resourcedependent portions of the other Forests (such as the southern 

portion of the Lincoln NF and portions of the Kaibab NF and 

Tonto NF) have the same problems and resulting distrust of 

agency actions and motivation.

Organized environmental groups are active on all the 

forests and seem to harbor distrust for the agency and for 

most resource-using groups across the board. Region 3 fire 

staff indicated that projects have been withdrawn because 

of litigation from environmental groups. Some fire management plans have been litigated, which stops wildland fire 

use because naturally ignited fires cannot be allowed to burn 

in certain areas without a management plan in place. Many 

of the major regional environmental groups are headquartered in Santa Fe and have a particular interest and focus 

on this Forest. Until recently, more remote areas have not 

been targeted so heavily. There is rising conflict among the 

resource users, the agency, and the environmental groups, 

which increases overall distrust. In addition, the Santa Fe 

NF is home to a vocal ethnic minority/majority that views 

itself as disenfranchised and robbed by the Government and 

the FS. Communication with this group is difficult, and the 

agency is perceived to be in the early stages of implementing the needed communication skills to work productively in 

this part of the region.

Interviews from the four Forests consistently stated that 

the constant movement of FS officials in and out of the area 

hampers communication and trust. Stakeholders feel unable 

to build up comfortable, trusting relationships with agency 

people. Many people told us of the importance of local, personal, direct contacts in their relationships with the agency. 

They value key, known FS employees who can help them 

to get things done. Respondents who are FS personnel said 

they believe that the number of people retiring from the 

FS is resulting in much institutional knowledge and talent 

leaving the agency, thereby increasing this “power void” in 

working with the community. The Region 3 Fire & Aviation 

management team believes that the “...pipeline is empty of 

experienced people and budgets are declining, which means 

that the agency lacks people with leadership, ability, risk assessment, and communication skills.”

Those we spoke with recommend that the agency listen to 

the local people, respect their knowledge, and incorporate it 

into educational programs—not only to develop rapport with 

the people but also to improve the programs. Stakeholders 

across the board want to be respected, valued, and included 

in the decisionmaking process. They would like to see the 

days of the FS as “lone experts” end.

Homeowners and many others from all of the Forests desire solid, practical fire education programs that help them to 

not only mitigate fire risk to their properties but also to understand the role of fire in southwestern ecosystems. People 

want options, not dictatorial statements concerning what has 

to be done to their property. They seek education in plain, 

lay language.

Respondents from forests that have had recent, large wildfires recommended more coordination among fire-fighting 

and management agencies. They complained of not receiving enough specific information during the wildfire event. 

Some of these complaints concerning specific information 

during wildfire situations probably cannot be remedied. 

However, during the more normal times of prescribed fire 

and thinning projects, more information is perceived to be 

better than less information—no interviewee complained of 

receiving too much information. Many complained about a 

lack of information, an unclear decisionmaking processes, 

and perceived withholding of information. Residents would 

like to see the FS communicate more with the public and educate them on the effects and benefits of various treatments, 

among other things, as well as keep residents informed about 

what the agency is doing. For example, as one resident of the 

Santa Fe NF notes, “Probably 99 percent of prescribed fires 

accomplish their goals without any problem at all...so they 

need to get that type of information out to the public.”

In addition, changes in wildfire policies by agencies 

around the world create a feeling of confusion and distrust 

among WUI residents everywhere. Fire staff from Region 

3 echoed the importance of consistency within the agency 

and among agencies, stating that consistency is key because agency activities do not know boundaries between the 

regions. Although adaptation by agencies to changing conditions and new information and techniques are considered 

necessary and acceptable, consistent policies and communication within the agency and across agencies are desired 

by many stakeholders. The critical lesson is that all segments of the affected public understand that policies need to 

adapt to the dynamic nature of the on-the-ground conditions. 

10.0 Possible Steps for the Forest Service
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 31

However, in order to accept and understand these changes, 

it is important that continuous communication strategies be 

used.6

A recent example is the changes in Australian fire policies 

for homeowners resulting from the 2009 Victoria bushfires, 

called “Black Sunday.” The fires resulted in the death of 173 

residents and the destruction of more than 2000 homes and 

structures. One result of the catastrophic bushfires was the 

investigation of the “Stay or Go Early” approach advocated 

for years by the Australian government. The commission 

found that many people did not receive warnings or were 

unaware of the threat to themselves and their property—the 

information necessary to make the policy effective. These 

findings resulted in a change in emphasis in the “Stay or Go 

Early” policy from staying and defending to leaving early 

with warnings that were based on a new fire danger index. At 

the highest fire danger level, the advice will be to leave rather than to stay and defend. The fire danger index is the basis 

for warnings and the associated community safety messages. 

The Australian Fire and Emergency Services Council has 

created a more sensitive fire danger index that links consistent national warning messages to the respective category on 

the fire danger index. The new messages will tell residents 

that the safest option is to leave when the index is over 100. 

(Handmer, November 2009).

Other things the FS can do to improve trust and communication include undertaking more treatment on public 

lands. As one resident of the Santa Fe area expresses, “There 

should be some new logging, there should be some more 

thinning in the forest and more controlled burns.” While 

more logging is quite controversial, treatment of the urban 

interface is seen as the biggest priority and can be used to 

develop trust. Residents, such as a member of the Firewise 

Communities of Santa Fe, feel “[the FS is] going to have to 

help the homeowners, at least at this point, make a barrier 

between the forest and the communities.”

Communicating effectively with FS personnel is sometimes seen as a challenge, but that challenge is often seen 

more on a national and regional level as opposed to the 

district level. People seem to have good working relationships with local district rangers once the rangers become 

known to the community, but they often find regional and 

district supervisors difficult to communicate with. There is 

acknowledgement of the challenge that the FS is faced with, 

as one Santa Fe resident states, the “diverse community out 

there that [makes it hard] to communicate effectively to all 

different types of groups.” However, local rangers that interact and try to be part of the community they serve can 

be, as one fire management officer in the Santa Fe observes, 

“very effective because people get to know them and they 

can communicate better that way.” This way, rangers experience more participation within the local community.

It is interesting to note that communication and education 

not only refers to public education but also to education of 

professionals within the agency. Region 3 fire staff discussed 

the importance of education for line officers, especially new 

ones coming into the area, concerning the role and importance of fire in the ecosystem and the risks that are inherent 

in any prescribed fire. They discussed the importance of understanding those risks, acceptable versus unacceptable, and 

the trade-off between not doing something or doing something with that risk. The agency tends to reward those who 

put out all fires and do not take the risk that a fire may get out 

of control. “I can tell you for a fact that I could have easily 

lost my job over a mistake of a prescribed fire, but yet the 

culture (of the agency) needs to change where we recognize 

that when you do take on fire management, you have got to 

be willing to recognize that you are going to have escapes 

[fires getting out of control].... Congress doesn’t like to hear 

that, they think we should be able to live without escapes.”

Concerning public education programs, both agency 

fire professionals and lay people consider the role and importance of communication and fire education critical. The 

notion of using teachable moments as means of increasing 

the impact of public fire education messages was stressed. 

Many feel that the public is more motivated and open to fire 

risk reduction messages immediately after a fire. However, 

this motivation tends to dwindle with the passage of time. 

Thus, using the immediate experience of the fire as a teachable moment can be very effective in encouraging people to 

take risk mitigation measures to protect themselves and their 

property. Another important concept related to dissemination of education information concerning fire risk mitigation 

activities is the idea that managers should tailor their education programs to the needs and knowledge levels of their 

varying stakeholder groups. These diverse groups of forest 

users and homeowners living in the WUI can include culturally, ethnically, and racially distinct groups, as well as those 

differentiated by age, education, income, and residential status (seasonal versus permanent). In addition to these factors, 

homeowners can be in varying stages of readiness to undertake risk reduction activities (Martin, Bender, and Raish 

2007; Martin, Bender, and Raish 2008). Communicating risk 

vulnerability and severity, and effective means of remediating those risks, is critical. People must feel like they have 

the knowledge, ability, and resources to deal with identified 

risks and that the recommended actions will effectively reduce those risks.

Our research on fire risk reduction in the Southwest has 

shown that physically demonstrating what should be done, 

showing that assistance is available, and providing that 

assistance in a timely and reliable manner substantially 

increases feelings that risk reduction efforts can be accomplished (Martin, Bender, and Raish 2007; Martin, Bender, 

and Raish 2008). Direct, face-to-face communication in the 

form of presentations at local meetings and forest walks 

with locally knowledgeable people such as fire department 

6

 Examples of continuous communication strategies include effective 

use of social media such as email lists, Facebook, blogs, etc. It is 

important to use a variety of communication strategies to keep all 

segments of the public informed of policy issues.
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

personnel are examples of effective forms of communication concerning risk reduction (Martin, Bender, and Raish 

2007). Such educational efforts also have included developing demonstration plots that show what defensible space 

looks like and that include personalized property assessments to recommend what types of risk reduction activities 

should be undertaken by the property owner. Other activities 

include providing free pick-up and hauling, free or low-cost 

chipping, and burn pits for thinned materials. In some cases, 

Federal agencies and local communities have partnered to 

provide these services. Another valuable education technique is discussed by Mozumber and others (2009). They 

found that using wildfire risk maps can inform WUI residents of potential threats and can encourage risk reduction 

efforts. Providing wildfire risk maps to communities can also 

address policy goals by emphasizing information gathering 

and sharing among agencies and stakeholders to mitigate the 

effects of wildfires.

Different homeowner segments and user groups may also 

include distinct cultural, ethnic, and racial groups, which 

may require different educational techniques, methods, and 

hazard warnings. The literature on natural hazards response 

provides information on risk communication messages for 

both majority and minority populations, which can be useful 

for wildfire. Research has shown that differences exist in the 

ways in which minority and majority groups assess the credibility of hazard warnings and respond to those warnings. 

For all groups, however, sources must be considered credible and trustworthy before people will accept the message 

(Lindell and Perry 2004). Thus, it is important that managers 

know their affected stakeholders and who those people consider to be credible sources—respected community leaders 

or opinion leaders, for example. Research in the hazard literature has shown that peers are important in transmitting and 

influencing adoption of mitigation measures (Tierney 1994). 

Similarly, Lindell and Perry (2004) report that Hispanics 

were likely to consider friends, relatives, and neighbors 

as credible information sources, while whites and African 

Americans were less likely to consider these groups valid 

sources of information. Various forms of the mass media can 

also be important for communicating hazard and risk information to the public. These forms of communication can be 

useful for managers in many instances. Using sources in an 

appropriate language for the audience is especially necessary 

when dealing with diverse ethnic groups. Language-specific 

television, radio stations, and newspapers can be helpful 

in this regard (Lindell and Perry 2004). Various researchers have found that different ethnic groups seem to prefer 

different media sources, with whites preferring print media, Hispanics preferring oral media such as local radio 

and television stations and neighborhood meetings, and 

African Americans preferring local radio, newspapers, and 

brochures from neighborhood meetings (Lindell and Perry 

2004; Nelson and Perry 1991; Perry and Nelson 1991). It is 

also important that managers increase their own credibility 

by direct interaction and appropriate communication with 

their constituent groups, regardless of ethnicity (Lindell and 

Perry 2000, 2004, Lindell and Whitney 2000)7.

This direct interaction with distinct user groups and 

homeowner segments allows managers to define and develop an understanding of the different stakeholder group 

leaders, needs, and communication preferences (Martin 

and others 2009). Many times, community leaders possess 

considerable valuable knowledge that can assist managers 

in working specific groups. In addition, observing the degree of risk-mitigating behaviors that have occurred among 

community subgroups can help the manager target appropriate risk communication strategies, taking into account the 

group’s level of knowledge, motivation, and willingness 

to undertake further risk reduction activities. Research has 

shown that targeted, one-on-one information that is designed 

to address the issues of a particular property and physical 

characteristics of an area is more likely to move people to 

mitigate wildfire risks (Brenkert and others 2005) than general information in pamphlets and brochures. The underlying 

message for managers is that one size does not fit all when it 

comes to educational messages and techniques to encourage 

fire risk mitigation behaviors.

7 Communication preferences could be changing based upon the 

increased availability of social media and online communication 

technologies.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 33

11.0 Conclusions

Over a four-year period, we conducted a set of interviews with a broad set of stakeholders in four of the NFs in 

Region 3 (Santa Fe and Lincoln NFs in New Mexico and the 

Kaibab and Tonto NFs in Arizona). These interviews were 

the foundation for the second phase of the project—a survey of the general public surrounding the NFs within the 

Region. The final phase of the project was a set of interviews 

with national experts both in the FS and in other agencies. 

The information that was gathered was used to develop a 

picture of the fire risk beliefs and attitudes of individuals 

and groups within local communities; of local, regional, and 

national Government groups; and of special interest groups 

(for example, environmental, logging, and mining). The picture that emerged was one of commonalities across some 

dimensions and distinct differences across other dimensions. 

This information is designed to help local, regional, and 

National FS personnel to better understand the complexities 

of the risk beliefs and attitudes that guide how their stakeholder groups view the FS’s role in the development and 

implementation of fire policies on public and private lands. 

As Kirk Rowdabaugh stated in his interview, the FS needs 

to develop a more in-depth understanding of the values that 

guide stakeholder perspectives on how both public and private lands are landscaped and fit together into a mosaic of 

ecosystems. He calls on social scientists, through research, 

to uncover the social values that guide how stakeholders 

make decisions about risks and how they value risks. The 

overall objective of this report is to do just that.
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Brenkert, H.; Champ, P.; Flores, N. 2005. Mitigation of wildfire risk 

by homeowners. Res. Note RMRS-RN-25WWW. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FS, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

Condie, C.J. [Unpublished paper]. Documented uses of fire in 

prehistoric New Mexico. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, FS, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Albuquerque, NM.

Condie, C.J.; Raish, C. 2003. Indigenous and traditional use of fire 

in southwestern grassland, woodland and forest ecosystems. 

In: Jakes, Pamela J., comp. Homeowners, communities, 

and wildfire: science findings from the National Fire Plan. 

Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Society 

and Resource Management; 2002 June 2-5; Bloomington, IN. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-231. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, FS, North Central Research Station. 92 p.

Daniel, T.C.; Carroll, M.S.; Moseley, C.; Raish, C., eds. 2007. 

People, fire, and forests: a synthesis of wildfire social science. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 226 p.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design 

method, New York: John Wiley & Sons. 464 p.

Dobyns, H.F. 1981. From fire to flood. Ballena Press Anthropological 

Papers 20. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press.

Handmer, J. 2009, “Australian Fire Policy May Emphasize 

‘Go’ over ‘Stay and Defend’”, Natural Hazards Observer, V. 

XXXIV(2), November.

Kay, C.E. 1994. Aboriginal overkill and native burning: implications 

for modern ecosystem management. Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry.

Lewis, H.T. 1973. Patterns of Indian burning in California: ecology 

and ethnohistory. Ballena Anthropological Papers Vol. 1. 

Ramona, CA: Ballena Press.

Lewis, H.Y. 1985. Why Indians burned: specific versus general 

reasons. In: Lotan, James E., et al. Tech. Co-ord. Proceedings: 

workshop on wilderness fire; 1983 November 15-18; Missoula, 

MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-182. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, FS, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station:75-80.

Lindell, M.K.; Perry, R.W. 2000. Household adjustment to 

earthquake hazard: a review of research. Environment and 

Behavior. 32: 590-630.

Lindell, M.K.; Perry, R.W. 2004. Communicating environmental 

risk in multiethnic communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications.

Lindell, M.K.; Whitney, D.J. 2000. Correlates of seismic hazard 

adjustment adoption. Risk Analysis. 20: 13-25.

References

Martin, I.M.; Bender, H.W.; Raish, C. 2007. What motivates 

individuals to protect themselves from risk: the case of wildland 

fire. Risk Analysis. 24(4): 887-900.

Martin, I.M.; Bender, H.W.; Raish, C. 2008a. Making the decision 

to mitigate risk. In: Martin, WE.; Raish, C.; Kent, B. eds. 

Wildfire risk: human perceptions and management implications. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press:117-141.

Martin, W.E.; Brajer, V.; Zeller, K. 2008b.Valuing the health effects 

of a prescribed fire. In:Martin, W. E.; Raish, C.; Kent, B., eds. 

Wildfire risk: human perceptions and management implications. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press:244-263.

Martin, W.E.; Raish, C.; Kent, B. eds. 2008c.Wildfire risk: human 

perceptions and management implications. Washington, DC: 

Resources for the Future Press. 310 p.

Martin, W.E.; Martin, I.M.; Kent, B. 2009. The role of risk 

perceptions in the risk mitigation process: the case of wildfire in 

high risk communities. Journal of Environmental Management. 

91(2): 489-498. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman. 2009.09.007.

Mozumber, P.; Helton, R.; Berrens, R. 2009. Provision of a wildfire 

risk map: informing residents in the wildland urban interface. 

Risk Analysis. 29(11): 1588-1600.

Nelson, L.; Perry, R.W. 1991. Organizing public education for 

technological emergencies. Disaster Management. 4: 21-26.

Perry, R.W.; Nelson, L. 1991. Ethnicity and hazard information 

dissemination. Environmental Management. 15: 581-587.

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and 

rural fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pyne, S.J. 1995. World fire: the culture of fire on earth. New York, 

NY: Henry Holt.

Stewart, O.C. 1995a. Forest and grass burning in the Mountain 

West. Southwestern Lore. 21(1): 5-9.

Stewart, O.C. 1995b. Why were the prairies treeless? Southwestern 

Lore. 20(4): 59-64.

Tierney, K.J. 1994. Emergency preparedness and response. In: 

Practical lessons from the Loma Prieta earthquake. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press:105-128.

Tierney, K.J.; Lindell, M.K.; Perry, R.W. 2001. Facing the 

unexpected: disaster preparedness and response in the United 

States. Washington, DC: John Henry Press.

Williams, G.W. 2002. Aboriginal use of fire: are there any 

“natural” communities? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, FS, Research Summary.

Winter, P.L.; Cvetkovich, G.T. 2008. Diversity in southwesterners’ 

views of FS fire management. In: Martin, W.E.; Raish, C.; Kent, 

B., eds. Wildfire risk: human perceptions and management 

implications. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future 

Press:56-170.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 35

1. Some background on who we are and what we are doing with the FS. Use the information from the one-page 

summary of “Fire and Fuels Management” stressing the 

three major areas of interest in the focus group (issues, 

treatment options, wildfire risk levels and role of the FS, 

homeowner, local fire dept. etc.). Ask for permission to 

record the session. Explain to the person that we will use 

the transcripts to make sure the comments are accurately 

represented. Stress that we are interested in accurately 

representing their positions and opinions!

2. Ask each of the participants to briefly introduce themselves. For example, try to determine how long each 

individual has worked in wildfire, what is their background, wildfire experiences in other areas, memberships 

in any collaborative efforts, what their position is within 

the organization, etc.

3. Ask each individual how they are involved with the 

management and use of public lands. As information 

regarding the individual’s relationship to public lands is 

discussed begin questioning them regarding issues related to fire and fuels management. Use the list of issues 

from the ‘Issue Books’ for each location to make sure that 

all issues are addressed. Focus on their role as a decision maker or policy person.

ISSUE LIST ___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

4. Once the discussion of the issues is complete ask them to 

identify their objectives regarding fire and fuels management in general and regarding their area specifically. 

Refer to the issue list to encourage discussion of objectives that may be related to the various issues.

5. Next, ask their beliefs about the ‘role of the FS and their 

agency/affiliation’ in fire and fuels management. Be sure 

to get as much context for their opinion as possible. Also, 

make sure to ask the individual

• what they believe is the appropriate ‘balance’ between 

local versus national input, (be sure to address controversy regarding local knowledge/expertise; role of 

incident team; volunteer fire depts., etc.)

• their belief as to the FS management structure and local autonomy, i.e. how much control should the Forest 

Supervisor have, the District Ranger?

• what role should the Washington office have v. the region v. the forest v. the district?

• At what level should wildfire policy be made? What 

input from others outside the agency is appropriate?

• How is communication between the FS and other 

groups before a fire? During a fire? After a fire?

6. Probe to explore the link between climate change and 

wildfire management decisions. 

• Is there a link between wildfire and climate change? 

• Is climate change something they are required to address in their management efforts? 

• Do they believe there is enough evidence of a link 

to justify including climate change considerations in 

management decisions? What do they believe versus 

what do they have to do!

• Is there enough evidence of a link to make it feasible 

to consider climate change in their decisions?

• Do they have adequate access to scientific studies regarding the link between wildfire and climate change? 

• What is the primary source of information regarding 

this link?

• Do they believe it is reliable—good science?

• Is the public requesting that they consider climate 

change or is it internally driven or both?

7. Finally, ask if the individual has any questions about 

what we are doing. Thank them for their time and input. 

Let them know when we will be in contact and how they 

can contact us. Ask if they have any recommendations 

for others to talk to.

Appendix A. Interview Guide
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

A Survey on

Wildfire Management Issues Related

To Homeowners and National Forest Lands

Integrated Resource Solutions, LLC

1109 Four Mile Canyon Drive

Boulder, Colorado 80302

September 15, 2006

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this 

information collection is 0596-0200. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 20 minutes 

per respondent, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. OMB#0596-0200, Expiration Date 07/31/2009.

Appendix B. Survey to the General Public
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 37

CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST FITS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THE 

STATEMENTS:

A)	 Forest Treatment Options Related to Wildfire

The use of active fire management tools on National Forests includes prescribed fires, 

mechanical removal (thinning and logging), and others.

1. How effective is prescribed or managed fire at reducing the risks of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

2. How effective is managing naturally ignited wildfires at reducing the risks of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

3. How effective is selectively thinning small diameter trees (less than 16 inches in diameter) at reducing the risks 

of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

4. How effective is selectively logging large diameter trees (over 16 inches in diameter) at reducing the risks of 

wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

5. How effective is prescribed fire and thinning small trees in combination at reducing the risks of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

6. How effective is prescribed fire and logging large trees in combination at reducing the risks of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

7. How effective is using goats to reduce the amount of brush and vegetation at reducing the risks of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST FITS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THE 

STATEMENTS:

8. How effective is salvage logging (removing burned trees after a wildfire) at reducing the risks of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

9. How effective is thinning and logging infested or diseased trees (removing dead or dying trees) at reducing the 

risks of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

10. How effective is no active fire management (“let nature take its course”) at reducing wildfire risks:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

11. Of the treatment options listed in questions 1-10, please list the three treatment options that you prefer to see 

land managers use to reduce the risks of wildfire.

1. _______________________________________

2. _______________________________________

3. _______________________________________

Please rate the following forest treatment statements:

1. Forest treatment options to reduce the risks of wildfire should be focused around communities.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

strongly strongly

disagree agree

2. Forest treatments to reduce the risks of wildfire should be implemented across the entire national forests (for 

example, in the backcountry and around communities).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

strongly strongly

disagree agree

3. Prescribed fire should only be used once the usable wood material is removed through commercial logging.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

strongly strongly

disagree agree
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 39

CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST FITS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THE 

STATEMENTS:

4. Prescribed fire should only be used once the usable wood material is removed through thinning (for example, fuel 

wood gathering, small-scale timber operations).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

strongly strongly

disagree agree

5. If lives and structures are not threatened, the US FS should let wildfires burn as needed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

strongly strongly

disagree agree

6. Prescribed fire should not be used as a treatment because of the potential health (e.g. respiratory) problems from 

smoke.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

strongly strongly

disagree agree

B)	 Effectiveness of the Current US FS at Managing Public Lands for the Risk of Wildfire

1. How effective is the current US FS at managing public lands to reduce the risk of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

2. How effective is the current US FS at implementing mechanical removal programs (for example, commercial 

logging) on national forest lands:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

3. How effective is the current US FS at implementing thinning projects (for example, for fuel wood and small scale 

logging operations) on national forest lands:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

4. How effective is the current US FS at implementing prescribed or managed fire programs on national forest 

lands:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST FITS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THE 

STATEMENTS:

C)	 Wildfires in the Wildland-Urban Interface

1. How vulnerable do you feel about the possibility of a wildfire physically affecting you or your family:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all extremely

vulnerable vulnerable

2. How vulnerable do you feel about the possibility of a wildfire affecting your property and/or possessions:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all extremely

vulnerable vulnerable

3. What is the perceived likelihood of wildfire happening near your home within the next couple of years:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No probably 50-50 probably certain

chance will not chance will to

happen happen happen

4. On a scale of 0 to 10, how severe will the impact of a catastrophic wildfire be where you live:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

no harm extremely

at all devastating

D) Responsibility of Various Groups in Safeguarding Lives, Property, and Lands

1. How responsible should homeowners be for protecting themselves and their property from the impact of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at very

all responsible responsible

2. How responsible should homeowners’ associations be for protecting homeowners and private property from the 

impact of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at very

all responsible responsible

3. How responsible should local governments (for example, county and city) be for protecting homeowners and 

private property from the impact of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at very

all responsible responsible
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 41

CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST FITS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THE 

STATEMENTS:

4. How responsible should the US FS be for protecting homeowners and private property from the impact of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at very

all responsible responsible

E) Residents’ Knowledge and Experience with Wildfire

1. How well informed do you consider yourself to be about wildfire and wildfire risks:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at very

all informed informed

2. To what extent do you find information about wildfires to be personally relevant?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at very

all relevant relevant

3. How motivated are you to learn more about the connection between wildfire risks and undertaking the actions to 

make my property more defensible against wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at very

all motivated motivated

4. What type of experience have you had with large-scale wildfire(s): Check all that apply.

____ My house and/or structures on my property were destroyed (partially or totally)

____ There have been fires very near my property (less than 5 miles)

____ There have been fires 5 to 50 miles from my property

____ There have been fires 51 to 100 miles from my property

____ I\we have been evacuated from my\our house because of the threat of a wildfire.

____ I\we have heard about wildfire experiences through friends, family or neighbors.

____ No experience

____ Other—please explain: ____________________________________________________

5. Have you received any information about wildfire risks from the following sources in the last year? Please check 

each source that has provided you wildfire information. Check all that apply:

____ U.S. FS (e.g. Firewise Community info, educational brochures)

____ Other Federal land management agencies (BLM, Park Service, etc.) _____ State Forestry

____ County/City Fire Department

____ Local and State Law Enforcement

____ Media reports (TV, newspaper, radio)

____ Neighbors and/or friends

____ Environmental Organizations

____ Other (please specify. )
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

WRITE THE NUMBER THAT BEST FITS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THE 

STATEMENTS:

For each source checked above, how helpful was the information on a scale from 1=not at 

all helpful to 7=very helpful. If you do not have any experience with a group, please leave 

it blank.

6. Information Source How helpful?

U.S. FS (Firewise Community info, educational brochures) ______

Other federal agencies (BLM, Park Service, etc.) ______

State Forestry ______

County/City Fire Department ______

Local and State Law Enforcement ______

Media reports (TV, newspaper, radio) ______

Neighbors and/or friends ______

Environmental Organizations ______

Other (please specify )

Sections F, G, and H apply only to those homeowners who live or have property close 

to National Forest lands. Otherwise, you should go directly to Section I of the survey on 

page XX.

In the next section, we are interested in knowing what types of defensible space actions 

you and your family have taken on your property. Check the answer that best fits with what 

you have done on your property.

F) Defensible Space Actions on Private Property

1. What is your likelihood of doing the following actions to your property:

a. Creating a minimum 30-foot defensible space around your home:

_____ Already done

_____ Will do in next month

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year 

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

b. Planting low-growing, fire resistant plants around your home:

_____ Already done

_____ Will do in next month

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

c. Putting a fire resistant roof on your home:

_____ Already done

_____ Will do in next month

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

d. Putting fire resistant undersides to any decks and balconies on your home:

_____ Already done

_____ Will do in next month

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 43

CHECK THE CHOICE THAT BEST FITS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE OR INTEND TO DO:

e. Removing any dead branches from your home’s roof and around the chimney:

_____ Already done 

_____ Will do in next month 

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year 

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

f. Making sure that your home is easily identifiable and accessible from a main road by emergency vehicles:

_____ Already done 

_____ Will do in next month 

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year 

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

g. Making sure that all the trees on your property are planted away from structures :

_____ Already done 

_____ Will do in next month 

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year 

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

h. Making sure that all the trees on your property are planted away from overhead utility lines:

_____ Already done 

_____ Will do in next month 

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year 

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

i. Working with neighbors to prune and clear common areas with heavy vegetation:

_____ Already done 

_____ Will do in next month 

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year 

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

j. Stacking firewood and scrap wood piles at least 30 feet from any structure:

_____ Already done 

_____ Will do in next month 

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year 

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)

k. Contacting your local fire department to get a personal fire safety inspection oft your home and property:

_____ Already done 

_____ Will do in next month 

_____ Will do in next 3-6 months

_____ Will do next year 

_____ Probably will not do (Why not? __________________________________________)
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

G) Effectiveness of Risk Reduction Actions

How effective are the following actions at reducing the risk of wildfire from impacting your 

property and lives. Using the scale below, insert an X in the column that best fits with 

how effective you believe each action is at reducing the risk of wildfire.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all Very

Effective Effective

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a. Create a 30-foot defensible space 

around your home:

b. Plant low-growing, fire resistant 

plants around your home:

c. Put a fire resistant roof on your 

home:

d. Putting fire resistant undersides 

to any decks & balconies on your 

home:

e. Removing any dead branches 

from your home’s roof and 

around the chimney:

f. Making sure that your home is 

easily identifiable and accessible 

from a main road:

g. Making sure that all trees on your 

property are planted away from 

structures:

h. Making sure that all the trees on 

your property are planted away 

from overhead utility lines:

i. Working with neighbors to prune 

and clear heavy vegetation on 

common areas:

j. Stacking firewood and scrap 

wood piles at least 30 feet away 

from any structure:

k. Contacting the local fire 

department to get a fire safety 

inspection at your home:

4. By doing any of the above actions on your property, how effective can you be at preventing wildfires from 

impacting your personal property and your life:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

effective effective

5. How confident do you feel in your ability to protect your property and yourself from the risk of wildfire:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all very

confident confident
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 45

H) Confidence in Ability to Undertake Defensive Actions

How confident do you feel in your ability to conduct any of these defensible actions on 

your property in an effort to reduce the risks of wildfire impacting you and your property. 

Using the scale below, insert an X in the column that best fits with how confident you feel 

in your ability to undertake each of these actions in an effort to reduce the risk of wildfire.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all Very

Confident Confident

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a. Create a 30-foot defensible space 

around your home:

b. Plant low-growing, fire resistant 

plants around your home:

c. Put a fire resistant roof on your 

home:

d. Putting fire resistant undersides to 

any decks & balconies on your home:

e. Removing any dead branches from 

your home’s roof and around the 

chimney:

f. Making sure that your home is easily 

identifiable and accessible from a 

main road:

g. Making sure that all trees on your 

property are planted away from 

structures:

h. Making sure that all the trees on 

your property are planted away from 

overhead utility lines:

i. Working with neighbors to prune and 

clear heavy vegetation on common 

areas:

j. Stacking firewood and scrap wood 

piles at least 30 feet away from any 

structure:

k. Contacting the local fire department 

to get a fire safety inspection at you 

or home and property:

2. What would you say is the biggest impediment or constraint to taking some action to protect your property 

from the impact of wildfire? Please specify:

3. What convinced you to take defensible space action on your property? Please check all that apply.

_____ Major fire event 

_____ Suggestions by local government (for example, local fire department)

_____ Suggestions by federal government

_____ Insurance incentive 

_____ Aesthetics

_____ Creating a healthy forest
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

_____ Improving wildlife habitat

_____ Getting rid of dead or dying trees (for example, from bug infestations)

_____ Reducing wildfire risks

_____ Have not taken any action

_____ Other—please explain: _____________________________________________________

I) For the following questions, please check the appropriate category or fill in the appropriate

information.

1. Where is your primary residence: _____________________________________________

(city and state)

2. Please identify your age group:

18-25 ________ 45-54 ________

26-34 ________ 55-64 ________

35-44 ________ 65 and over ___

3. Please identify your gender: _____ Male _____ Female

4. What is your highest level of education completed:

Some high school ______ High School _______

Some college ______ College degree _______

Postgraduate work _____ Graduate degree ______

Other (please specify ______________________________)

5. If you have a home near the forest, how many months per year do you live in your home near the 

forest: _________ # of months

6. If you have a home near the forest, how close is your home to the closest National Forest or Grassland?

______ less than 1 mile ______ 21 to 50 miles

______ 1 to 10 miles ______ more than 50 miles

______ 11 to 20 miles ______ Other (please specify ___________________)

7. Please check the category which best fits your household income level per year:

Less than $15,000 ______ $35,000 – $49,999 _____

$15,000 – $24,999 ______ $50,000 – 74,999 _____

$25,000 – $34,999 ______ $75,000 – over _____

8. Please identify the zip code for your primary residence: ________________

9. Please identify the zip code for your residence near the forest: ________________

10. With which racial/ethnic group do you most closely identify?

11. ______ African American/Black ______ Mexican American

______ Central American ______ Native American/First Nation (Please

______ Chinese American Specify: Nation/Tribe/Pueblo_____

______ Cuban American ________________________________)

______ Hispanic American ______ Vietnamese American

______ Japanese American ______ White American/Caucasian

______ Korean American ______ Other Ethnic/Racial Group (Please

 Specify:_____________________)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 47

10a. Please mark the appropriate statement concerning Hispanic or Latino ethnicity:

______ Hispanic or Latino ______ Not Hispanic or Latino

12. If you were born outside the US, how many years have you lived in the US? __________ (# of years)

13. What is the primary language you speak at home?

English ______ Spanish _________ Other (please specify) ______________

14. How many times have you visited National Forests in the past 12 months? 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

If you have any questions or comments about the survey or topics related to what was covered in this survey, you are welcome to put that information in this section. If you would 

like us to respond to any questions that you may have please include your name and address/contact email so that we can respond.
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Appendix C. Survey of General Population—

Results

Table 1. Effectiveness ratings of forest treatment options.

Arizona New Mexico

Forest treatment Overall

options preferences mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Prescribed fire 4.86 (1.50) 4.81 (1.55) 5.11 (1.19) 4.66 (1.51) 4.90 (1.70)

Managing naturally ignited fire 4.34 (1.47) 4.42 (1.44) 4.38 (1.46) 4.20 (1.52) 4.37 (1.52)

Selective thinning— 5.11 (1.42) 4.85 (1.56) 5.02 (1.34) 5.30 (1.37) 5.33 (1.33)

(small wood)

Selective thinning— 4.21 (1.73) 4.07 (1.71) 4.31 (1.68) 4.30 (1.75) 4.21 (1.86)

(large wood)

Prescribed fire and thinning 5.18 (1.44) 5.09 (1.54) 5.46 (1.22) 5.15 (1.44) 5.03 (1.52)

small wood

Prescribed fire and logging 4.43 (1.74) 4.38 (1.73) 4.75 (1.76) 4.43 (1.63) 4.10 (1.85)

Goats 4.75 (1.69) 4.63 (1.55) 4.49 (1.81) 5.01 (1.67) 4.92 (1.79)

Salvage logging 4.69 (1.78) 4.50 (1.92) 4.67 (1,69) 4.74 (1.74) 4.96 (1.74)

Thin diseased trees 5.55 (1.54) 5.52 (1.64) 5.54 (1.22) 5.61 (1.51) 5.58 (1.48)

Do nothing 2.08 (1.45) 2.41 (1.69) 1.81 (1.24) 1.83 (1.05) 2.32 (1.66)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

Forest treatment options related to wildfire:

The use of active fire management tools on National 

Forests in the western United States includes prescribed 

fires, mechanical removal, and other techniques. We asked 

residents of Arizona and New Mexico (FS Region 3) to rate 

the effectiveness of 10 different forest treatment strategies to 

help reduce the risk of devastating wildfires (1 = not at all 

effective to 7 = very effective). The 10 strategies considered 

are:

1. prescribed or managed fire,

2. managing naturally ignited wildfires,

3. selectively thinning small-diameter trees,

4. selectively logging large-diameter trees,

5. prescribed fire and thinning small-diameter trees in 

combination,

6. prescribed fire and thinning large-diameter trees in 

combination,

7. using goats to reduce the amount of brush and 

vegetation,

8. salvage logging,

9. thinning and logging infested or diseased trees, and

10. no active fire management.

The results of these effectiveness measures are presented 

in table 1. The results are presented for the entire region and 

then by each of the four targeted areas.

The results in table 1 provide information on how effective all respondents perceived the 10 treatment options to be 

as tools to mitigate the risks of catastrophic wildfire. Overall, 

the results show that doing nothing to mitigate wildfire risks 

is not perceived as a desirable option by the public. This is 

also apparent when looking at the means by location. What 

is interesting is that for the most part, there was a consistent 

perception of how effective each of these treatment options 

are across all four sites.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 49

Three most preferred defensible space actions:

We also asked the respondents to rank their top three 

treatment options/strategies. They were asked to list the 

three treatment options that they preferred to see public land 

managers use to reduce the risks of wildfires. Table 2 lists 

the three most preferred options by all four locations as well 

as for the entire sample.

What emerges from this analysis is that overall, respondents prefer treatment options that do not involve the use of 

prescribed fire. If you look at the top three choices across 

the four sites, it is evident that selective thinning, salvage 

logging, and thinning diseased/infested trees were consistently preferred. The one exception was that the use of goats 

as a means to reduce brush and vegetation was found to be 

preferred by New Mexican respondents. Another interesting 

point that emerges is that selectively logging large-diameter 

trees was not preferred by any site along with the option of 

doing nothing. It should be noted that these preferences were 

listed without considering the cost to implement the various 

treatment options.

Table 2. Preferred treatment options.

Arizona New Mexico

Treatment option All locations northern region southern region northern region southern region

Most preferred Selectively Selectively Selectively Selectively Selectively

treatment option thinning small- thinning small- thinning small- thinning small- thinning smalldiameter trees diameter trees diameter trees diameter trees diameter trees

 and diseased

trees (salvage

logging)

Second most Salvage Thinning and Salvage logging Goats to reduce Goats to reduce

preferred logging and logging diseased brush and brush and vegetation

treatment option using goats trees vegetation

Third most Thinning and Salvage logging Thinning and Thinning and Thinning and

preferred treatment logging diseased logging diseased logging diseased logging diseased

option trees trees trees trees
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Where and what should be the focus of the 

various forest treatments:

Not only were we interested in what types of forest treatment options were preferred and how effective all the various 

treatment strategies were perceived to be by respondents, but 

we also wanted to know where these forest treatment options 

should be focused in an effort to reduce the risks of wildfire. 

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with 

two statements that said “Forest treatments options to reduce 

the risks of wildfire should be focused around communities/

should be implemented across the entire National Forests.” 

They were then asked to rate their level of agreement with 

“Prescribed fires should only be used once the usable wood 

material is removed through commercial logging/removed 

through thinning projects.” Then they rated their level of 

agreement with the statement “If lives and structures are not 

threatened, the U.S. Forest Service should let wildfires burn 

as needed.” Finally, they were asked to rate the statement 

“Prescribed fires should not be used as a treatment because 

of the potential health problems from smoke.” These six 

statements were designed to provide more in-depth explanation for respondents preferences as they relate to the various 

treatment options and strategies (1 = strongly disagree to 7 

= strongly agree). Table 3 provides the means and standard 

deviations for this set of questions.

One result of these questions was the preference that forest treatments should focus on the entire National Forest, 

including wilderness areas, as well as areas around communities using these treatments. We also found that respondents 

felt that if prescribed fire is going to be used, all the usable 

wood material should be removed through some form of 

thinning such as fuel wood gathering, small-scale timber 

operations, etc. This is consistent with the results in table 1 

and table 2. Surprisingly though, respondents were not concerned with the potential health issues that often result from 

smoke due to wildfires and prescribed fires.

Table 3. Forest treatment preferences.

Arizona New Mexico

Forest treatment Overall

preferences mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Focus on communities 5.22 (1.52) 5.28 (1.52) 5.10 (1.56) 5.33 (1.48) 5.12 (1.55)

Focus across entire Forest 4.97 (1.85) 4.59 (1.94) 5.39 (1.81) 5.23 (1.66) 4.69 (1.92)

landscape

Use fire after commercial 4.63 (2.05) 4.46 (1.99) 5.39 (1.81) 5.23 (1.66) 4.69 (1.92)

logging

Use fire after thinning projects 5.22 (1.66) 5.09 (1.60) 5.26 (1.76) 5.50 (1.55) 4.92 (1.77)

Let it burn unless lives are 4.13 (1.91) 4.24 (1.69) 3.78 (2.04) 4.16 (1.94) 4.36 (2.00)

threatened

No prescribed fire if smoke is 3.18 (1.74) 3.16 (1.71) 3.07 (1.71) 3.23 (1.78) 3.31 (1.84)

health problem

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 51

FS management practices:

The next set of questions were focused on evaluating the 

effectiveness of current U.S. FS practices at managing public lands for the risk of wildfires (1 = not at all effective 

to 7 = very effective). Respondents were asked to rate how 

effective the current U.S. FS is at managing public lands to 

reduce the risk of fire, implementing commercial logging 

programs, implementing thinning projects, and implementing prescribed fire programs on National Forest lands.

The results in table 4 illustrate that respondents have 

a neutral evaluation of the effectiveness of these policies. 

This could be due to their lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of U.S. FS management policies or about how to 

determine the effectiveness.

Wildfires in the WUI:

In order to get a clear understanding of how residents in 

the WUI feel about their safety, we asked them to rate their 

feeling of vulnerability to the risk of wildfire for themselves 

and their house and property (1= not at all vulnerable to 

7 = extremely vulnerable). We also asked them what their 

perceived likelihood was of a wildfire happening near their 

property and how severe they would expect that wildfire 

to be (0 = no chance/no harm at all to 10 = certain to happen/extremely devastating). Table 5 presents the results for 

Arizona and New Mexico as well as by location.

In table 5, the low to moderate perceptions of the wildfire risks emerged across all four locations. When asked 

about their feelings of vulnerability, respondents seemed to 

believe that the possibility of wildfires affecting them and 

their property was moderate. Their belief that a catastrophic 

wildfire could happen near their property was low for southern Arizona and moderate for the other three regions. It is 

possible that this perception is due to the ecology and the 

topography of the region. The Sonoran Desert portions of 

southern Arizona are not adapted to fire and generally have 

lower fire risk than higher-elevation forested areas. Finally, 

when asked how severe the impact of a wildfire would be 

within the next couple of years, again, the southern region 

of Arizona was significantly lower than the other three 

locations.

Table 4. Effectiveness of various forest management practices.

Arizona New Mexico

Overall

Effectiveness mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Current management practices 4.08 (1.25) 3.93 (1.30) 4.04 (1.03) 4.25 (1.31) 4.13 (1.35)

Current mechanical removal 3.94 (1.33) 3.89 (1.40) 3.65 (1.25) 4.16 (1.34) 4.06 (1.24)

Current thinning projects 3.87 (1.27) 3.91 (1.25) 3.49 (1.17) 3.96 (1.31) 4.18 (1.30)

Current prescribed fire projects 3.87 (1.34) 3.81 (1.43) 3.81 (1.05) 3.99 (1.34) 3.87 (1.51)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

Table 5. Perceived vulnerability, risk likelihood, and severity of potential wildfires.

Arizona New Mexico

Perceived Overall

vulnerability mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

How vulnerable are you?a 3.33 (1.96) 3.66 (1.95) 2.68 (1.75) 3.45 (2.03) 3.49 (2.01)

How vulnerable is your home?a 3.24 (2.05) 3.58 (2.05) 2.56 (1.91) 3.37 (2.13) 3.44 (1.99)

Likelihood of wildfireb 3.51 (2.69) 4.13 (2.72) 2.62 (2.62) 3.67 (2.64) 3.36 (2.58)

Severity of wildfireb 5.02 (3.25) 5.27 (3.15) 3.91 (2.94) 5.42 (3.43) 5.38 (3.33)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

a

 These measures are based upon a 7-point scale.

b

 These measures are based upon a 0 to 10 rating.
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Responsibility of various groups in safeguarding 

lives, property, and lands:

Another important factor in understanding the public’s 

perception of how to mitigate wildfire risks is to understand 

where the public places responsibilities for this mitigation process. We asked the public how responsible should 

individual homeowners, homeowner’s associations, local 

governments, and the U.S. FS be (1 = not at all responsible 

to 7 = very responsible). The responses to these questions 

continue to help us construct a picture of how residents in 

the WUI view the process of mitigating wildfire risks for all 

parties concerned (see table 6).

The responsibility for protecting oneself, property, and 

lands is another issue that has been found to determine 

what homeowners will do to mitigate wildfire risks. The results indicate that across all locations, respondents believe 

strongly that homeowners are responsible for protecting 

themselves and their property. Likewise, they believed that 

HOAs should also be held responsible for protecting homeowners and private property. This could be due to the issue 

that occurs when some homeowners do little or nothing to 

mitigate fire risks on their property, resulting in a potentially 

negative spillover effect on others in the community. Next, 

respondents also believe that county and city governments 

along with the public land managers are responsible for 

working to mitigate wildfire risks. All in all, the overarching 

belief is that mitigating wildfire risks is the responsibility of 

all members of the community, including the FS.

Residents’ knowledge of and experience with 

wildfire:

Next, we measured how much information and experience respondents had with wildfires. We asked how informed 

they were about wildfire risks, how personally relevant they 

found information on wildfires, and how motivated they 

were to learn as much as possible about wildfires (1 = not 

at all informed/relevant/motivated to 7 = very informed/

relevant/motivated). We also asked them what type of experience they had with large-scale wildfires including such 

aspects as being evacuated, losing homes or structures, etc. 

Finally, they were asked to report what type of information 

that they had been exposed to over the last year related to 

wildfires. Sources of information included Federal, state, 

and local agencies, media reports, neighbors, environmental organizations, and fire departments. The results to these 

questions are presented in table 7.

Overall, respondents believed that they were moderately 

well-informed and motivated to learn more about the connection between wildfire risks and defensible space actions. 

This was also consistently true in each of the four locations. 

In addition, respondents felt that information about wildfires 

was moderately relevant to them, providing an opportunity 

to further inform residents in these two states.

Table 6. Responsibility for protecting against wildfires.

Arizona New Mexico

Overall

Responsibility mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

Homeowners’ responsibility 6.36 (0.94) 6.35 (0.98) 6.43 (0.93) 6.40 (0.88) 6.24 (1.01)

HOA’s responsibility 5.83 (1.43) 5.75 (1.45) 6.09 (1.30) 5.67 (1.63) 5.89 (1.21)

Local government responsibility 5.59 (1.52) 5.57 (1.39) 5.62 (1.54) 5.65 (1.55) 5.50 (1.70)

U.S. FS responsibility 5.27 (1.56) 5.11 (1.55) 5.31 (1.59) 5.37 (1.56) 5.31 (1.60)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90

Table 7. How informed and motivated are WUI residents?

Arizona New Mexico

Overall

Knowledge mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

How well-informed 4.77 (1.52) 4.61 (1.46) 4.75 (1.56) 4.84 (1.55) 4.96 (1.56)

How relevant is information 4.65 (1.58) 4.69 (1.48) 4.38 (1.68) 4.79 (1.62) 4.71 (1.54)

How motivated to learn 4.78 (1.68) 4.76 (1.68) 4.38 (1.71) 4.93 (1.64) 5.15 (1.66)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 53

Defensible space actions on private property:

To determine how respondents used the knowledge and 

information that they had to mitigate wildfire risks on their 

properties, we asked them to tell us what their likelihood 

was of undertaking 11 defensible space actions1:

1. creating a 30-foot defensible space around your home,

2. planting fire-resistant plants around your home,

3. putting a fire-resistant roof on your home,

4. putting fire-resistant undersides to decks and balconies,

5. removing dead branches from roof,

6. making sure home is easily identifiable from main road,

7. making sure all trees are planted away from structure,

8. making sure all trees are planted away from utility lines,

9. working with neighbors to prune and clear common 

areas,

10. stacking firewood away from structures, and

11. contacting local fire department for a personal fire 

safety inspection.

The response options for each item were: 1 = already done, 

2 = will do in next month, 3 = will do in next 3–6 months, 

4 = will do next year, and 5 = probably will not do (0 = not 

applicable). Table 8 provides the frequencies for each option 

at each location and for the entire sample.

The southern part of Arizona had significantly fewer defensible space actions undertaken by respondents. In fact, 

southern Arizona residents are in sharp contrast to the other 

three sites when it comes to 7 of the 11 risk mitigating actions. 

For the defensible space action of “working with neighbors 

to clear common areas,” southern Arizona and southern New 

Mexico were both significantly less likely to undertake this 

action. In addition, they also had a significant number of 

respondents state that they would not undertake this action, 

unlike the northern regions of both New Mexico and Arizona. 

When looking at the defensible action of “stacking wood 

away from structures,” we found that a number of residents 

in both southern Arizona and northern New Mexico would 

not undertake this action (20% and 25%, respectively), while 

southern Arizona was significantly more likely to have undertaken this action (45.5%). Another interesting result was for 

the action of “planting trees away from utility lines,” southern New Mexico was the only site where a significant percent 

stated that they would not do this defensible action (55%). 

Finally, for the defensible space action of “having a fire safety 

inspection,” we found that there was much variation across 

locations. About 25% of respondents in three of the four locations had already undertaken this action while about 25% said 

they would not do it (southern Arizona and both sites in New 

Mexico). In contrast, 50% of respondents in northern Arizona 

had already undertaken the action while 30% would not consider taking this action. Overall, there was some variation in 

3 of the 11 defensible space actions, but for the other 8, there 

was a consistent pattern, as previously described.

Table 8. Defensible space actions taken.

Arizona New Mexico

Defensible Overall

space action mean northern region southern region northern region southern region

30-foot 58% already 64% done already 47.2% already done 65.3% already 50% already done

defensible done done

space

Plant fire 56% already 61.8% already 38.2% already done 53.5% already 72.5% already done

resistant plants done done done

Fire resistant 62% already 66.3% already 47.3% already done 73.5% already 50% already done

roof done done done

Fire resistant 55% will not do 64.1% will not do 35.2% will not do 45.3% will not do 79% will not do

undersides

Remove dead 81% already 77.2% already 67.3% already done 92.3% already 90% already done

branches done done done

Easily identify 83% already 93.3% already 63.6% already done 83.8% already 85% already done

house done done done

Trees planted 62% already 66% already 52.7% already done 63.4% already 60% already done

away from done done done

house

Trees planted 63% already 72.8% already 52.7% already done 71.8% already 55% will not do

away from done done done

utility lines

Work with 48% already 57.6% already 42% already done 49.3% already 55.3% will not do 

neighbors done done and 33% will done and 34.2% already 

not do done

Stack firewood 63% already 68% already 45.5% already done 62.8% already done 68.5% already done

away done done & 20% will not do & 25% will not do

Fire safety 34% already done & 37% 21.8% already done 28% already done, 30% already done &

inspection done and 32% will not do & 21.8% will not do 21% will do in 45% will not do

will not do next 3–6 months, &

48.9% already 24% will not do

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Effectiveness of risk reduction actions:

We then asked respondents to tell us how effective each 

of the risk reduction actions are (1 = not at all effective to 

7 = very effective). We also asked respondents, by doing 

these defensible space actions, how effective would they be 

at preventing wildfires from impacting their property and 

their lives (1 = not at all effective to 7 = very effective). We 

then asked them to rate how effective these types of defensible space actions are at preventing wildfires from impacting 

their personal property and their lives (1 = not at all effective 

to 7 = very effective). The results to all these behavior measures are presented in table 9.

The pattern of how effective each of the defensible space 

actions were perceived to be was very consistent across all 

four locations for all 11 actions. For the most part, respondents felt that these actions were effective at reducing the 

risk of wildfires damaging property or injuring individuals. 

The overall rating of how effective these defensible space 

actions are was very high.

Table 9. Effectiveness of the risk reduction actions.

Arizona New Mexico

Defensible Overall

space action mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

30-foot defensible space 5.31 (2.03) 5.32 (2.06) 5.28 (2.14) 5.37 (1.87) 5.16 (2.23)

Plant fire resistant plants 5.20 (1.76) 5.36 (1.82) 5.21 (1.41) 4.97 (1.75) 5.26 (2.02)

Fire resistant roof 5.93 (1.54) 6.10 (1.59) 6.17 (0.99) 5.88 (1.56) 5.65 (1.89)

Fire resistant undersides 5.12 (2.04) 5.01 (2.16) 5.55 (1.67) 5.19 (1.86) 4.81 (2.44)

Remove dead branches 6.15 (1.40) 5.94 (1.56) 6.33 (1.28) 6.24 (1.37) 6.24 (1.14)

Easily identify house 5.94 (1.38) 5.97 (1.41) 5.95 (1.10) 5.89 (1.53) 6.00 (1.31)

Trees planted away from 5.41 (1.81) 5.32 (1.88) 5.38 (1.77) 5.53 (1.66) 5.39 (2.04)

house

Trees planted away from 5.28 (1.97) 4.97 (2.07) 5.69 (1.73) 5.49 (1.89) 5.13 (2.35)

utility lines

Work with neighbors 5.10 (2.12) 4.82 (2.07) 5.47 (2.06) 5.23 (1.89) 5.11 (2.37)

Stack firewood away 5.97 (1.69) 5.74 (1.97) 6.21 (1.34) 6.14 (1.42) 5.89 (1.81)

Fire safety inspection 5.23 (1.79) 5.41 (1.83) 5.28 (1.56) 4.90 (1.84) 5.42 (1.83)

Overall effectiveness 6.00 (1.28) 5.96 (1.37) 6.12 (1.15) 5.92 (1.29) 6.02 (1.25)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 55

Confidence in ability to undertake defensible 

space actions:

It is also important to understand what affects a person’s 

decision to either undertake or not undertake these 11 defensible actions. Related to the factors that influence the decision 

to undertake the defensible space action is a person’s respective confidence in their ability to undertake these defensible 

actions. These tasks can require considerable physical effort 

and can be very costly to implement. Therefore, we measured respondents’ confidence levels at undertaking each of 

the defensible actions as well as their overall confidence in 

their ability to protect themselves and their property (1 = not 

at all confident to 7 = very confident). The results to all these 

behavior measures are presented in table 10.

The same pattern emerged for the degree of confidence 

that respondents had in their ability to undertake these defensible actions except for three types of actions. The first 

is putting fire-resistant undersides to decks and balconies on 

a home. This could be because some residents did not have 

balconies and decks, so this was not perceived as relevant to 

their situation. The second action was planting trees away 

from houses and structures. The reasoning for this lower 

confidence level could be that many people are not willing 

to cut down trees close to their structures or do not intend to 

plant more trees. The third action was working with neighbors to clear common areas. This could be due to the lack 

of organized HOAs or other community organizations. The 

overall level of confidence in undertaking defensible space 

actions was moderately high for all locations.

Table 10. Confidence in ability to undertake defensible actions.

Arizona New Mexico

Defensible Overall

space action mean (SD) northern region southern region northern region southern region

30-foot defensible space 5.17 (2.35) 5.62 (2.16) 4.58 (2.15) 5.30 (2.15) 4.47 (2.65)

Plant fire resistant plants 5.71 (1.79) 5.88 (1.74) 5.61 (1.98) 5.62 (1.72) 5.63 (1.86)

Fire resistant roof 5.79 (1.92) 6.20 (1.46) 5.25 (2.30) 5.87 (1.97) 5.26 (2.10)

Fire resistant undersides 4.75 (2.48) 5.31 (2.27) 4.75 (2.57) 4.59 (2.46) 3.73 (2.60)

Remove dead branches 6.30 (1.31) 6.54 (0.92) 5.95 (1.86) 6.27 (1.42) 6.20 (0.94)

Easily identify house 6.35 (1.29) 6.53 (0.97) 5.90 (1.93) 6.58 (0.95) 5.94 (1.45)

Trees planted away from house 4.98 (2.33) 5.13 (2.23) 4.90 (2.41) 5.10 (2.30) 4.54 (2.52)

Trees planted away from utility 5.17 (2.47) 5.35 (2.35) 5.32 (2.53) 5.35 (2.37) 4.08 (2.71)

lines

Work with neighbors 4.82 (2.32) 5.07 (2.03) 4.91 (2.44) 4.75 (2.39) 4.21 (2.60)

Stack firewood away 6.05 (1.79) 6.13 (1.77) 5.98 (1.93) 6.26 (1.42) 5.47 (2.17)

Fire safety inspection 5.72 (1.72) 5.83 (1.64) 5.60 (2.04) 5.72 (1.69) 5.59 (1.55)

Overall confidence 5.72 (1.20) 5.78 (1.22) 5.98 (1.32) 5.56 (1.04) 5.54 (1.26)

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011.

Demographic characteristics of WUI residents:

The last section of the survey focused on a set of demographic questions, and the results are presented in Table 11. 

Respondents were asked to select the category of demographic variables that best described their household. This 

included some individual-level variables such as age and 

gender as well as some household-level variables such as 

race/ethnic group. These variables were used to develop a description of the typical household in each of the four regions 

of New Mexico and Arizona. The household-level variables 

were measured based upon the census category of occupied 

housing since the survey was of home addresses. Table 12 

provides a comparison of the survey sample to Arizona and 

New Mexico averages for the main demographic variables.

Table 11. Demographic characteristics.

Arizona New Mexico

Age Overall northern region southern region northern region southern region

18–25 4% 1% 1% 1% 1%

26–34 7% 2% 2% 1% 2%

35–44 15% 4% 4% 4% 3%

45–54 30% 9% 7% 8% 6%

55–64 21% 6% 65 6% 3%

65 and over 23% 8% 4% 7% 4%

Arizona New Mexico

Gender Overall northern region southern region northern region southern region

Male 68% 22% 18% 17% 12%

Female 32% 8% 6% 11% 6%

Arizona New Mexico

Education Overall northern region southern region northern region southern region

Some high school 0.5% 0 0.25% 0.25% 0

High school graduate 19% 4% 7% 5% 3%

Some college 12% 5% 0 3% 4%

College degree 29% 9% 4% 11% 6%

Postgraduate work 17% 6% 3% 6% 2%

Graduate degree 21% 4% 7% 9% 2%

Arizona New Mexico

How close is home to forest lands Overall northern region southern region northern region southern region

Less than 1 mile 24% 10% 2% 8% 4%

1 to 10 miles 33% 10% 6% 10% 8%

11 to 20 miles 22% 7% 2% 8% 5%

21 to 50 miles 12% 5% 5% 3% 1%

More than 50 miles 7% 3% 2% 1% 1%

Arizona New Mexico

Income Overall northern region southern region northern region southern region

Less than $15,000 3% 1% 1% 1% 0

$15,000–$24,999 8% 2% 1% 3% 2%

$25,000–$34,999 10% 3% 2% 3% 3%

$35,000–$49,999 23% 7% 4% 8% 4%

$50,000–$74,999 20% 6% 5% 5% 4%

$75,000–over 35% 11% 11% 7% 6%

Arizona New Mexico

Racial or ethnic group Overall northern region southern region northern region southern region

African American 1% 0.25% 0 0.25% 0

Hispanic American 14% 4% 1% 6% 3%

Asian American 1% 1% 0 0 0

Native American 1% 0 0 1% 0

White/Caucasian 84% 26% 23% 21% 15%

Sample size 502 152 119 141 90
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-260. 2011. 57

Table 12. Sample and state comparisons.

Age Sample Arizona New Mexico

< 35 11% 22% 22%

35–44 15% 19% 18%

45–54 30% 20% 21%

55–64 21% 17% 18%

>65 23% 22% 21%

Gender* Sample Arizona New Mexico

Male 68% 50% 50%

Female 32% 50% 50%

*Because we surveyed households, the gender distribution is skewed toward male respondents.

Education Sample Arizona New Mexico

Some high school 1% 14% 16%

High school graduate 19% 23% 25%

Some college 12% 35% 32%

College graduate 67% 29% 27%

Racial or ethnic group* Sample Arizona New Mexico

African American 1% 3% 2%

Hispanic American 14% 21% 39%

Asian American 1% 2% 1%

Native American 1% 3% 7%

White/Caucasian 84% 83% 75%

*Columns may not total to 100% due to overlap between Hispanic and White self-identification.

Income Sample Arizona New Mexico

< $15,000 3% 12% 16%

$15,000–$24,999 8% 11% 13%

$25,000–$34,999 10% 11% 12%

$35,000–$49,999 23% 16% 15%

$50,000–$74,999 20% 19% 18%

>$75,000 35% 31% 26%
The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does 

not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or 

service.

Cover photos:

1. Photo by Stephen Osman. Copyright © 2007, Los Angeles 

Times. Reprinted with Permission. 

2. Photo by Carlos Chavez. Copyright © 2007, Los Angeles 

Times. Reprinted with Permission.

3. Photo by Robert Durrell. Copyright © 2007, Los Angeles 

Times. Reprinted with Permission.

4. Photo by Wally Skalij. Copyright © 2007, Los Angeles 

Times. Reprinted with Permission. 

5. Photo by Richard Hartog. Copyright © 2007, Los Angeles 

Times. Reprinted with Permission.

6. Photo by Robert Durrell. Copyright © 2007, Los Angeles 

Times. Reprinted with Permission.

1

2

3

4

5

6
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

Rocky

 Mountain

 Research Station

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.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all 

or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(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 to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana