Finally, agency analyses indicate that  climate change and related drought may also be responsible for significant  increases in the occurrence of, and costs of responding to, wildland fire. Increases in the size and severity of wildland fires, and in the cost of  fighting them, have led federal agencies to fundamentally reexamine their  approach to wildland fire management. Five federal agencies—the Forest  Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian  Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and  National Park Service within the Department of the Interior—fight  wildland fires. Agencies Need a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Problems

Agencies need a cohesive strategy that identifies the available long-term  options and associated funding for reducing excess vegetation and  responding to wildland fires if the agencies and the Congress are to make  informed decisions about an effective and affordable long-term approach  for addressing problems that have been decades in the making. We first  recommended that the agencies develop such a strategy for addressing  fuels in 1999. After we evaluated a number of related wildland fire  management issues, we reiterated our recommendation in 2005 and 2006  but also recognized that a comprehensive solution needs to address not  only reducing fuels but also an overall response to wildland fire. Specifically, these weaknesses included the following: the agencies lacked  basic data, such as the extent and location of lands needing fuel reduction;  the agencies needed to identify and prioritize fuel reduction projects;  many federal land management units did not have fire management plans  that met agency requirements designed to restore fire’s natural role in  ecosystems consistent with human health and safety; and the agencies  were unable to assess the extent to which they were reducing wildland fire  risks, to establish meaningful fuel reduction performance measures, or to  determine the cost-effectiveness of these efforts because they lacked  needed data. Phase II was to be focused on  additional activities, including fuel reduction and large-fire suppression. Although the agencies had made progress on these three primary tasks at  the time of our 2006 update, they had not developed either a cohesive  strategy identifying options for reducing fuels or a joint tactical plan  outlining the critical steps, together with related time frames, the agencies  would take to complete a cohesive strategy, as we recommended in our  2005 report. Better Guidance Needed to Clarify Sharing of Suppression Costs between Federal and Nonfederal Entities

Federal agencies need to take steps to improve the framework for sharing  wildland fire suppression costs between federal and nonfederal entities. We recommended in our 2006 report that federal  agencies work with relevant state entities to clarify the financial  responsibilities for suppressing fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across  multiple jurisdictions and provide more specific guidance as to when  particular cost-sharing methods should be used. As of January 2007, the  agencies were updating guidance on options for sharing costs and under  what circumstances each would typically be used, but it is unclear how the  agencies will ensure that such guidance is followed. The  type of cost-sharing method ultimately used can have significant financial  consequences for the entities involved, potentially amounting to millions  of dollars. Lack of Clear Goals and Cohesive Strategy Hinders Agencies’ Efforts to Contain Wildland Fire Costs

Preliminary findings from our ongoing work for the committee show that,  despite dozens of federal and nonfederal studies issued since 2000 that  consistently identified similar areas needing improvement to help contain  wildland fire costs, the agencies have made little progress in addressing  these areas. The steps the agencies have taken  to date to contain wildland fire costs lack several key elements  fundamental to sound program management, such as clearly defining cost- containment goals, developing a strategy for achieving those goals, and  measuring progress toward achieving them. First, the agencies have not  clearly articulated the goals of their cost-containment efforts. For cost- containment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to integrate cost- containment goals with the other goals of the wildland fire program—such  as protecting life, property, and resources. At the same time, to help address the rising cost  of protecting the growing number of homes built in the wildland urban  interface—a cost that may be disproportionately borne by the federal  government—federal agencies also need to work with relevant state  entities to ensure that appropriate methods are used for sharing the costs  of suppressing fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple  jurisdictions.
Why GAO Did This Study

Over the past two decades, the number of acres burned by wildland fires has increased, often threatening human lives, property, and ecosystems. The cost of responding to wildland fires has also grown, especially as more homes are built in or near wildlands, an area called the wildland-urban interface. Past management practices, including a concerted federal policy in the 20th century of suppressing fires to protect communities and ecosystems, unintentionally resulted in steady accumulation of dense vegetation that can fuel large, intense, and often costly wildland fires. GAO was asked to identify actions that federal wildland fire agencies need to take to help contain federal wildland fire expenditures. GAO has identified these actions in three of its reports addressing fuel reduction and cost-sharing efforts and as part of an ongoing review of federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland fire preparedness and suppression costs for this committee. Specifically, GAO focused on examining agencies' efforts to (1) reduce accumulated fuels and address wildland fire problems, (2) share with nonfederal entities the costs of responding to multijurisdictional fires, and (3) contain the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires.

What GAO Found

Over the past 7 years, GAO has recommended a number of actions federal wildland fire agencies should take to improve their management of wildland fire activities, actions that could also help contain the rising federal expenditures for responding to wildland fires. These agencies--the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and land management agencies within the Department of the Interior--concurred with GAO's recommendations but have not completed, or in some cases have not yet begun, needed actions. GAO's ongoing review of federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland fire preparedness and suppression costs has also identified other actions that may be needed. Specifically, the agencies need to: (1) Develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the options and associated funding to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems. In 1999, to address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to increase the severity of wildland fires and the cost of suppression efforts, GAO recommended that a cohesive strategy be developed that identified the available long-term options and associated funding for reducing these fuels. In 2005 and 2006, because the agencies had not yet developed one, GAO reiterated the need for such a strategy but broadened its focus to better address the interrelated nature of fuel reduction efforts and wildland fire response. GAO also recommended that, as an interim step, the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining the steps and time frames needed for completing a cohesive strategy. As of January 2007, the agencies had not developed either a cohesive strategy or a tactical plan. (2) Clarify their guidance for sharing wildland fire suppression costs with nonfederal entities. In 2006, to address the rising costs of responding to fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources, GAO recommended that the federal agencies provide more specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should be used. The cost-sharing method used can have significant financial consequences for the entities involved--potentially amounting to millions of dollars. As of January 2007, the agencies were updating their guidance on possible cost-sharing methods and when each typically would be used, but it is unclear how the agencies will ensure that the guidance is followed. (3) Establish clear goals, strategies, and performance measures to help contain wildland fire costs. Preliminary findings from GAO's ongoing work indicate that the effectiveness of agencies' efforts to contain costs may be limited because the agencies have not clearly defined their cost-containment goals, developed a strategy for achieving those goals, or developed related performance measures. For these efforts to be effective, the agencies need to integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland fire program--such as protecting life and property--and to recognize that trade-offs will be needed to meet desired goals within the context of fiscal constraints.