Flagstaff Forum – Preliminary Results

On May 31st, 27 community members gathered for 3CAZ’s second forum at the Murdoch Community Center in Flagstaff, AZ. For those new to our forums, these community members shared their priorities for collaboration between communities and the United States Department of Energy about building an interim nuclear waste storage facility. These community members worked individually, in table groups, and as a full group to share their perspectives. Check out some preliminary results below. 

Most of the charts below are based on group responses from each of the five tables. However, some survey results show individual responses. In late 2025 or early 2026, we’ll publish a more complete results report from the forum in Flagstaff and the other forums we host. 

What are forums and why are we doing them?

3CAZ’s public forums are day-long discussions where people throughout Arizona are guided through facilitated activities to share their perspectives on nuclear waste management.

Learn more about our forums here

Community Values

One of the first activities asked attendees to decide on four core values that guide how their group makes decisions about the future. Below is a list that compiles the values developed by all five tables. There are similarities and differences among these values, and, notably, two tables mentioned compassion as a shared value.

Priorities for Collaboration

In their table groups, community members ranked their top priorities for community collaboration. They were provided with priorities generated by the 3CAZ team through earlier consultations with AZ communities, nuclear waste experts, and other stakeholders. Across the five tables, the environment and transparency were the top priorities. Environment and transparency priorities were mentioned more often, ranked higher and, at some tables, more frequently than other priorities. Notably, every table listed protecting culturally important lands as a resource as a top environmental priority. Regarding transparency, four out of five tables listed agree on guidelines and rules for all parties involved as an important priority.

Attendees at our youth forum in Tempe also listed environment and transparency as their highest priorities. Environment was ranked second at the Parker community forum. However, there were some notable differences between these three forums. Parker ranked human health as their top priority, yet it was ranked quite low by the Flagstaff participants. Further, timeline & future were of somewhat high importance to Flagstaff participants, yet ranked as the least important priority at Parker and second to last at the Tempe youth forum. Finally, the economy was the least important priority to Flagstaff participants by a great margin, yet it was ranked as fairly important to Parker participants. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be sharing results and comparisons from more forums. Come back to see how priorities continue to be similar and different across AZ communities.

Oversight & Involvement

As table groups worked through nuanced discussions about their values and priorities, they were tasked with applying their ideas to concrete choices about who should oversee decisions about nuclear waste management and a collaborative-based process for siting a nuclear waste storage facility at the federal and community levels.

Federal Level Oversight

Facilitators provided their table groups with a set of 6 oversight bodies: the US Department of Energy, Independent Federal Government Organization, Nonprofit Organization, Nuclear Energy Industry, Independent Scientists and Researchers, and Elected Leaders (county, state, tribal, and municipal governments). They then asked their table group members to decide together who, at the national level, they would want to oversee nuclear waste management and a collaborative process for siting a nuclear waste storage facility. While each table’s response was different, all tables selected a Nonprofit Organization and Independent Scientists & Researchers. 

Community Level Involvement – Decision Making Board

Later in the day, each table deliberated on who from a community they would want involved in day-to-day decision making within a community about siting an interim waste storage facility. Attendees reviewed 18 potential people as part of this activity. They also had the opportunity to create their own people cards. In the visual below, you can look at who was included in the decision making board most frequently.

Four out of five tables agreed that a nuclear power plant supervisor, an environmental scientist, and a neighboring tribal council leader should be on the Decision Making Board. Participants explained that each of these people are important to have on the Decision Making Board because of their relevant knowledge and expertise. One group explained that they would like a nuclear power plant supervisor on the board because they are a “subject matter expert” and have “direct involvement” in the topic. Another group explained that an environmental scientist “focuses on environmental science and can provide future innovating ideas.” And, finally, a different group explained that they would like a neighboring tribal council leader on their Decision Making Board because they can help “represent neighboring [sovereign community] voices.”  Three out of five tables included a state environmental regulator and emergency planner on their decision making board. Interestingly, the Flagstaff forum’s Decision Making Board is nearly identical to the Parker forum’s, with the difference being that Flagstaff included a neighboring tribal council leader, whereas Parker included a city mayor or council member. 

Community Level Involvement – Community Advisory Council

After deciding on their decision making board, each table group used the remaining people cards to select members of a Community Advisory Council that would oversee the Decision Making Board and a collaborative process for siting an interim nuclear waste storage facility.

Four out of five tables included a first responder and a doctor in their community advisory council because of their ability to support the community in case of an emergency and provide health guidance. Tables explained that a first responder can “think ahead [about] catastrophe,” is “an expert” “in case of emergency,” and would be a “great addition to the community to feel supported.” Tables also mentioned that they would like to include a doctor “who cares about the health of the community,” is a “direct connection to human health advice,” and “can give advise on how to go on healthy habits and recommendations.” In addition to a first responder and doctor, three out of five tables included a community youth, a community resident, and a city mayor or council member on their advisory council. Interestingly, the Flagstaff forum’s Community Advisory Council was quite different from the Parker forum’s Community Advisory Council: Their only similarities were including a first responder and community youth.

Final Perspectives Toward a Collaborative Approach 

To close the Flagstaff forum, we asked community members to complete a few survey questions so we could learn more about their perspectives. Here are a few things that stood out to us as we continue to reflect on what we have learned from the Flagstaff forum’s participants. 

We asked participants about their perspectives toward nuclear energy, a collaborative approach to decision making, and the forum results. We learned that many (48%) of the Flagstaff forum community members oppose nuclear as a source of electricity in the US, compared to support (30%) or being unsure (22%). Despite many participants being opposed to nuclear energy, the majority of participants (77%) value a collaborative approach to siting a nuclear waste storage facility, either a moderate amount (50%) or a great deal (27%).  Further, the overwhelming majority of participants (92%) agree, to some degree, that the results of this forum should be shown to nuclear waste siting decision makers. Nearly all participants (96%) agreed, to some degree, that it would be beneficial to do more forums like this one, with 57% of participants “strongly agreeing” to this. These results can be an indication that, regardless of whether the forum participant was in favor of, opposed to, or not sure about nuclear energy, the participants were largely aligned in how they value a collaborative approach to decision making on this topic and how the results of this approach can be used. Check out the charts below for more detailed information on the statistics reported here.

Demographics for Attendees  

The charts below provide an overview of attendees’ demographics.