Agencies’ Efforts to Implement a New Approach to Managing Wildland Fire Have Better Positioned Them to Respond to Fire Effectively

As the Forest Service and the Interior agencies have improved their  understanding of wildland fire’s role on the landscape, their approach to  managing fire has evolved. Under the policy, the agencies  abandoned their attempt to put out every wildland fire, seeking instead to  (1) make communities and resources less susceptible to being damaged by  wildland fire and (2) respond to fires so as to protect communities and  important resources at risk but also to consider both the cost and long- term effects of that response. They have also improved  their ability to respond efficiently and effectively to wildland fires that  occur, including taking steps to (1) implement the federal wildland fire  management policy, (2) improve decisions regarding fire management  strategies, and (3) improve how they acquire and use firefighting assets. Reducing hazardous fuels—to keep wildland  fires from spreading into the wildland-urban interface and to help protect  important resources by lessening a fire’s intensity—is one of the primary  objectives of the National Fire Plan. Although the agencies  have made progress in other areas, they still lack such a measure. FPA was intended to help the agencies  develop their wildland fire budget requests and allocate funds by, among  other objectives, (1) providing a common budget framework to analyze  firefighting assets without regard for agency jurisdictions; (2) examining  the full scope of fire management activities, including preparing for fires  by acquiring and positioning firefighting assets for the fire season,  mobilizing assets to suppress fires, and reducing potentially hazardous  fuels; (3) modeling the effects over time of differing strategies for  responding to wildland fires and treating lands to reduce hazardous fuels;  and (4) using this information to identify the most cost-effective mix and  location of federal wildland fire management assets. Agencies Have Yet to Take Certain Key Actions That Would Substantially Improve Their Management of Wildland Fire

Despite the important steps the agencies have taken, much work remains. We have previously recommended several key actions—including  development of an overarching investment strategy for addressing the  wildland fire problem—that, if completed, would improve the agencies’  management of wildland fire. In addition to completing the overarching  strategy (which we have termed a cohesive strategy), we have  recommended that the agencies clarify the importance of containing costs  relative to other, often-competing objectives and clarify financial  responsibilities for fires that cross federal, state, and local jurisdictions. By laying out various  potential approaches for addressing the growing wildland fire threat, the  estimated costs associated with each approach, and the trade-offs  involved, a cohesive strategy would help Congress and the agencies make  informed decisions about how to invest scarce funds. As a result, despite improvements the  agencies continue to make to policy, decision-support tools, and oversight,  we believe that managers in the field lack a clear understanding of the  relative importance that the agencies’ leadership places on containing  costs and—as we concluded in our 2007 report—are therefore likely to  continue to select firefighting strategies without due consideration of the  costs of suppression. Unless the financial responsibilities for multijurisdictional  fires are clarified, the concerns that the existing framework insulates  nonfederal entities from the cost of protecting the wildland-urban  interface from fire—and that the federal government therefore continues  to bear more than its share of that cost—are unlikely to be addressed. Mitigate Effects of Rising Fire Costs on Other Agency Programs

Rising wildland fire costs have led the Forest Service and the Interior  agencies to transfer funds from other programs to help pay for fire  suppression.
Why GAO Did This Study

The nation's wildland fire problems have worsened dramatically over the past decade, with more than a doubling of average annual acreage burned and federal appropriations for wildland fire management. The deteriorating fire situation has led the agencies responsible for managing wildland fires on federal lands--the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and four agencies in the Department of the Interior--to reassess how they respond to wildland fire and to take steps to improve their fire management programs. GAO reviewed (1) progress the agencies have made in managing wildland fire and (2) key actions GAO previously recommended and believes are still necessary to improve wildland fire management. GAO reviewed previous GAO reports and agency documents and interviewed agency officials. GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct evaluations on his own initiative.

What GAO Found

The Forest Service and the Interior agencies have improved their understanding of wildland fire's ecological role on the landscape and have taken important steps toward enhancing their ability to cost-effectively protect communities and resources by seeking to (1) make communities and resources less susceptible to being damaged by wildland fire and (2) respond to fire so as to protect communities and important resources at risk but to also consider both the cost and long-term effects of that response. To help them do so, the agencies in recent years have reduced hazardous fuels, in an effort to keep wildland fires from spreading into the wildland-urban interface and to help protect important resources by lessening a fire's intensity; sponsored efforts to educate homeowners about steps they can take to protect their homes from wildland fire; and provided grants to help homeowners carry out these steps. The agencies have also made improvements that lay important groundwork for enhancing their response to wildland fire, including adopting new guidance on how managers in the field are to select firefighting strategies, improving the analytical tools that assist managers in selecting a strategy, and improving how they acquire and use expensive firefighting assets. Despite the agencies' efforts, much work remains. GAO has recommended several key actions--including development of an overarching fire management strategy--that, if completed, would substantially improve the agencies' management of wildland fire. Nonetheless, the agencies have yet to: (1) Develop a cohesive strategy laying out various potential approaches for addressing the growing wildland fire threat, estimated costs associated with each approach, and the trade-offs involved. Such information would help the agencies and Congress make fundamental decisions about an effective and affordable approach to responding to fires. (2) Establish a cost-containment strategy that clarifies the importance of containing costs relative to other, often-competing objectives. Without such clarification, GAO believes managers in the field lack a clear understanding of the relative importance that the agencies' leadership places on containing costs and are therefore likely to continue to select firefighting strategies without duly considering the costs of suppression. (3) Clarify financial responsibilities for fires that cross federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Unless the financial responsibilities for multijurisdictional fires are clarified, concerns that the existing framework insulates nonfederal entities from the cost of protecting the wildland-urban interface--and that the federal government would therefore continue to bear more than its share of the cost--are unlikely to be addressed. (4) Take action to mitigate the effects of rising fire costs on other agency programs. The sharply rising costs of managing wildland fires have led the agencies to transfer funds from other programs to help pay for fire suppression, disrupting or delaying activities in these other programs. Better methods of predicting needed suppression funding could reduce the need to transfer funds from other programs.