WILDLAND FIRE 

RISK REDUCTION

Multiple Factors Affect 

Federal-Nonfederal 

Collaboration, but 

Action Could Be 

Taken to Better 

Measure Progress

Accessible Version

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2017

GAO-17-357

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Gov ernment Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-357, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2017

WILDLAND FIRE RISK REDUCTION

Multiple Factors Affect Federal-Nonfederal 

Collaboration, but Action Could Be Taken to Better 

Measure Progress 

What GAO Found

Officials GAO interviewed from the five federal agencies responsible for wildland 

fire management—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—and 

nonfederal stakeholders, including state and local officials, homeowners, and 

representatives of nongovernmental organizations, identified several factors as 

affecting federal-nonfederal collaboration aimed at reducing wildland fire risk to 

communities. In some cases these factors were cited as enhancing 

collaboration, while in other cases they were cited as hindering it. Among the 

factors identified were federal authorities, agency initiatives, joint communitylevel planning, and others. For example, several officials and stakeholders cited 

laws such as the Good Neighbor Authority and Tribal Forest Protection Act of 

2004 as enhancing collaboration because they provide federal and nonfederal 

entities the authority to work across jurisdictions on projects to reduce risk. In 

addition, several officials and stakeholders cited the 2014 National Cohesive 

Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy) as helpful for 

collaboration because it emphasizes the importance of coordination across 

multiple agencies and includes comprehensive fire management goals. In 

contrast, some officials and stakeholders said collaboration on certain types of 

projects was hindered by the difficulty in sharing project costs between federal 

and nonfederal entities.

Federal officials and nonfederal stakeholders also identified several actions they

said could improve federal agencies’ and nonfederal entities’ ability to reduce 

wildland fire risk to communities. Among the actions cited was improving the 

implementation of the Cohesive Strategy. Some agency officials and 

stakeholders noted the importance of increasing accountability for implementing 

the Cohesive Strategy, such as through the use of performance measures. The 

strategy states that its success depends in part on monitoring and accountability, 

and calls for national outcome measures. This is consistent with previous GAO 

findings regarding national strategies. However, GAO found that the Wildland 

Fire Leadership Council (WFLC)—the interagency body charged with overseeing 

and implementing the Cohesive Strategy and which includes the Forest Service 

and Interior as members—has not developed measures to assess progress on 

the part of federal and nonfederal participants in meeting the national goals of 

the Cohesive Strategy. In 2013, WFLC proposed several measures but 

concluded that implementing them could place undue burden on the agencies 

and nonfederal partners. In 2016, however, WFLC reported that recent research 

findings could help quantify the strategy’s effects over time. By working with 

WFLC to develop such measures, the Forest Service and Interior, together with 

federal and nonfederal partners, could better assess national progress toward 

achieving the goals of the Cohesive Strategy. Federal officials and nonfederal 

stakeholders also identified actions that, while not necessarily within the federal 

agencies’ control, could be taken to reduce wildland fire risk to communities. For 

example, these actions include adopting state laws that require property owners 

to take risk-reducing actions such as using fire-resistant building materials or 

reducing vegetation around their homes. Some states have adopted laws to 

promote such actions.

View GAO-17-357. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Dense vegetation, drought, and other 

factors have resulted in more severe 

wildland fires in recent years. At the 

same time, development in and around 

wildlands continues to increase, with 

some communities experiencing 

devastating effects from wildland fire. 

To reduce risk to communities, federal 

agencies and nonfederal stakeholders 

can collaborate in various ways.

GAO was asked to review 

collaboration to reduce wildland fire 

risk to communities. This report 

examines federal officials’ and 

stakeholders’ views on (1) factors that 

affect federal-nonfederal collaboration 

aimed at reducing wildland fire risk to 

communities and (2) actions that could 

improve their ability to reduce risk to 

communities. 

GAO reviewed laws and documents 

about collaboration on wildland fire 

management; compared agency efforts 

with guidance; and interviewed officials 

from a nongeneralizable sample of 10 

federal land management units 

selected based on wildland fire 

potential, geographic diversity, and 

other factors. GAO also interviewed 

stakeholders including community 

members near the selected units and

representatives of nonfederal entities 

involved in fire risk-reduction efforts. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Forest 

Service and Interior work with WFLC to 

develop measures to assess progress 

toward achieving the Cohesive 

Strategy’s goals. The Forest Service 

agreed with GAO’s recommendation, 

while Interior did not. GAO believes the 

recommendation is valid, as discussed 

in the report.
Page i GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Contents

Letter 1

Background 8

Factors Such as Agency Initiatives and Joint Planning Were Cited 

by Federal Officials and Stakeholders in Our Review as 

Affecting Collaboration 21

Federal Officials and Stakeholders in Our Review Identified 

Several Actions They Said May Improve Their Ability to Reduce 

Wildland Fire Risk 40

Conclusions 49

Recommendation for Executive Action 49

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 49

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 52

Appendix II: Full Text of Figure 2, Characteristics of Communities Included in Our Review 58

Appendix III: Summary of Federal Laws Aimed at Reducing Wildland Fire Risk through Collaboration 60

Appendix IV: National and State Air Quality Standards 62

Appendix V: Selected Federal Programs Providing Risk-Reduction Funding to States and Localities 63

Appendix VI: Department of the Interior’s Risk-Based Wildland Fire Management Model 66

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Agriculture 67

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of the Interior 68

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 71

Appendix X: Accessible Data 72

Data Tables 72

Agency Comment Letters 72
Tables

Page ii GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Table 1. Federal Land Management Units and Adjacent 

Communities Included in Our Review 6

Table 2. Nonfederal Associations, Committees, and Organizations 

Included in our Review 54

Table 3: Descriptions of Communities Included in Our Review 58

Table 4: Descriptions of Several Federal Laws Aimed at Reducing 

Wildland Fire Risk through Collaboration 60

Figures

Figure 1: Wildfire Hazard Potential for the Contiguous 48 States, 

2014 9

Figure 2: Characteristics of Communities Included in Our Review 14

Figure 3: Actions to Help Reduce Wildland Fire Risk in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface 18

Figure 4: Example of Tree Thinning to the Right of the Road, 

Compared with Untreated Land to the Left of the Road in 

Oregon 25

Figure 5: Example of a Firewise Program Presentation at a 

Community Event and a Brochure Advertising a Firewise

Event 35

Figure 3: Actions to Help Reduce Wildland Fire Risk in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface 72
Abbreviations

Page iii GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

RFA Rural Fire Assistance

SFA State Fire Assistance

VFA Volunteer Fire Assistance

WFLC Wildland Fire Leadership Council

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

This is a w ork of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

w ithout further permission from GAO. How ever, because this w ork may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you w ish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Letter

May 10, 2017

The Honorable Raúl Grijalva

Ranking Member

Committee on Natural Resources

House of Representatives

The Honorable Alan Lowenthal

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

Committee on Natural Resources

House of Representatives

The Honorable Peter DeFazio

House of Representatives

Wildland fires are both natural and inevitable, and play an important role 

on our nation’s lands. Over the past century, however, various land 

management practices, including fire suppression, have disrupted the 

normal frequency of fires in many forest and rangeland ecosystems, 

resulting in abnormally dense accumulations of vegetation. According to 

scientific reports, this altered landscape, combined with drought and other 

climate stressors, has contributed to larger and more severe wildland 

fires. At the same time, development occurring in and around wildlands—

an area often called the wildland-urban interface (WUI)— continues to 

increase, placing more people, businesses, and infrastructure at risk from 

wildland fire. As of fiscal year 2015, approximately 76,000 communities 

nationwide were considered at risk from wildland fire, according to the 

National Association of State Foresters.1 Recent wildland fire seasons 

have demonstrated the potentially devastating consequences of fire to 

communities. During the 2016 fire season, for example, a wildland fire 

resulted in 14 deaths and destroyed or damaged thousands of structures 

in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, while fires in California resulted in several 

deaths and hundreds of structures lost.

 

1National Association of State Foresters, Communities at Risk Report Fiscal Year 2015

(May 2016). 
Letter

Taking action to address the wildland fire problem can be complex and 

involve multiple federal and nonfederal entities. Wildland fires and the 

vegetation that fuels them can cross the administrative boundaries 

between federal lands, such as national forests and national parks, and 

nonfederal lands, where most of the increased development in the WUI 

occurs. At the federal level, five land management agencies—the Forest 

Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) within the Department 

of the Interior—are primarily responsible for wildland fire management on 

federal lands, and in BIA’s case, tribal lands.

Page 2 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

2 State forestry agencies and 

other nonfederal entities—including county, city, and rural fire 

departments—have primary responsibility for managing wildland fires on 

nonfederal lands and share responsibility for protecting homes and other 

private structures.

To address the increase in wildland fires threatening communities, federal 

land management agencies have placed greater emphasis on 

coordinating efforts with nonfederal entities to reduce the risk of fire. 

These efforts include, for example, reducing vegetation that can fuel 

wildland fires and making houses or other structures more fire resistant. 

Over the past 2 decades, federal land management agencies have issued 

guidance and policies supporting a collaborative, cross-boundary 

approach to reducing wildland fire risk and have undertaken multiple 

efforts intended to reduce risk. For example, federal agencies have 

collaborated with nonfederal entities in conducting fuel reduction projects 

that span multiple jurisdictions, in some cases under nationwide federal 

agency programs intended to facilitate such collaboration. In addition, to 

prepare for wildfire seasons, federal agencies, states, and others have 

signed agreements to document their commitment to coordinate and 

exchange personnel, equipment, supplies, services, and funds among the 

agencies in order to respond to wildland fires.

Congress has also encouraged agencies to work with nonfederal entities 

to reduce wildland fire risk. For example, the Cooperative Forestry 

 

2

In addition, the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act authorizes BIA to 

enter into cooperative agreements w ith Indian tribes to perform fire protection, 

reforestation, timber stand improvement, and other activities related to land and natural 

resource management. 25 U.S.C. § 3115(a)(1)(C). Under the Tribal Forest Protection Act 

of 2004, Indian tribes may enter into agreements w ith the Forest Service or BLM to carry 

out projects to protect Indian forest land or rangeland (including adjacent federal lands).
Letter

Assistance Act of 1978 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 

cooperate with states to protect state and private forest lands from 

damage caused by fire.

Page 3 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

3 More recently, in 2009, Congress passed the 

Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act, which 

requires land management agencies to develop a cohesive wildland fire 

management strategy.4 The subsequent National Cohesive Wildland Fire 

Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy), issued in 2014, provides a 

nationwide framework designed to more fully integrate fire management 

efforts across jurisdictions, manage risks, and protect firefighters, 

property, communities, and landscapes by setting “broad, strategic, and 

national-level direction as a foundation for implementing actions and 

activities across the nation.”5 Rather than viewing fire management solely 

as keeping fire away from communities, the Cohesive Strategy treats 

wildland fire as a part of the natural landscape, assuming that it is 

unavoidable and that communities must take action to become “fireadapted”—that is, be able to withstand a wildfire without loss of life or 

property. The Cohesive Strategy, developed in collaboration with tribal, 

state, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and 

members of the public, describes ways the nation can make strategic 

investments intended to reduce the effects of wildland fire on high-risk 

areas.

 

3Pub. L. No. 95-313, 92 Stat 365. Cooperative forestry programs originated w ith the 

Weeks Act of 1911, w hich provided for a forest fire protection program on private and 

state lands. This authority w as replaced by sections 1 and 2 of the Clarke-McNary Act of 

1924. Recognition of the impact of fires on rural lands and communities that lack adequate 

fire protection facilities led to the authorization of the rural fire protection program under 

title IV of the Rural Development Act of 1972. The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 

1978 consolidated these tw o programs into a single rural fire protection program, 

providing a coordinated approach to the detection, prevention, and suppression of rural 

fires. S. Rep. No. 95-879 at 5 (1978). See also H.R. Rep. No. 95-1183 at 17 (1978).

4Pub. L. No. 111-88 § 503, 123 Stat. 2971-72, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1748b (2009). The 

law required the strategy, among other things, to provide for (1) the identification of the 

most cost-effective means for allocating fire management budget resources; (2) the 

reinvestment in non-fire programs by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior; 

(3) employing the appropriate management response to w ildfires; (4) assessing the level 

of risk to communities; (5) the allocation of hazardous fuel reduction funds based on the 

priority of hazardous fuel reduction projects; (6) assessing the impacts of climate change 

on the frequency and severity of w ildfire; and (7) studying the effects of invasive species 

on w ildfire risk. Every 5 years, the agencies are to review and revise the strategy to 

address any changes affecting it, including changes w ith respect to landscape, vegetation, 

climate, and w eather. 

5Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior, The National Strategy: The 

Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy (April 2014). 
Letter

You asked us to examine federal and nonfederal collaboration to reduce 

wildland fire risk to communities.

Page 4 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

6 This report examines (1) factors federal 

officials and nonfederal stakeholders cited as affecting federal-nonfederal 

collaboration aimed at reducing wildland fire risk to communities and

(2) actions federal officials and nonfederal stakeholders said could help 

improve their ability to reduce wildland fire risk to communities.

To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant laws, guidance, initiatives, 

agency documents such as the 2014 Cohesive Strategy, reports such as 

the 2014 Quadrennial Fire Review Final Report,7 and other documents 

describing collaboration between federal and nonfederal entities to 

reduce wildland fire risk to communities. We interviewed headquarters 

and regional officials from the five federal agencies that are responsible 

for wildland fire management on federal lands—the Forest Service, BIA, 

BLM, FWS, and NPS—as well as Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire.8 We 

focused our review on federal wildland fire management activities 

intended to reduce risk before a potential wildland fire incident occurs, 

through fire preparedness, fuel reduction, prevention, and education.9

To address our first objective, we interviewed fire management officials 

from 10 federal land management units, such as national forests and 

national parks, and representatives of communities near these lands 

about factors that enhance or hinder their collaboration to reduce risk to 

communities. We selected land management units from each of the five 

federal agencies using the following criteria: the size of the estimated 

population in nearby WUI areas with high wildland fire hazard potential 

(considering WUI areas defined by the Forest Service), the size in acres 

 

6As part of this request, we previously reported on several aspects of federal w ildland fire 

management. See GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Agencies Have Made Several Key 

Changes but Could Benefit from More Information about Effectiveness, GAO-15-772 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 2015). 

7Booz Allen Hamilton, 2014 Quadrennial Fire Review Final Report (Washington, D.C.: 

May 2015). The Quadrennial Fire Review is a strategic assessment process conducted by 

the fire management agencies every 4 years to evaluate current w ildland fire management 

strategies and capabilities against estimates of the future fire environment. The first such 

review occurred in 2005 and the second in 2009. 

8The Department of the Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire organizes the activities of the four 

Interior agencies that manage and operate w ildland fire programs.

9The Forest Service and Interior agencies also conduct other fire management activities 

such as suppression and post-fire restoration. We did not include these activities in our 

review because they address responses to fires once they occur. 
Letter

of the land management unit, input from regional agency officials, and the 

geographic location of the land management unit, with units selected to 

provide geographic diversity. We then selected communities adjacent to 

the federal land management units by considering input from local land 

management agency officials. For each community selected, we 

interviewed nonfederal stakeholders representing entities with which land 

management unit officials collaborate, such as county officials, local fire 

department officials, and homeowners. Using these criteria, we selected 

land management units and adjacent communities in five states: Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon. Because this is a 

nonprobability sample, the information we report is not generalizable to all 

land management units and communities and does not represent a 

comprehensive list of collaborative programs or efforts nationwide or in 

these states, but rather provides illustrative examples. Table 1 provides a 

list of federal land management units and adjacent communities included 

in our review. 

Page 5 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Letter

Table 1. Federal Land Management Units and Adjacent Communities Included in 

Page 6 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Our Review

State

Federal land 

management 

agency 

Federal land 

management unit Adjacent communities

Arizona Bureau of Indian 

Affairs

Fort Apache 

Agency 

Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest 

Pinetop-Lakeside

California Forest Service Eldorado National 

Forest

Grizzly Flats

National Park 

Service

Santa Monica 

Mountains National 

Recreation Area

Calabasas/Topanga

Colorado Bureau of Land 

Management 

Colorado River 

Valley Field Office 

Rifle/Silt 

National Park 

Service

Rocky Mountain 

National Park

Estes Park

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Merritt Island 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

The Great Outdoors

Forest Service Ocala National 

Forest

a

Oregon Bureau of Indian 

Affairs

Warm Springs 

Agency

Warm Springs Indian 

Reservation

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Prineville District 

Office

La Pine

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-357

aCommunity members near the Ocala National Forest did not respond to our request for a telephone 

interview.

In addition, for the five states we selected, we interviewed officials with 

state wildland fire and forestry agencies. To gain a wider range of states’ 

perspectives, we interviewed officials with the National Association of 

State Foresters, the Southern Group of State Foresters, and the 

Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters, which represent states 

across the country.10 We also interviewed representatives of 

nongovernmental organizations identified by federal officials we 

interviewed or in reports as being involved in federal-nonfederal efforts to 

reduce wildland fire risk; these organizations included the National Fire 

 

10We w ere unable to schedule an interview w ith representatives of the Council of Western 

State Foresters, w hich represents states in the western United States.
Letter

Protection Association, the Intertribal Timber Council, and The Nature 

Conservancy.

Page 7 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

11

In responding to our interview questions about factors that affect their 

collaborative efforts to reduce risk to communities, federal officials and 

stakeholders described factors that we defined as having affected direct 

collaborative efforts (i.e., situations involving a tangible relationship 

between two or more parties) and indirect collaborative efforts (i.e., 

situations in which actions by one entity may affect other entities 

attempting to achieve a similar outcome). We include both types of 

factors in our report, distinguishing between direct and indirect 

collaborative efforts as appropriate.12

To address our second objective, we interviewed the federal officials and 

nonfederal stakeholders described above to obtain information about 

actions they stated could improve their ability to reduce wildland fire risk. 

To increase our understanding of their responses, we interviewed agency 

headquarters officials to obtain additional information and reviewed 

relevant authorities, programs, and initiatives. For example, we reviewed 

the Cohesive Strategy, associated action plans for implementing it, and a 

2016 interagency report on the status of the Cohesive Strategy; we also 

interviewed several of the officials responsible for implementing the 

Cohesive Strategy. We compared the agencies’ efforts to assess their

progress in achieving the goals of the Cohesive Strategy to guidance 

contained in the Cohesive Strategy and associated action plans. We also 

compared agency efforts to our previous reports related to interagency 

strategies and agencies’ efforts to collaborate. Appendix I describes our 

scope and methodology in more detail.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2015 to May 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

 

11In this report, w e use the follow ing qualifiers w hen summarizing federal officials’ and 

stakeholders’ view s: “some,” w hich w e define as tw o or three federal officials and 

stakeholders collectively; “several,” w hich w e define as four to six federal officials and 

stakeholders collectively; and “many,” w hich w e define as seven or more federal officials 

and stakeholders collectively. 

12In our previous w ork, w e have noted that collaboration can be broadly defined as any 

joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced w hen 

the organizations act alone. See, for example, GAO, Results-Oriented Government: 

Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 

GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
Letter

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background

Page 8 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Wildland fires play an important ecological role on the nation’s 

landscapes. Fires have long shaped the composition of forests and 

grasslands across every region of the United States, including ponderosa 

pine forests in the Northwest and the Rocky Mountain West, chaparral in 

the Southwest, sagebrush steppe in the Great Basin, tallgrass prairies in 

the Midwest, longleaf pine forests in the South, and the pine barrens of 

the Atlantic Coast. Fires periodically reduce vegetation densities and 

stimulate seedling regeneration and growth in some species. Wildland 

fires can be ignited by lightning or by humans, either accidentally or 

intentionally. As we have described in previous reports from our body of 

work on wildland fire management, however, various land use and 

management practices over the past century—including fire suppression, 

grazing, and timber harvesting—have reduced the normal frequency of 

fires in many forest and rangeland ecosystems and have reduced these 

ecosystems’ resiliency to fire.13 We have reported that these practices 

contributed to abnormally dense, continuous accumulations of vegetation, 

which not only can fuel uncharacteristically large or severe wildland fires 

but also—with more homes and communities built in or near areas at risk 

from wildland fire—threaten lives, health, property, and infrastructure.

In addition, changing climate conditions, including drier conditions in 

certain parts of the country, have increased the length and severity of 

wildfire seasons, according to many scientists and researchers. For 

example, in the western United States, the average number of days in the 

fire season increased from approximately 200 in 1980 to approximately 

300 in 2013, according to the 2014 Quadrennial Fire Review.

14 In Texas 

and Oklahoma, the average fire season increased from fewer than 100 

days to more than 300 during this time frame. According to the U.S. 

 

13See, for example, GAO-15-772 and GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies 

Have Taken Important Steps Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action Is Needed to 

Capitalize on Those Steps, GAO-09-877 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009). 

14The states included in this statistic w ere Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 
Letter

Global Change Research Program’s 2014 National Climate Assessment, 

projected climate changes suggest that western forests in the United 

States will be increasingly affected by large and intense fires that occur 

more frequently.

Page 9 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

15 Figure 1 shows the Forest Service’s assessment of 

wildfire hazard potential across the country as of 2014.

Figure 1: Wildfire Hazard Potential for the Contiguous 48 States, 2014

Note: According to the Forest Service, areas mapped with higher values of wildfire hazard potential 

represent vegetation that is more likely to burn with high intensity under conducive weather 

conditions. The map doesnot represent a forecast or fire outlook for any particular season.

 

15U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts in the United States: 

The Third National Climate Assessment (Washington, D.C.: May 2014). 
Letter

Page 10 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Letter

Land Ownership and Wildland Fire Management 

Page 11 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Responsibilities

Working collaboratively across federal-nonfederal boundaries to address 

the wildland fire issue can involve any mix of the nation’s 2.3 billion acres 

of federal, state, local, private, or tribal lands. Historical settlement and 

development of the nation resulted in the intermingling of lands among 

these different entities. As we reported in 2008, about 60 percent of the 

nation’s land is privately owned and managed, and about 30 percent is 

managed by five federal land management agencies, with the Forest 

Service and BLM managing the majority of those lands.16 Of the 

remainder, about 8 percent of the nation’s land is owned and managed by 

state and local governments, and about 2 percent is owned and managed 

by the federal government for purposes such as military installations and 

water infrastructure.17

Under the National Forest Management Act and the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976, respectively, the Forest Service and BLM 

manage lands for various uses such as protection of fish and wildlife 

habitat, forage for livestock, recreation, timber harvesting, and mineral 

production. FWS and NPS manage federal lands under legislation that 

primarily calls for conservation; activities such as harvesting timber for 

commercial use are generally precluded.18 As noted, BIA is responsible 

for the administration and management of lands held in trust by the 

 

16See GAO, Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal 

Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource 

Conditions, GAO-08-262 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2008).

17The Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other 

federal agencies are also involved in fire management on federal lands but are not 

included in our review because w e focused on the five land management agencies 

primarily responsible for w ildland fire management on federal lands, and, in BIA’s case, 

tribal lands.

18The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs FWS to 

administer a national netw ork of lands and w aters for the conservation, management, and, 

w here appropriate, restoration of the fish, w ildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

w ithin the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 

The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created the NPS to promote and regulate 

the use of national parks, monuments, and reservations w ith the purpose of conserving 

the scenery, natural and historic objects, and w ildlife therein and to leave them 

“unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future generations. 
Letter

United States for Indian tribes, individuals, and Alaska Natives.

Page 12 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

19 Each of 

the five agencies has regional or state offices that oversee individual field 

units.

State forestry agencies and other nonfederal entities—including tribal, 

county, city, and rural fire departments—have primary responsibility for 

managing wildland fires on nonfederal lands, and share responsibility for 

protecting homes and other private structures. State and local 

governments can also adopt laws requiring homeowners and 

homebuilders to take measures to help protect structures from wildland 

fires. Regulating land use on nonfederal and nontribal lands is primarily a 

state and local responsibility.

Wildland-Urban Interface

The challenge of balancing the benefits of periodic fires with fire’s 

negative effects on communities is particularly difficult in the WUI. 

Development in the WUI increased over the last several decades, in turn 

increasing the risk to life and property from wildland fire. According to the 

2014 Quadrennial Fire Review, 60 percent of new homes built in the 

United States since 1990 were built in the WUI, which contains 46 million 

single-family homes, representing about 40 percent of single-family 

homes in the United States. Most development in the WUI occurs on 

nonfederal lands, and, according to the National Association of State 

Foresters, approximately 76,000 communities nationwide are considered 

to be at risk from wildland fire. According to the National Interagency Fire 

Center,20 the average number of structures burned by wildfire each year 

from 1999 through 2015 was 2,750; in 2015 alone, the total number of 

structures destroyed by wildfire was 4,636, of which 2,638 were 

residences.

 

19BIA provides services directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts to 566 federally 

recognized tribes w ith a service population of about 1.9 million American Indian and 

Alaska Natives. According to BIA documentation, tribal forests provide an essential source 

of revenue and jobs for many tribal governments and their members and play an important 

role in sustaining tribal cultures and traditions. Through its Office of Trust Services, BIA 

provides land-related functions including forestry and w ildland fire management.

20The National Interagency Fire Center is the nation’s support center for w ildland 

firefighting and comprises different federal agencies and organizations, including the 

Forest Service, BIA, BLM, FWS, NPS, the National Weather Service, and the U.S. Fire 

Administration w ithin the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
Letter

In addition to residential development, other assets that support 

communities can be located in the WUI, including power lines, highways, 

and resources that provide economic benefits to communities, such as 

timber, oil and gas wells, and recreational opportunities. WUI 

communities can be very different from each other—for example, 

seasonal resort towns located in valleys, with homes in close proximity 

and surrounded by fire-prone vegetation, or major suburban or 

metropolitan areas adjacent to wildlands. The risk each community faces 

also varies depending on such things as the flammability of the vegetation 

in and around the community, structure location and building materials, 

and local land use decisions. While the degree of risk can vary from one 

place to another, under specific conditions, wildfire can affect people and 

their homes in almost any location where vegetation is found. Even 

structures not immediately adjacent to wildland vegetation can be 

vulnerable because wind can transport embers and ignite homes more 

than a mile from a fire. Figure 2 provides examples of variation across 

communities by showing characteristics of the communities included in 

our review. See appendix II for the full text of this graphic.

Page 13 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Letter

Figure 2: Characteristics of Communities Included in Our Review

Page 14 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Source will fall in this area. Placeholder only.

This graphic is only a placeholder that will be replaced by an interactive graphic that already has the 

title, source and notes built into it.
Letter

Key Wildland Fire Risk-Reducing Activities

Page 15 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Federal agencies and nonfederal entities collaborate in a variety of ways 

to reduce the risk of wildland fire before a potential wildland fire incident 

occurs, through fuel reduction, fire preparedness, prevention, and 

education activities. In addition, individuals and communities may take 

action to mitigate fire risk by, for example, using fire-resistant building 

materials or building in low-risk areas. Collectively, these activities are 

generally intended to contribute to helping communities become more fire 

adapted.

Fuel reduction—the removal of flammable vegetation that can fuel fires—

can reduce the severity of wildland fires that occur, slow fire spread, or 

otherwise make fires more manageable. Fuel reduction can occur through 

mechanical treatment (i.e., thinning of trees and underbrush) or planned 

ignitions (known as prescribed fires), which often replicate the positive 

effects of naturally occurring wildfire. Federal agencies have collaborated 

with nonfederal entities to prioritize, plan, and conduct fuel reduction 

activities. For example, federal agencies have assisted local communities 

or counties in developing Community Wildfire Protection Plans—

documents that outline ways individual communities plan to reduce their 

risk from wildland fire, such as by identifying priority areas for fuel 

reduction.21 Federal agencies have also funded landscape-scale fuel 

reduction projects that span multiple jurisdictions and include multiple 

partners.22 Federal initiatives involving such projects include the 

 

21The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 called for the preparation of Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans or comparable plans to define the WUI and establish locally 

based strategic priorities for w ildfire preparedness and hazardous fuel reduction w ork in 

these areas.

22“Landscape scale” typically refers to a regional system of interconnected properties that 

is larger than the boundaries of any single land management jurisdiction, such as a 

national park. Managing natural resources at the landscape level involves defining the 

scope of the landscape to be managed, identifying specific conservation objectives, and 

collaborating w ith stakeholders to achieve these objectives.
Letter

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Reserved 

Treaty Rights Lands Program.

Page 16 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

23

Preparedness activities can help communities protect themselves during 

a wildland fire by ensuring they have access to fire suppression 

equipment, personnel, and emergency dispatch services. To prepare for 

wildfire seasons, federal agencies, states, and others sign agreements—

such as State Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act 

Response Agreements—to document their commitment to coordinate and 

exchange personnel, equipment, supplies, services, and funds among the 

agencies for responding to wildland fires.24 At the local level, federal land 

management officials may meet with nonfederal entities, such as local fire 

department officials, ahead of the wildland fire season to discuss roles 

and responsibilities for wildland fire response and to train together by 

simulating incident responses.

Prevention activities can reduce the likelihood of fires caused by humans. 

From 2001 through 2011, approximately 85 percent of wildfires in the 

United States were human-caused, according to the National Interagency 

Fire Center. Such fires can occur unintentionally—for example, when 

people burn leaves or trash or leave campfires unattended—or they may 

be deliberately set. According to research, communities with effective 

wildfire prevention programs are likely to have fewer human-caused fire 

starts.25 To help provide information about fire prevention, federal 

agencies work with nonfederal entities. For example, under the 

Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention program, established under the 

 

23Through Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-

11, Title IV, § 4003(a), 112 Stat. 1141 (2009)), Congress directed the Department of 

Agriculture, in consultation w ith the Department of the Interior, to establish the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to select and fund ecological 

restoration treatments for priority forest landscapes. For more information, see GAO, 

Forest Restoration: Adjusting Agencies’ Information-Sharing Strategies Could Benefit 

Landscape-Scale Projects, GAO-15-398 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2015). The Reserved 

Treaty Rights Lands Program enables Indian tribes to participate in collaborative projects 

w ith non-tribal landow ners to enhance the health and resiliency of priority tribal natural 

resources that are at high risk from w ildland fire.

24In some cases, state and local governments can obtain firefighting equipment through 

federal programs such as the Federal Excess Property Program and the Firefighter 

Property Program. 

25A 2010 study by the Forest Service and others found that w ildfire prevention education 

efforts in Florida had a statistically significant effect on w ildfire damage and suppression 

costs. J.P. Prestemon, David T. Butry, Karen L. Abt, and Ronda Sutphen, “Net Benefits of 

Wildfire Prevention Education Efforts,” Forest Science, vol. 56, no. 2 (2010).
Letter

Smokey Bear Act of 1952, the Forest Service works with the National 

Association of State Foresters and the Ad Council to develop and 

distribute materials for the Smokey Bear campaign.

Page 17 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

26

Education activities can help reduce risk by helping homeowners and 

communities understand actions they can take to reduce risk. For 

example, communities may help minimize their risk by reducing 

vegetation and flammable objects around structures—an activity often 

called creating defensible space. They also may help minimize their risk 

by using fire-resistant building materials in construction and building in 

low-risk areas. To help provide information about these activities, federal 

agencies worked with stakeholder groups to develop a guide “designed to 

help leaders, planners, emergency professionals, and citizens learn the 

best approaches and programs to help their community become more fire 

adapted.”27 Some communities have encouraged the use of voluntary 

programs aimed at improving fire risk awareness and promoting steps to 

reduce their risk, such as the Firewise Communities program.28 In 

addition, some states have adopted legislation to encourage or require 

wildfire mitigation in high-risk areas. For example, some state and local 

governments have adopted laws and ordinances requiring property 

owners to establish and maintain defensible space. Figure 3 shows 

various actions federal agencies and nonfederal entities may take to 

reduce wildfire risk in and around communities.

 

26The Smokey Bear campaign started in 1944 and aims to educate Americans about their 

role in preventing w ildfires, using mechanisms such as public service announcements and 

educational materials.

27Fire Adapted Communities Coalition, Guide to Fire Adapted Communities. The guide 

w as developed by stakeholders including the National Fire Protection Association, the 

Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, and The Nature Conservancy.

28The Firew ise Communities program is a voluntary program administered by the National 

Fire Protection Association and sponsored by the Forest Service, Interior, and state 

forestry organizations. It is designed to involve homeow ners, community leaders, 

planners, developers, and others in efforts to protect people, property, and natural 

resources from the risk of wildland fire. Activities under the program include assisting 

individuals and residential communities w ith techniques to help protect homes and 

improve emergency preparedness in the event of wildland fire. Communities that take 

certain steps can become recognized as Firew ise Communities. 
Letter

Figure 3: Actions to Help Reduce Wildland Fire Risk in the Wildland-Urban Interface

Page 18 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Some federal-nonfederal collaboration at the national level encompasses 

all types of risk-reduction efforts. For example, federal agencies and 

nonfederal entities participate in the Wildland Fire Leadership Council 
Letter

(WFLC), an intergovernmental committee of federal, tribal, state, county, 

and municipal government officials.

Page 19 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

29 The WFLC is to provide strategic 

oversight to help ensure policy coordination, accountability, and effective 

implementation of long-term strategies to address wildfire preparedness 

and suppression, hazardous fuel reduction, restoration and rehabilitation 

of the nation’s wildlands, and assistance to communities.

Federal Policies and Laws Aimed at Federal-Nonfederal 

Collaboration to Reduce Risk

After emphasizing the need to suppress all fires for much of the 20th 

century, federal agencies in recent decades reassessed their approach to 

wildland fire management. As part of this reassessment, and as a result 

of several wildfires and associated firefighter fatalities, the agencies 

developed the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy of 1995. Under 

this policy, the agencies sought to make communities and resources less 

susceptible to damage from wildland fires and to respond to fires to 

protect communities and important resources at risk while considering the 

cost and long-term effects of that response. The policy was reaffirmed 

and updated in 2001, and guidance for its implementation was issued in 

2003 and 2009.30

To address the increase in wildland fires threatening communities, over 

the past 2 decades, federal land management agencies have also placed 

greater emphasis on coordinating efforts with nonfederal entities to 

reduce the risk of fire. For example, in 2000, the President asked the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to submit a report on managing 

the impact of wildland fires on communities and the environment. The 

report, along with congressional approval of increased appropriations for 

wildland fire management for fiscal year 2001, as well as other related 

 

29The WFLC consists of senior officials from the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, 

and Homeland Security, including the Agriculture Undersecretary and Deputy 

Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment; the Interior Assistant Secretary 

for Policy, Management, and Budget; the Administrator of the U.S. Fire Administration; 

and the heads of the five federal firefighting agencies. Other members include 

representatives of the Intertribal Timber Council, the National Association of State 

Foresters, and the Western Governors’ Association, along w ith a state forester and a local 

fire department chief. 

30Another risk-reduction measure contained in the 2009 guidance w as providing greater 

flexibility to managers in responding to w ildland fire to achieve natural resource benefits. 

For more information, see GAO-15-772. 
Letter

activities, formed the basis of what is known as the National Fire Plan. As 

part of this effort, Congress directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior to work with state governors to develop a strategy. The resulting 

strategy—the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy—was developed by 

federal, state, tribal, and local government and nongovernmental 

representatives and outlined a collaborative framework to facilitate 

implementation of proactive and protective measures to reduce the risk of 

wildland fire to communities and the environment. For example, the 

strategy recognized that while suppressing fires—especially near homes 

and communities—is important, a continued shift in fire management 

emphasis from reactive to proactive is also important in order to address 

the root of the problem rather than react only when faced with costly 

emergencies. Specifically, the strategy emphasized, among other things, 

the importance of reducing human-caused fires through fire-prevention 

education, increasing incentives for private landowners to address 

defensible space and fuel reduction on private property through local land 

use policies, promoting local government initiatives to implement firesensitive land use planning, and prioritizing fuel reduction where the 

negative impacts of wildland fire are greatest.

As noted, in 2014, the federal agencies, in collaboration with partners 

from multiple jurisdictions, issued the Cohesive Strategy. The vision of the 

Cohesive Strategy is “to safely and effectively extinguish fire, when 

needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as 

a nation, live with wildland fire.” The Cohesive Strategy identified three 

goals: (1) landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire-related 

disturbances in accordance with management objectives, (2) human 

populations and infrastructure can withstand wildfire without loss of life or 

property, and (3) all jurisdictions participate in developing and 

implementing safe, effective, and efficient risk-based wildfire 

management decisions. The Cohesive Strategy calls for a set of national 

outcome measures to assess progress in meeting these goals.

Since 2003, Congress has passed several laws aimed at actions federal 

agencies can take to reduce wildland fire risk across federal and 

nonfederal jurisdictions. For example, the Good Neighbor Authority 

contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, authorizes the 

Forest Service and BLM to enter into agreements allowing states to 

perform watershed restoration activities, including hazardous fuel 

reduction projects, on federal lands when the state is performing similar 

Page 20 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Letter

activities on adjacent state or private lands.

Page 21 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

31 In addition, the Tribal Forest 

Protection Act of 2004 authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior to enter into agreements or contracts with Indian tribes to carry 

out projects to protect Indian forest lands.32 See appendix III for additional 

details about these and other relevant laws.

Factors Such as Agency Initiatives and Joint 

Planning  Were Cited by Federal Officials and 

Stakeholders in Our Review as Affecting 

Collaboration

Federal officials and stakeholders we interviewed identified federal 

authorities, agency initiatives, joint community-level planning, leadership, 

community engagement, and agency resources for collaboration as 

directly affecting federal-nonfederal collaboration aimed at reducing 

wildland fire risk to communities. In some cases these factors enhanced 

collaboration, according to officials, while in other cases they hindered 

collaboration. Federal officials and stakeholders also identified factors 

that indirectly affect federal and nonfederal collaboration to reduce 

wildland fire risk in the WUI. These included community education, fire 

prevention messaging, and state and local requirements for private 

property owners to reduce risk.

 

31Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. G, tit. IV, sec. 417, 128 Stat. 341 (2014). The Agriculture Act of 

2014 also established a similar but distinct Good Neighbor Authority, w hich authorizes the 

Forest Service and BLM to enter into agreements w ith states to carry out “authorized 

restoration services,” w hich are similar and complementary forest, rangeland, and 

w atershed restoration services carried out on federal and nonfederal land. Pub. L. No. 

113-79, tit. VIII, subtit. C, § 8206 (2014). The version contained in the Agriculture Act of 

2014 excludes several types of activities from eligibility, including construction or 

reconstruction of paved or permanent roads. The appropriations version contains no 

specific restrictions on the types of activities covered but will expire on September 30, 

2018. In this report, w e refer to both of these authorities as “Good Neighbor Authority” 

unless otherw ise noted.

32Pub. L. No. 108-278, § 2, 118 Stat. 868 (2004).
Letter

Federal Legal Authorities Aimed at Facilitating 

Page 22 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Collaboration

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that certain federal legal 

authorities that allow federal agencies to work across jurisdictions with 

nonfederal entities facilitate federal-nonfederal collaboration to reduce 

wildland fire risk. Among the specific authorities they mentioned were the 

Good Neighbor Authority and the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004. For 

example, under the Good Neighbor Authority, the Forest Service and 

BLM may enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with states to 

allow the parties to conduct restoration and forest management activities 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Using this authority, the Forest Service’s 

Eldorado National Forest and the California Department of Forestry and 

Fire Protection signed an agreement in 2016 allowing the agencies to 

work together on large-scale fuel reduction projects that both entities 

identified as critical to meeting fire protection objectives. The agreement 

is to allow the agencies to complete treatment on 500 acres located in the 

WUI along a major highway corridor between Sacramento and Lake 

Tahoe where five major wildfires have burned in the last 40 years. 

According to Forest Service officials, as of October 2016, the agency had 

executed 54 agreements using the Good Neighbor Authority in 20 states.

The Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 authorizes the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and the Interior to enter into agreements or contracts with 

Indian tribes that meet certain criteria in order to carry out projects to 

protect Indian forest lands. Using this authority, the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe and the Forest Service’s Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forest in Arizona completed the Los Burros Project on the national forest, 

which borders the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. According to BIA’s 

Fort Apache Agency officials, the project was important for reducing the 

risk of fire spreading onto the reservation from adjacent national forest 

land. According to Forest Service officials, as of November 2016, six 

projects had been completed using this authority, and at least six more 

were ongoing.

Some federal officials and stakeholders said that federal and nonfederal 

entities are reluctant to use the Good Neighbor Authority and the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act of 2004 because the authorities are unclear or 

because not all agency staff are aware of how to use them. Forest 

Service headquarters officials said that since 2015, they have taken steps 

to provide greater clarity about using the authorities. For example, they 

said that Forest Service staff hosted webinars in 2015 about resources 
Letter

available to facilitate the use of the Good Neighbor Authority and that the 

agency’s website provides links to agreement templates, agency 

contacts, and training materials for federal and nonfederal employees 

working to develop agreements under this authority. Regarding the use of 

the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004, Forest Service officials said they 

partnered with the Intertribal Timber Council to improve working

relationships with tribes and accomplish more cross-boundary landscape 

level restoration.

Page 23 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

33 According to Forest Service officials, they conducted 

workshops on the use of this authority in three forest service regions in 

2015 and 2016, which they said contributed to six new projects pursued 

using the authority.

Federal officials and stakeholders identified other federal and state 

environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the Clean Air Act, as affecting their efforts to collaborate to 

reduce risk.34 For example, some federal officials and stakeholders said 

that the time it takes federal agencies to complete the NEPA process can 

hamper joint efforts. As we have previously reported, NEPA 

environmental reviews have been identified by critics as a cause of delay 

for projects due to time-consuming environmental analysis requirements, 

while they have been praised by proponents for, among other things, 

bringing public participation into government decision making.35 We also 

found that little data exist on the costs and benefits of NEPA analysis.36

With respect to the Clean Air Act, see appendix IV for additional 

information about the act and its effect on risk-reducing activities.

 

33The Intertribal Timber Council is a nonprofit consortium of Indian tribes, Alaska Native 

Corporations, and individuals dedicated to improving the management of natural 

resources of importance to Native American communities. According to the Council’s 

w ebsite, more than 60 tribes and Alaska Native Corporations belong to the Council. 

http://w w w.itcnet.org/about_us/, accessed on December 9, 2016.

34Under NEPA, agencies evaluate the likely environmental effects of their proposed 

projects by using an environmental assessment, or if the projects likely w ould significantly 

affect the environment, a more detailed environmental impact statement. The Clean Air 

Act regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. 

35GAO, Highway Projects: Many Federal and State Environmental Review Requirements 

Are Similar, and Little Duplication of Effort Occurs, GAO-15-71 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 

18, 2014).

36GAO, National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses, 

GAO-14-370 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2014).
Letter

Specific Agency Initiatives Aimed at Collaborating Across 

Page 24 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Jurisdictions

Several federal officials and stakeholders identified landscape-scale 

restoration efforts and other programs that cross jurisdictional boundaries 

as helpful in bolstering collaboration to reduce wildland fire risk to 

communities. Among the efforts mentioned were the Department of 

Agriculture’s Joint Chiefs’ Landscape Restoration Partnership and BIA’s 

Reserved Treaty Rights Lands Program. In addition, many federal 

officials and stakeholders identified the Cohesive Strategy as enhancing 

federal-nonfederal collaboration to reduce wildland fire risk to 

communities.

The Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) within the Department of Agriculture initiated the Joint Chiefs’ 

Landscape Restoration Partnership program in 2014 to improve the 

health and resilience of forest ecosystems where public and private lands 

meet.37 The program’s objectives include reducing wildfire threats to 

communities and landowners. In 2017, the Department of Agriculture is to 

invest in 10 new projects under the program while providing funding to 26 

existing projects. The projects are located in 29 states across the 

country.38 For example, in 2016, the Forest Service and NRCS selected 

the Greater La Pine Basin project in Central Oregon as a recipient of 

funding under the program. The project is to take place over 3 years and 

is to target restoration on nearly 345,000 acres of federal, state, and 

private land. NRCS is to offer assistance to private landowners 

conducting fuel reduction treatments, while the Forest Service is to 

perform similar treatments on the project area located within the 

Deschutes National Forest.39 Figure 4 shows an example of tree thinning 

in the Greater La Pine Basin in Oregon.

 

37NRCS, w ithin the Department of Agriculture, w orks w ith farmers, ranchers, and forest 

landow ners across the nation to help them boost agricultural productivity and protect 

natural resources through conservation.

38For information about the projects, see 

https://w ww.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/new sroom/features/?cid=stelprd

b1244394.

39Other project participants include BLM, the Oregon Department of Transportation, 

Deschutes County, and the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, among others.
Letter

Figure 4: Example of Tree Thinning to the Right of the Road, Compared w ith 

Page 25 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Untreated Land to the Left of the Road in Oregon

In 2015, BIA initiated the Reserved Treaty Rights Lands Program to treat 

and restore tribal landscapes within and adjacent to reserved treaty rights 

lands.40 Through this program, tribes may participate in and leverage 

funding for collaborative projects with nontribal landowners to enhance 

the health of priority tribal natural resources at high risk from wildland fire 

and move tribal landscapes toward long-term resilience to wildland fire. In 

fiscal year 2016, Interior directed $10 million toward the program, which 

funded 21 projects.

In addition, many officials and stakeholders said that the Cohesive 

Strategy, issued in 2014, enhances collaboration because it emphasizes 

the importance of coordination across multiple agencies through an “all 

lands approach” and frames comprehensive goals that, taken together, 

may mitigate wildland fire risk. As noted, the Cohesive Strategy identified 

 

40Reserved treaty rights lands refer to lands to which Indian tribes and Alaska natives 

have “ancestral” lineage and have prioritized for uses such as hunting, fishing, and 

religious purposes, according to a senior BIA official.
Letter

three goals: (1) landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to firerelated disturbances in accordance with management objectives, 

(2) human populations and infrastructure can withstand wildfire without 

loss of life or property, and (3) all jurisdictions participate in developing 

and implementing safe, effective, and efficient risk-based wildfire 

management decisions. Unlike the other initiatives described above, 

implementation of the Cohesive Strategy is not separately funded 

because the agencies do not consider it a program. One stakeholder 

involved in its implementation described the Cohesive Strategy as a 

framework designed to be applied differently in various locations and 

scales to best suit a particular circumstance or address a need or 

opportunity, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Page 26 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

41 Even with these 

officials and stakeholders citing the Cohesive Strategy as enhancing 

collaboration, however, many officials and stakeholders also stated that 

improvements could be made to its implementation, as we discuss later in 

this report.

Joint Community-Level Planning

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that joint planning, including 

prioritizing and developing community plans and regularly sharing 

information regarding wildland fire issues in person, has enhanced 

collaboration to reduce wildland fire risk to communities. For example, 

several federal officials and stakeholders said that developing annual 

operating plans—which outline roles, responsibilities, and resources 

involved in wildland fire management—between federal and nonfederal 

entities has been helpful for collaborating on fire preparedness activities. 

In addition, many federal officials and stakeholders said developing 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP)—which outline ways 

communities aim to reduce their risk from wildland fire by, for example, 

prioritizing areas for fuel reduction in or near the community—enhances 

collaboration. Communities are not required to develop CWPPs, but when 

they do, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 directs that CWPPs 

be developed collaboratively by local and state government 

representatives, in consultation with federal agencies and other interested 

 

41Various examples of Cohesive Strategy implementation can be found on the Forests 

and Rangelands w ebsite at https://w ww.forestsandrangelands.gov/success/index.php.
Letter

parties.

Page 27 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

42 Under the act, agencies can prioritize funding for fuel reduction 

projects that implement CWPPs.

Communities may benefit from CWPPs in several ways. For example, 

according to a 2015 Forest Stewards Guild report, CWPPs provide a 

structure for collaboration and building community capacity.43 The report 

also suggested that fuel reduction treatments completed in New Mexico 

communities with CWPPs have changed fire behavior, and that projects 

identified in CWPPs are less likely to be canceled or postponed 

compared to projects conducted in areas without CWPPs. Eldorado 

National Forest officials said that a CWPP completed in 2016 that covers 

an area managed by state, federal, and private landowners has helped 

enhance collaboration with community members to reduce risk because 

participants came together to jointly determine priority projects, including 

the placement of fuel reduction treatments.44 In addition, Florida state 

forestry officials said they used information from CWPPs to develop their 

statewide wildland fire risk assessment. According to these officials, the 

assessment helps identify communities at high risk and inform state land 

management decisions.

Some federal officials and stakeholders also said that regularly sharing 

information about wildland fire issues in person can enhance 

collaboration to reduce wildland fire risk. For example, community 

members near the Eldorado National Forest said that pre-season wildland 

 

42Forest Service officials said they require communities to have completed a CWPP in 

order to receive State Fire Assistance funding. Interior officials said that they encourage 

communities to develop CWPPs to increase aw areness and engagement regarding 

w ildfire risk, but that it is the responsibility of each individual Interior agency to determine 

the amount of emphasis to place on CWPP development.

43A. Evans, S. Auerbach, L. Wood Miller, R. Wood, K. Nystrom, J. Loevner, A. Aragon, M. 

Piccarello, and E. Krasilovsky, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Wildfire Mitigation Activities 

in the Wildland-Urban Interface, Forest Stew ards Guild (Madison, WI; October 2015). This 

report’s findings are primarily based on an assessment completed in New Mexico and not 

all findings are generalizable to all communities in the United States. According to its 

w ebsite, the Forest Stew ards Guild is a nonprofit organization that consists of forest 

stew ards, associated natural resource professionals, and affiliates w ho w ork to restore 

and sustain the integrity of forests across the country w hile w orking to meet the needs of 

the communities that rely on them. https://w ww.forestguild.org/about-us.

44Such collaborative planning efforts are consistent w ith our previous findings. For 

example, w e reported in 2005 that agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative 

efforts by engaging in multiple practices, tw o of w hich are to define and articulate a 

common outcome and then establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies. For more 

information, see GAO-06-15.
Letter

fire response training simulations, which included approximately 15 

federal and nonfederal entities, helped participants develop relationships 

and gain a better understanding of each stakeholder’s responsibilities and 

concerns ahead of a potential wildland fire. These community members 

said that after participating in one such simulation, the state highway 

patrol agency began to understand the community’s concerns about 

impediments to safe evacuation. In addition, meeting regularly to discuss 

wildland fire risk reduction also helps create and facilitate collaboration, 

according to some officials from federal and nonfederal entities. For 

example, a Deschutes County official in Oregon said he participates in 

monthly meetings with BLM officials and community members to 

exchange information about upcoming activities, including efforts to 

reduce risk from wildland fire. He also said such meetings help develop 

and maintain trust between federal and nonfederal entities. Similarly, a 

study titled Fighting Fires with Education reported that in-person 

communication can increase community mitigation efforts.

Page 28 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

45

Leadership

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that dedicated federal 

agency and community leadership enhances collaboration to reduce 

wildland fire risk to communities. Federal officials and stakeholders 

characterized leadership as seeking input from others, providing 

encouragement and support, committing, and collaborating. For example, 

according to Eldorado National Forest officials, leaders who actively seek 

input from multiple perspectives, including those with whom they may not 

agree, help strengthen relationships. Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge officials said agency management’s encouragement to engage in 

partnerships helps employees initiate collaboration with nonfederal 

entities.

Some Forest Service officials said that committed leaders who stay in 

their positions over a long period can help sustain relationships, which in 

turn help partners accomplish their goals of reducing wildland fire risk. For 

example, an Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest official said the length of 

time he has been at the forest—about 30 years—has helped him develop 

strong relationships with community members. In addition, federal officials 

 

45Sarah M. McCaffrey, “Fighting Fires w ith Education: What Is the Best Way to Reach Out 

to Homeow ners?” Journal of Forestry, vol. 102, no. 5 (July/August 2004). This report’s 

findings are based on a survey completed in one community—Incline Village, Nevada—

and are not generalizable to all communities in the United States. 
Letter

and community members said that engaged leaders enhance federalnonfederal collaboration. For example, Eldorado National Forest officials 

said that the forest supervisor, who respects community members with 

differing views, has helped the forest successfully complete NEPA 

requirements for fuel reduction projects. A National Association of 

Counties representative said that having federal officials who are willing 

to engage with communities by providing frequent updates about agency 

risk reduction efforts shows people that federal officials consider 

themselves part of the community; in doing so, they can help reduce 

communities’ risk of wildland fire.

Page 29 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

46 Similarly, a Forest Service official said 

that in cases in which federal, state, and local representatives work 

together, mitigation actions are more likely to occur and be sustained.

Community members in Southern California cited an example of 

leadership they said enhanced collaboration. These community members 

said officials from NPS’ Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 

Area initiated a meeting with local agencies in early 2016 to address 

public concern regarding standing dead oak trees in the area. Some of 

these characteristics align with a set of leading practices we previously 

identified as enhancing collaboration. For example, we previously found 

that, while collaborative mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they 

all benefit from certain key features, including leadership.47

Community Engagement

Many federal officials and stakeholders said an engaged community—

that is, a community that understands the issues associated with wildland 

fire and is willing to take action to reduce risk—enhances federalnonfederal collaboration to reduce wildland fire risk. According to federal 

officials and stakeholders, communities tend to be more engaged in 

wildland fire risk reduction activities if they have experienced recent fires, 

 

46According to the 2015 Forest Stew ards Guild report, research has show n that having a 

government agency representative involved in w ildfire preparedness is critical for success. 

One contribution that land management agencies such as the Forest Service and BLM 

can make, according to the report, is fire and fuel management expertise because 

residents are more supportive of management activities, such as prescribed burns, w hen 

experts w ho understand the local ecology and fire behavior are involved. Evans, 

Auerbach, Wood Miller, Wood, Nystrom, Loevner, Aragon, Piccarello, and Krasilovsky,

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Wildfire Mitigation Activities in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface.

47GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014). 
Letter

have resources to carry out risk reduction projects, and have a group of 

stakeholders from multiple jurisdictions dedicated to working 

collaboratively on wildland fire risk reduction. According to a 2013 Forest 

Service report, efforts to create and maintain fire-adapted communities 

must involve the entire community—including residents, government 

agencies, emergency responders, businesses, land managers, and 

others—if these efforts are to succeed.

Page 30 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

48 Officials and stakeholders 

provided examples of actions on the part of engaged communities, 

including working to identify priority locations and actions for reducing 

risk, creating defensible space on properties, and establishing WUI codes 

and ordinances aimed at reducing risk.

Several federal officials and community members said that communities 

that have recently experienced nearby wildfires are often more eager to 

take action and work with federal agencies to reduce risk. For example, 

community members in Calabasas, California, and Topanga, California, 

said they created a multiagency fire council after the Old Topanga Fire in 

1993, which burned about 18,000 acres, destroyed 359 homes, and 

resulted in three deaths. The community members said that working 

together through the council has helped them provide wildland fire 

education to community members and implement fuel reduction projects. 

FWS officials said that agencies and others should harness this interest in 

reducing risk because once a fire ends and time has passed, some 

community members may no longer feel the same urgency to reduce risk. 

In 2015, the Forest Service started a pilot program that officials said tries 

to take advantage of the “teachable moment” in communities recently 

affected by wildfires by deploying a “Community Mitigation Assistance 

Team” to these communities. Forest Service officials said the team 

focuses on, among other things, risk mitigation education and building 

local capacity to undertake mitigation actions.

Some federal officials and stakeholders also said communities that have 

access to financial or other resources tend to be more engaged in 

carrying out risk-reduction projects. For example, Oregon Department of 

Forestry officials said state funding has helped establish collaborative 

groups, consisting of diverse stakeholders, that focus on forest-related 

issues around the state. California officials said federal grant funds aimed 

 

48Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Wildfire, 

Wildlands, and People: Understanding and Preparing for Wildfire in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface –A Forests on the Edge Report, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299 (Fort Collins, 

CO: 2013).
Letter

at community risk reduction help communities purchase equipment for 

fuel reduction projects, thereby keeping these communities engaged in 

mitigation efforts. Some officials and stakeholders also said it can be 

helpful when communities have a designated person assigned to work on 

wildland fire mitigation by facilitating coordination, communication, 

activities, and projects aimed at reducing risk. For example, Deschutes 

County in Oregon hired a forester who is dedicated to collaborating with 

the community to reduce risk, providing education about risk reduction, 

and initiating and implementing fuel reduction projects, among other 

duties. Similarly, the Forest Stewards Guild reported in 2015 that having 

dedicated WUI specialists helped accelerate fuel reduction work and 

expand public outreach in a county in New Mexico.

Page 31 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

49

In addition, community engagement increases when groups of 

stakeholders from multiple jurisdictions are involved, according to BIA 

headquarters officials we interviewed. For example, 27 states have 

prescribed fire councils, in which federal agencies, nonfederal entities, 

and others gather to discuss priority areas for fuel reduction treatments 

and adopting building codes to mitigate wildfire risk, among other issues.

In contrast, some federal officials and stakeholders identified several 

potential impediments to community engagement. For example, some 

federal officials in certain areas said that residents are resistant to 

government intervention, including requirements that they take steps to 

reduce their risk on their own properties. On the other hand, an NPS 

official and stakeholders from western Colorado said some people expect 

firefighters to intervene and save their homes, and as a result these 

residents are not interested in taking steps to reduce risk. Furthermore, 

other stakeholders said that some residents resist fuel reduction 

treatments because they perceive the treatments as damaging the 

environment or because they want the privacy provided by the vegetation 

near their homes. Additionally, some federal officials and stakeholders 

said the public’s tolerance of smoke from prescribed burns can be limited, 

which results in fewer prescribed fire treatments.

 

49Evans, Auerbach, Wood Miller, Wood, Nystrom, Loevner, Aragon, Piccarello, and 

Krasilovsky, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Wildfire Mitigation Activities in the WildlandUrban Interface.
Letter

Agency Resources for Collaboration

Page 32 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that the availability of agency 

resources, including funds provided to states and localities as well as 

funding for agency activities, affects federal-nonfederal collaboration to 

reduce wildland fire risk to communities and federal efforts to reduce 

wildland fire risk more broadly. Regarding funding for states and localities, 

federal officials and stakeholders cited cooperative agreements and 

grants provided under the Forest Service’s State Fire Assistance (SFA) 

and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) programs, and Interior’s assistance 

aimed at rural fire districts and communities, as helping communities in 

their efforts to reduce risk. For example, the Forest Service’s SFA 

program provides financial assistance through partnership agreements 

with state foresters for fire management activities, including helping 

communities become fire adapted.50 According to the Forest Service’s 

fiscal year 2017 budget justification, SFA is a critical part of the agency’s 

efforts to reduce wildland fire risk to communities, residents, property, and 

firefighters, because the program helps ensure that state, local, and 

private landowners have the capacity and tools they need to prepare for, 

respond to, and mitigate fire risk in the WUI and other critical areas. (See 

app. V for descriptions of selected federal programs that provide riskreduction funding to states and localities.)

Several federal officials and stakeholders said the uncertainty of federal 

funding through grants and assistance makes some nonfederal entities 

reluctant to undertake joint efforts to reduce risk. For example, California 

state officials said that landowners and other nonfederal entities may be 

reluctant to commit to joint efforts because federal funding may decrease, 

resulting in incomplete projects. In addition, several federal officials and 

stakeholders said that, in contrast to the cost-sharing mechanisms 

available for fire suppression activities, leveraging dollars for fuel 

reduction projects can be difficult because no standard procedures or 

agreements exist for sharing costs for such projects. According to a 

senior official from the National Association of State Foresters, state and 

federal agencies drafted a new “Supplemental Project Agreement” 

 

50The SFA program w as authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to 

provide financial and technical assistance to states and communities for w ildland fire 

management. State foresters are to allocate SFA funds according to the priorities 

identified through State Forest Action Plans—strategic plans for all forests in each state 

that include an analysis of forest conditions and trends and that identify priority forest 

landscape areas.
Letter

appendix for the Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and 

Stafford Act Response Agreement template that includes standard 

procedures and agreements for sharing costs associated with nonsuppression projects, such as fuel reduction projects.

Page 33 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

51 As of February 

2017, the updated Master Agreement template was undergoing review 

and awaiting final approval from the Departments of Agriculture and the 

Interior.

Many federal officials and stakeholders expressed concern about the 

amount of funding available for risk-reducing activities carried out by the 

agencies.52 Some federal officials and stakeholders said the growing 

percentage of Forest Service funding spent to suppress fire has 

hampered the agencies’ ability to invest in activities on federally managed 

lands that may reduce risk.53 Similarly, several Interior officials said that 

Interior’s funding reductions, and shifts in wildland fire management 

priorities over the past 2 years to include a greater emphasis on 

sagebrush steppe ecosystems, have affected their ability to carry out 

wildland fire risk reduction activities.

54 The officials also said that 

proposed changes to the department’s process for determining funding 

 

51Federal agencies, states, and other stakeholders use the Master Cooperative Wildland 

Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement as a template for state-level 

Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreements. These 

agreements document the commitment of relevant parties to coordinate and exchange 

personnel, equipment, supplies, and funds in sustaining w ildland fire management 

activities, such as prevention, preparedness, fuel reduction treatment, and fire response. 

52In fiscal year 2014, Forest Service obligations for preparedness and fuel reduction w ere 

about $1 billion and $302 million, respectively. For the four Interior agencies, the totals for 

preparedness and fuel reduction w ere about $274 million and $147 million, respectively. 

For additional details, see GAO-15-772.

53According to a 2015 report by Forest Service researchers, the amount the Forest 

Service spends on w ildland fire management has increased from 17 percent of the 

agency’s total funds in 1995 to 51 percent of funds in 2014. The report noted that the 

increased demand for w ildfire suppression has come at the cost of other land 

management programs w ithin the agency, such as vegetation and w atershed 

management, some of w hich support activities intended to reduce future w ildfire damage. 

David E. Calkin, Matthew P. Thompson, and Mark A. Finney, “Negative Consequences of 

Positive Feedbacks in U.S. Wildfire Management,” Forest Ecosystems, vol. 2, no. 9 

(2015). 

54As w e have previously reported, in January 2015, the Secretary of the Interior issued 

Secretarial Order No. 3336 to enhance policies and strategies “for preventing and 

suppressing rangeland fire and for restoring sagebrush landscapes impacted by fire 

across the West.” For additional details, see GAO-15-772.
Letter

distribution to its four agencies may have similar effects.

Page 34 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

55 Funding 

constraints can have various effects, according to officials and 

stakeholders. For example, Forest Service officials said that limiting 

agency travel can reduce the agency’s ability to establish or maintain 

collaborative relationships with nonfederal entities. Forest Service officials 

also said that fire prevention efforts have been diminished in cases in 

which the agency has eliminated fire prevention positions or not filled 

them when they became vacant. A BIA official said that decreased fuel 

reduction funding reduced the number of acres the agency could treat on 

the Warm Springs Indian Reservation.

Other Factors that Indirectly Affect Collaboration

Many federal officials and stakeholders identified other factors that 

indirectly affect federal-nonfederal collaboration to reduce wildland fire 

risk in the WUI. These include community education, fire prevention 

messaging, and state and local requirements for private property owners 

to take steps to reduce risk.

Community Education

Many federal officials and stakeholders identified community education 

efforts, such as the Firewise program and individual home risk 

assessments, as helping reduce community wildland fire risk. Some 

federal officials and stakeholders said Firewise, which encourages 

homeowners to take responsibility for their own properties by using fire 

resistant building materials and establishing defensible space, has helped

reduce risk through community education.56 For example, a Florida Forest 

Service official said the Firewise program helped communicate to 

communities across the state the importance of reducing wildland fire 

 

55Since 2014, Interior has been developing a Risk-Based Wildland Fire Management 

model to help determine funding distribution to the four Interior agencies. See appendix VI 

for a discussion of this issue. 

56According to the National Fire Protection Association, as of February 2017, there w ere 

more than 1,300 recognized “Firew ise communities” across the country. Other, similar 

programs exist; for example, according to the 2015 Forest Stewards Guild report, a similar 

movement started in California after the 1991 Oakland-Berkeley Hills Fire and developed 

into the fire safe councils that now operate in more than 100 California communities. 

Evans, Auerbach, Wood Miller, Wood, Nystrom, Loevner, Aragon, Piccarello, and 

Krasilovsky, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Wildfire Mitigation Activities in the Wildland 

Urban Interface.
Letter

risk. This official said the Firewise program works well in the state 

because it primarily relies on voluntary action rather than regulations. 

Figure 5 shows an example of a Firewise presentation at a community 

event and an advertisement for a Firewise event.

Figure 5: Example of a Firewise Program Presentation at a Community Event and a 

Page 35 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Brochure Advertising a Firew ise Event

Federal officials also said they have used the Ready, Set, Go! program to 

educate the public.57 For example, officials from the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest in Arizona said they use this program to help members of 

the public understand actions they can take to prepare for a wildland fire 

incident, such as making sure car gas tanks are at least half full so that 

homeowners can evacuate quickly in case of a wildfire.

Some federal officials said that conducting property risk assessments has 

been helpful to educate property owners about the steps they can take to 

reduce their risk of wildland fire. For example, BIA officials said fire 

managers at the Fort Apache Indian Reservation reach out to 

homeowners individually to teach them about risk-reducing actions they 

could take based on their home’s characteristics; these actions could 

include clearing vegetation or relocating firewood to a spot away from 

 

57The Ready, Set, Go! program, managed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, 

helps fire departments teach individuals w ho live in high-risk w ildfire areas–including the 

WUI–how best to prepare themselves and their properties against fire threats.
Letter

their home. BIA officials said that because they make the effort to reach 

people at home, rather than provide general information to the broader 

public, homeowners are more likely to undertake risk-reducing activities 

pertinent to their homes. However, some officials said homeowners are 

not always receptive to having their properties evaluated, and some 

stakeholders said not all counties can afford to conduct risk assessments 

and not all homeowners want to pay to create defensible space. More 

broadly, a Forest Service headquarters official said that, while community 

education has been successful in increasing awareness about reducing 

risk, it does not necessarily result in individuals or communities taking 

action. In addition, this official said programs such as Firewise have 

increased risk awareness, but the extent of the risk reduction is unclear. 

To help address this, the official said the agency expects to complete a 

study in late 2017 that examines mitigation actions resulting from the 

Firewise program; the Forest Service is conducting this study in 

partnership with the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, the Wildland 

Urban Interface Mitigation Committee, and the National Association of 

State Foresters.

Page 36 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

58 Also, this Forest Service official said the agency and 

the National Fire Protection Association are discussing making changes 

to the Firewise program to emphasize mitigation actions.

Wildfire Prevention Messaging

Another factor that several federal officials and stakeholders identified as 

helping reduce wildland fire risk to communities is providing both 

consistent and targeted messaging to prevent human-caused wildfires. 

Regarding consistent prevention messaging, Forest Service officials said 

that numerous federal and state agencies in the western United States 

have used the One Less Spark–One Less Wildfire campaign, which 

started in California in 2012 and has since been used in other states.59 In 

 

58The National Wildfire Coordinating Group consists of the Forest Service, BIA, BLM, 

FWS, NPS, and state forestry agencies through the National Association of State 

Foresters. The group’s purpose is to coordinate participating w ildfire management 

agencies’ programs, and its goal is to provide more effective execution of each agency’s 

fire management program. Within this group, the Wildland Urban Interface Mitigation 

Committee w orks to provide national leadership in WUI fire mitigation through the 

promotion and development of fire-adapted communities in the WUI.

59California officials said they started the One Less Spark–One Less Wildfire campaign to 

try to address the inconsistency of fire prevention messages across the state. The 

campaign includes a toolkit that contains educational materials, public service 

announcements, graphics, and other information. The campaign materials provide 

messages to the public regarding safe handling of campfires and proper equipment use, 

such as how to prevent vehicle tow chains from sparking fires along roadw ays.
Letter

addition, some federal officials we spoke with said they use the Smokey 

Bear campaign and materials as part of fire prevention efforts in their

communities.

A community in Arizona, which attracts recreation visitors but is prone to 

fires, created a working group to improve the consistency of local fire 

prevention messages. Specifically, officials from the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest, the BIA Fort Apache Agency, surrounding counties, the 

Pinetop-Lakeside community, and other entities formed the White 

Mountain Fire Restrictions Working Group. Working group members said 

they issue unified, cross-jurisdictional fire restrictions (i.e., limitations on 

activities such as building campfires or using fireworks) to help ensure the 

consistency of information provided to the public. According to working 

group members, before they formed this group, the area was at greater 

risk of human-caused fire because each jurisdiction issued its own level 

of fire restriction, which led to public confusion because the fire 

restrictions often differed across jurisdictions. Working group members 

said that as a result of their efforts, the risk of fire has decreased because 

the public is less confused about where and when fire-related activities 

can be conducted.

Regarding targeted fire prevention messaging, Forest Service officials 

cited National Fire Prevention Education Teams as an example of 

federal-nonfederal efforts to provide targeted fire prevention information. 

These officials said the National Wildfire Coordinating Group sends 

teams—which may include members from the Departments of Agriculture 

and the Interior, states, and others—to areas at high risk of wildland fire 

to raise awareness of actions communities can take to reduce their risk. 

According to the National Interagency Fire Center, these teams can help 

reduce the loss of human life, property, and resources. They can also 

improve interagency relations.

Page 37 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

60

BIA officials said that, in part because of targeted efforts aimed at 

reducing arson, the number of human-caused fires on the Fort Apache 

Indian Reservation in Arizona decreased from several hundred in 2004 to 

 

60https://w ww.nifc.gov/prevEdu/prevEdu_w frTeams.html, last accessed February 27, 

2017.

An example of fire prev ention messaging 

in Estes Park, Colorado, near Rocky 

Mountain National Park 

Source: GAO | GAO-17-357
Letter

40 in 2016.

Page 38 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

61 BIA officials estimated that these types of efforts also helped 

reduce the number of fires caused by youths on the Warm Springs Indian 

Reservation in Oregon from 17 in 2009 to 2 in 2016. A study conducted 

by the Forest Service and Interior agencies found that large-scale wildfire 

prevention programs on tribal lands are highly effective and such 

programs have reduced the number of wildfire ignitions caused by 

campfire escapes, arson, and youth-ignited wildfires, among others.62

State and Local Requirements for Private Property Owners to 

Reduce Risk

Several federal officials and stakeholders noted that state and local laws 

governing home location, construction, and landscaping can reduce 

wildland fire risk to communities. Some states and local governments 

require homeowners in certain locations to use fire-resistant building 

materials or to create a certain amount of “defensible space” around 

structures on their properties by removing or reducing potentially 

flammable vegetation. For example, under Oregon’s Forestland-Urban 

Interface Fire Protection Act, property owners in identified forestlandurban interface areas must reduce excess vegetation around structures 

and along driveways that can fuel a fire.63 According to Oregon state 

officials, the law, at the time of our review, was applicable to 17 of 

Oregon’s 36 counties identified as having a higher wildland fire risk. 

Oregon state officials said it is helpful that the state legislature recognizes 

the need for individual homeowner action in risk mitigation, and they said 

they are reviewing the law to determine ways it could be improved. 

 

61BIA officials developed a national Youth Fire Intervention Program in 2008 and the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe began participating in this program in 2010. The goal of this 

program is to help youths w ho misuse fire or w ho have started dangerous and 

unsupervised fires learn responsibility to protect their family, tribal community, and natural 

resources from fire. Since its inception, the Youth Fire Intervention Program—combined 

w ith effective w ildfire prevention programs—has reduced fires started by youths on 

reservations nationally by more than 50 percent, according to a BIA official. 

62J.P. Prestemon, A Fire Prevention Effectiveness Assessment for Multiple Ownerships, 

Joint Fire Science Program, JFSP Project Number: 09-1-9-2 (2012). 

63Under the Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act, the Oregon Department of 

Forestry established criteria for identifying forestland-urban interface areas in each county. 

The criteria include, for example, lands w ithin a county that are also inside an Oregon 

Department of Forestry protection district, lands that meet the state’s definition of 

“forestland,” and lands that meet the state’s definition of “suburban” or “urban.”
Letter

California state law also requires property owners in certain areas to 

maintain a specified amount of defensible space around structures.

Page 39 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

64

Local governments in several states have codes or ordinances aimed at 

wildland fire risk reduction by requiring fire resistant building materials, 

requiring the creation of defensible space, or limiting where homes can be 

built. For example, the San Diego, California, municipal code’s 

Landscape Regulations aim to reduce the risk of fire through site design 

and management of flammable vegetation.

An official from the National Association of Counties said that local 

policies promoting resiliency and fire readiness through building codes 

and zoning ordinances can be helpful but also resource intensive. As a 

result, this official said, county decision-makers should weigh the costs of 

requiring such actions against the benefits gained through reduced risk. 

Forest Service headquarters officials said codes and ordinances can help 

reduce wildland fire risk in some circumstances, but they said no data are 

available to show what type of community planning is instrumental in 

reducing risk. These officials also noted that taking action does not 

guarantee that a home will be spared, given the conditions and severity of 

a fire.

According to a nonfederal researcher we interviewed, it is also helpful 

when communities integrate actions or requirements to reduce risk into 

comprehensive county land-use plans. For example, the Community 

Planning Assistance for Wildfire program, established in 2015 by 

Headwaters Economics and Wildfire Planning International, is a grant 

program that works with communities to help reduce wildfire risk through 

improved land-use planning.65 In Wenatchee, Washington, the program 

developed recommendations to help the community improve its land-use 

plans specific to its wildland fire risk. While the community has highfrequency fires, they are not high intensity and most are grass fires, 

though many buildings have been lost in recent fires. Through the 

program, community planners determined that it was unnecessary to 

require the entire community to use fire-resistant building materials and 

 

64California Public Resources Code § 4291. 

65Communities that have received assistance from the program include Summit and 

Huerfano Counties, Colorado; Boise, Idaho; Bemidji, Minnesota; Missoula, Park, and 

Lew is and Clark Counties, Montana; Taos County, New Mexico; Bend and Ashland, 

Oregon; Austin, Texas; and Wenatchee and Chelan, Washington. 
Letter

create defensible space; instead, they decided to place such 

requirements on homes located in the community’s highest risk areas.

Federal Officials and Stakeholders in Our 

Page 40 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Review Identified Several Actions They Said 

May Improve Their Ability to Reduce Wildland 

Fire Risk

Federal officials and stakeholders we interviewed said that improving 

implementation of the Cohesive Strategy, increasing collaborative 

planning, expanding education, increasing prevention efforts, and 

improving local timber-processing capabilities could improve federal 

agencies’ and nonfederal entities’ ability to reduce wildland fire risk to 

communities. Officials and stakeholders also identified actions that, while 

not necessarily within federal agencies’ control, could help reduce 

wildland fire risk to communities. These include increasing state and local 

adoption of laws and ordinances that encourage fire-resistant building 

and landscaping and that limit development in certain areas, and 

providing insurance incentives to encourage property owners and 

communities to adopt risk-reducing measures.

Improving Implementation of the Cohesive Strategy

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that improving the 

implementation of the Cohesive Strategy could help reduce wildland fire 

risk to communities. For example, some stakeholders said that federal 

agencies could improve communication about the Cohesive Strategy, 

which could further its implementation. One such stakeholder said that he 

believes some federal land management officials still have not heard of 

the Cohesive Strategy (issued in 2014), and that roles and responsibilities 

for implementing the strategy are not well defined at the national level. 

Some officials and stakeholders said it is important to increase 

accountability for implementing the Cohesive Strategy, such as through 

the use of performance measures as part of implementing the strategy. 

The Cohesive Strategy states that its successful implementation depends 

in part on monitoring and accountability, noting that “A set of national 

outcome performance measures will allow Congress, the national 

wildland fire management community, and other stakeholders to monitor 

and assess progress toward achieving the results for each of the three 

national goals.” This emphasis on monitoring and accountability is 
Letter

consistent with key characteristics we have described for developing and 

implementing effective national strategies.

Page 41 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

66 Likewise, one of the key 

collaboration practices we have identified is that federal agencies 

engaged in collaborative efforts should develop mechanisms to monitor, 

evaluate, and report on results.67 We found that reporting on these 

activities can help key decision makers within the agencies, as well as 

clients and stakeholders, obtain feedback for improving both policy and 

operational effectiveness.

The agencies use “success stories” to share what they consider 

successful or effective efforts at implementing the Cohesive Strategy. 

However, the success stories we reviewed focus on individual projects or 

efforts and do not generally indicate the role, if any, that the Cohesive 

Strategy played or describe the extent to which the projects or efforts 

have individually or cumulatively contributed to achieving the strategy’s 

goals. More broadly, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC)—the 

interagency organization responsible for oversight and leadership in 

implementing the Cohesive Strategy (and which includes the Forest 

Service and Interior as members)—has not developed measures to 

assess progress on the part of federal and nonfederal participants in 

meeting the national goals of the Cohesive Strategy.

According to a December 2016 WFLC report, a performance measure 

task group was convened in January 2013 and proposed several 

performance measures that could be used to track progress in achieving 

the broad goals of the Cohesive Strategy.68 One such measure was the 

percentage of communities at risk with a high probability of withstanding 

wildfire without loss of life and infrastructure; this measure was intended 

to assess the extent to which the threat to communities at risk from 

wildfire had decreased. However, the Wildland Fire Executive Council, a 

former advisory council to WFLC, concluded that, while performance 

information for many of the 2013 task group’s proposed measures could 

be collected using reporting measures the agencies already had in place, 

fully implementing the proposed performance measures would likely 

place undue burden on the agencies and nonfederal partners. The Forest 

 

66GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).

67GAO-06-15.

68Wildland Fire Leadership Council (National Strategic Committee), Cohesive Strategy 

Crosswalk and Strategic Alignment (December 2016). 
Letter

Service and Interior each have performance measures to monitor and 

assess their wildland fire management efforts. For example, one of 

Interior’s performance measures is the amount of fuel reduction 

conducted in the WUI, which is consistent with the Cohesive Strategy’s 

emphasis on resilient landscapes. However, these agency measures are 

intended to separately assess each agency’s performance—or, in some 

cases the performance of specific programs—and do not represent the 

set of measures to assess national progress toward meeting the 

Cohesive Strategy’s goals, as called for in the strategy.

The 2016 WFLC report states that the use of research findings, remote 

sensing, and modelling can help quantify the effects of activities over time 

and can contribute to showing accountability and success in meeting the 

goals of the Cohesive Strategy. Because the report was issued in 

December 2016, Forest Service and Interior officials said they have not 

had sufficient time to determine which, if any, research findings can be 

useful in this effort. By working with their WFLC partners to develop 

measures, the Forest Service and Interior could better assess national 

progress toward achieving the goals of the Cohesive Strategy.

Increasing Collaborative Planning

Page 42 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Many federal officials and stakeholders said increasing collaborative 

planning could help reduce fire risk to communities. Several federal 

officials and stakeholders said such planning could occur by developing 

or improving CWPPs, and some said increasing the frequency of 

collaborative in-person meetings ahead of fire seasons could help reduce 

risk. These suggested actions align with a 2013 Forest Service study that 

found that, while individual homeowner actions are essential to reduce 

the potential for wildfire damage to property, it is also critical for entire 

communities to work together on a broader planning and development 

scale.69

Regarding CWPPs, some officials and stakeholders said that more 

communities developing CWPPs and taking steps to improve their 

usefulness could enhance collaborative efforts to reduce wildland fire risk 

to communities. The National Association of State Foresters estimates 

 

69Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Wildfire, 

Wildlands, and People: Understanding and Preparing for Wildfire in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface—A Forests on the Edge Report, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.
Letter

that, as of fiscal year 2015, about 20 percent of the approximately 76,000 

communities identified as being at risk from fire were covered by a 

CWPP. Because it is helpful to collaboratively plan, a stakeholder with the 

Northeast Regional Cohesive Strategy Committee said the committee is 

encouraging more communities to develop CWPPs or equivalent plans 

and to make collaborative planning a priority.

In addition, some stakeholders said that updating and assessing CWPPs 

is important to maintaining their usefulness because some are outdated 

and many are not comprehensive, suggesting that the plans do not reflect 

changing circumstances such as increased housing development or 

altered landscape conditions. Community members in Southern California 

said their CWPP states that the plan should be updated every 5 years, or 

sooner if social, political, or economic factors warrant. This language 

aligns with the Forest Service’s Best Management Practices for Creating 

a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, which includes as a best practice 

to “quickly identify changes affecting the CWPP and adapt the plan to

new conditions as they arise.”

Page 43 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

70 In some locations we visited, we found 

that CWPPs outlined communities’ plans to monitor and evaluate their 

risk-reduction efforts every 5 years or on an annual basis, such as in 

Central Oregon’s Greater La Pine CWPP. Forest Service and Interior 

officials said they participate in community efforts to develop and 

implement CWPPs, but they said it is not their role to direct communities 

about how and when to develop and maintain CWPPs or to oversee their 

implementation.

As another way to improve collaborative planning, a senior NPS official 

and community members in California said the frequency of collaborative 

in-person meetings ahead of fire seasons should increase. For example, 

these community members said it would be beneficial to resume pre-fire 

season meetings that the community formerly held with local fire chiefs, 

state and county officials, and Eldorado National Forest officials, during 

 

70Similarly, a guide developed by the National Association of State Foresters, the Western 

Governors’ Association, and others notes that effective monitoring and evaluation of 

w ildfire planning efforts at the local, state, and national levels w ill provide important 

opportunities to evaluate the overall effect of CWPPs in reducing w ildfire risk and 

improving planning processes. Communities Committee, Forest Guild, International Fire 

Chiefs Association, Louisiana State University, National Association of State Foresters, 

National Association of Counties, The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Department of 

Forestry, Resource Innovations, Society of American Foresters, Sustainable Northw est, 

and the Western Governors’ Association, Community Guide to Preparing and 

Implementing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (August 2008).
Letter

which participants discussed issues such as resources and evacuation 

plans in the event of a wildfire. These community members said these 

meetings were a good way to foster trust and develop relationships, 

thereby increasing the chances of a successful response in the event of a 

wildland fire.

Page 44 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

71

Expanding Education

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that expanding the amount of 

education provided to communities about the benefits of wildland fire and 

the steps individuals can take to reduce their risk could help reduce 

wildland fire risk to communities. Some stakeholders said it is important to 

provide more education on the ecological role of fire and the benefits it 

can provide. For example, a representative of the Southern Group of 

State Foresters said it would be helpful for private landowners across the 

United States to understand the benefits of prescribed burning because 

this could help landowners reduce risk on their properties and become 

more accepting of prescribed burning as a treatment on adjacent public 

lands.

Some federal officials and stakeholders also said that expanding 

education about mitigation steps communities and individuals can take 

can help reduce risk. For example, some federal officials and 

stakeholders said sharing success stories about ways communities have 

reduced their wildland fire risk could help increase awareness about 

actions other communities could take. Some community members also 

said that tailored and more creative public education materials (i.e., those 

that reflect the unique topography, vegetation, culture, and building type 

of a particular community) describing steps individuals can take to reduce 

their wildland fire risk could prompt homeowners to act. For example, 

community members in Estes Park, Colorado, said that their county’s 

Firewise materials were tailored to reflect the community’s characteristics. 

These community members said the Colorado State Forest Service has 

provided such materials to counties in Colorado for approximately 20 

years. According to 2006 and 2013 Forest Service reports, among the 

key ingredients for successful educational programs are publications that 

are geared toward specific geographic areas, as well as varied 

 

71GAO previously reported that trust is one of the factors that run throughout leading 

practices necessary for a collaborative w orking relationship. See GAO-06-15.
Letter

educational approaches and information pathways that meet differing 

learning styles.

Page 45 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

72

Some federal officials and stakeholders said that a clearinghouse that

provides information about resources could help communities better 

understand actions they could take to reduce their risk. Interior Office of 

Wildland Fire officials said that a cooperative effort between the Forest 

Service and the Interior agencies resulted in a website, 

www.forestsandrangelands.gov, that provides fire, fuels, and land 

management information to government officials, land and fire 

management professionals, businesses, communities, and other 

interested organizations and individuals.

Increasing Prevention Efforts

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that increasing fire 

prevention efforts could help reduce wildland fire risk to communities, 

because many wildland fires are caused by humans. According to the 

National Interagency Fire Center, from 2001 to 2011, approximately 85 

percent of wildland fires in the United States were caused by humans. 

Some federal officials we interviewed said consistent prevention 

messaging across locations, such as through the nationwide Smokey 

Bear campaign, is important; this is because it helps the public identify 

with the message no matter where they travel. Federal officials said that, 

in addition, targeting prevention messages to specific groups is important 

because the origin of human-caused fires varies depending on the 

location and characteristics of the community. For example, some areas 

may have more instances of juvenile arson, while other areas may have 

more instances of campers not fully extinguishing their campfires. A 

senior Forest Service official said that communities can benefit from 

developing prevention plans that identify a targeted prevention audience. 

Otherwise, this official said, communities and federal officials “throw darts 

at a board” rather than targeting prevention efforts at specific fire-causing 

activities unique to a particular area. Similarly, Oregon Department of 

 

72Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, Social 

Science to Improve Fuels Management: A Synthesis of Research Relevant to 

Communicating with Homeowners About Fuels Management, Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-267 

(St. Paul, MN: 2006), and Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Wildfire, Wildlands, and People: Understanding and Preparing for 

Wildfire in the Wildland-Urban Interface—A Forests on the Edge Report, Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-299. 
Letter

Forestry officials said that better studies and analyses on how humancaused fires start could help target prevention efforts. Both Forest Service 

and Interior officials, however, said limited resources affect their ability to 

take additional steps to increase targeted prevention messaging.

Improving Timber-Processing Capability

Page 46 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Many community and tribal members said that improving their timberprocessing capability could help reduce wildland fire risk. Some said that 

their community’s timber-processing capability no longer exists, thereby 

affecting the market for timber or other materials removed as part of fuel 

reduction projects. Community members in northern California said 

limited timber-processing capability affects their ability to process the 

vegetation removed as part of fuel reduction efforts. Because timber is 

valuable to some communities, the ability to process it can help support 

jobs and the local economy. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest officials 

in Arizona cited the usefulness of establishing biomass processing 

facilities near communities, noting that such facilities located near the 

neighboring community of Snowflake have helped facilitate a local timberprocessing market.73 One stakeholder said a more developed biomass 

industry could help reduce wildland fire risk by providing an outlet for 

removed vegetation but noted that it is a more localized solution that may 

not work in every community.

The Forest Service has multiple efforts aimed at maintaining and spurring 

the timber industry. For example, through its Wood Innovations grant 

program, formerly known as the “Woody Biomass Utilization Grant” 

program, the Forest Service has awarded grants to stimulate widespread 

use of forest byproducts for renewable energy, wood products, and 

innovative wood building materials. From fiscal years 2005 through 2016, 

the program awarded more than $54 million to more than 200 grant 

recipients, including small businesses, non-profit organizations, tribes, 

and state agencies.

 

73Biomass processing facilities generally process w oody material that is not suitable for 

higher-value uses such as being saw n into lumber. For more information about w oody 

biomass, see GAO, Natural Resources: Woody Biomass Users’ Experiences Offer 

Insights for Government Efforts Aimed at Promoting Its Use, GAO-06-336 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 22, 2006). 
Letter

Adopting State and Local Laws and Ordinances

Page 47 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that increased state and local 

adoption of laws and ordinances that encourage fire-resistant building 

and the removal of potentially flammable vegetation around structures 

could help reduce wildland fire risk. Some stakeholders also said that 

local nonfederal land-use plans should discourage development in areas 

at high risk from wildland fire. A 2013 Forest Service study found that 91 

percent of WUI residents interviewed in California, where defensible 

space ordinances are in place, have lowered fire risk by removing 

flammable vegetation from their properties.74 Community members in 

western Colorado said it would be helpful if communities that develop 

such ordinances track their effectiveness in reducing wildland fire risk and 

publicize the results to help other communities make informed decisions 

about implementing their own ordinances. Community members in central 

Florida said that without such ordinances, homeowners and developers 

are less likely to take steps to reduce their risk. 

Some stakeholders said that increasing communities’ responsibility for 

the costs of suppressing fires could create an incentive for communities 

to take actions to reduce their wildland fire risk. One state recently took 

action to create such an incentive. In 2016, the Utah state legislature 

passed a law under which the state will assume certain wildland fire 

suppression costs for local governments that implement prevention, 

preparedness, and mitigation actions to reduce the risk and cost of 

wildfire. Local governments that do not implement such actions will be 

responsible for wildland fire costs within their jurisdictions. This new law 

was developed with the involvement of the Utah Association of Counties, 

the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the Utah State Fire Chiefs 

Association, local fire departments, various policy workgroups, and 

others.

Providing Insurance Incentives for Property Owner Action

Many federal officials and stakeholders said that it can be helpful for 

insurance companies to provide incentives such as discounts or lower 

rates on insurance premiums for actions homeowners take to reduce their 

 

74Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Wildfire, 

Wildlands, and People: Understanding and Preparing for Wildfire in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface—A Forests on the Edge Report, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299.
Letter

vulnerability to wildfire. Such discounts are provided in some areas; for 

example, according to the National Fire Protection Association, one 

insurance company provides homeowners in Arizona, California, 

Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Utah with a discount on their 

insurance premiums if they are located in a Firewise-designated 

community. Stakeholders in Southern California also said some insurance 

companies have refused to provide homeowner’s insurance to property 

owners unless they undertake risk-reducing actions. For example, these 

stakeholders said that property owners in a community identified as being 

at particularly high wildland fire risk successfully obtained insurance only 

after using fire-safe building materials on their homes and other structures 

and clearing their properties of vegetation within 200 feet of their 

structures.

Page 48 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

75

Some federal officials and stakeholders, however, suggested that the 

effects of such insurance incentives may be limited. For example, a 

senior Forest Service official said insurance discounts may not be large 

enough to incentivize property owners to make risk-reducing changes. 

This official also noted that providing discounts to homeowners in 

Firewise communities does not guarantee that every homeowner within 

the community has taken action to reduce risk. Similarly, a 2016 review 

by Headwaters Economics reported, based in part on conversations with 

insurance industry experts, that it is unlikely that insurance rates and 

policies alone will determine whether a landowner decides to build a new 

home on wildfire-prone land.76 The 2015 Forest Stewards Guild report 

stated that some residents see insurance as a substitute for risk-reducing 

efforts, and that insurance therefore becomes a disincentive to such 

efforts.77

 

75According to the 2015 Forest Stew ards Guild report, California’s Fair Access to 

Insurance Requirements program provides economic incentives for residents to reduce 

fuel in a buffer zone of 200 to 300 feet around structures, use fire-resistant building 

materials, and improve firefighter access. The report also stated that the State Farm 

insurance company started w ildfire hazard inspections in Colorado in 2003 and has 

expanded the program to 12 w estern states. Evans, Auerbach, Wood Miller, Wood, 

Nystrom, Loevner, Aragon, Piccarello, and Krasilovsky, Evaluating the Effectiveness of 

Wildfire Mitigation Activities in the Wildland-Urban Interface. 

76Headw aters Economics, Do Insurance Policies and Rates Influence Home Development 

on Fire-Prone Lands? (Bozeman, MT: June 2016). 

77Evans, Auerbach, Wood Miller, Wood, Nystrom, Loevner, Aragon, Piccarello, and 

Krasilovsky, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Wildfire Mitigation Activities in the WildlandUrban Interface. 
Letter

Conclusions

Page 49 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Abnormally dense accumulations of vegetation, combined with drought 

and other climate stressors, have contributed to larger and more severe 

wildland fires; at the same time, more people are choosing to live in fireprone locations. Because fire can cross jurisdictions, efforts to reduce the 

risk of fire to communities involve a multitude of entities working together, 

including federal land management agencies, state and local 

governments, Indian tribes, and others. One area of focus for both federal 

and nonfederal entities has been the development of the Cohesive 

Strategy, which emphasizes the importance of coordination across 

entities and frames comprehensive national goals for mitigating the risk of 

wildland fire. However, WFLC has not developed performance measures 

to assess the combined efforts of federal and nonfederal participants in 

meeting the goals of the Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service and 

Interior each have performance measures to monitor and assess their 

wildland fire management efforts, but those measures apply to the 

agencies individually and do not represent the set of national measures 

called for in the Cohesive Strategy. By working with the interagency body 

WFLC to establish such measures, the Forest Service and Interior, 

together with federal and nonfederal partners, could better assess 

national progress toward achieving the goals of the Cohesive Strategy.

Recommendation  for Executive Action

To help determine the extent to which the goals of the Cohesive Strategy 

are being met, we recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior direct the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of the Office 

of Wildland Fire, respectively, to work with WFLC to develop measures to 

assess national progress toward achieving the strategy’s goals.

Agency Comments  and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. We received written 

comments from the Forest Service (responding on behalf of the 

Department of Agriculture), which are reproduced in appendix VII. In its 

letter, and in a subsequent discussion with the Forest Service audit 

liaison, the Forest Service stated that it generally agreed with our findings

and recommendation, and that it is committed to implementing the 
Letter

Cohesive Strategy and will continue to work with WFLC and other entities 

towards reducing the risk of wildland fire on all lands in the United States. 

We also received written comments from Interior, which are reproduced in 

appendix VIII. Interior did not concur with our recommendation, citing 

three primary areas of disagreement.

First, while acknowledging that measures to assess national progress 

toward achieving the goals of the Cohesive Strategy could be beneficial, 

Interior noted in its letter that the Wildland Fire Executive Council had 

previously determined that instituting the measures that had been 

presented to it would place undue burden on the agencies and nonfederal 

partners.

Page 50 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

78 Interior also stated that assessing national progress toward 

achieving the Cohesive Strategy’s goals would cost taxpayers more than 

it would save, and cited a 2013 study that noted the challenging nature of 

efforts to assess the effectiveness of fuel reduction and restoration 

treatments. More recently, however, as we note in our report, a 

December 2016 WFLC report stated that the use of research findings, 

remote sensing, and modelling can help quantify the effects of activities 

over time and can contribute to showing accountability and success in 

meeting the goals of the Cohesive Strategy. During our review, Interior 

officials said they had not had sufficient time to determine which, if any, 

research findings could be useful in this effort, and Interior’s letter does 

not refer to this aspect of the 2016 WFLC report. As a result, it is not clear 

whether Interior has fully considered the potential for using research 

findings or other tools described in the 2016 report to measure national 

progress in a cost-effective way. 

Second, Interior stated that in 2014 it changed its strategic performance 

metrics to demonstrate departmental progress toward meeting the 

strategy’s goals. Our report describes an example of one such 

departmental measure that is consistent with the Cohesive Strategy’s 

emphasis on resilient landscapes. However, as we note in our report, 

agency performance measures are intended to separately assess each 

agency’s performance—or, in some cases the performance of specific 

programs—and do not represent a set of measures to assess national 

progress toward meeting the Cohesive Strategy’s goals, as called for in 

the strategy. Such measures could, as noted in the Cohesive Strategy, 

allow Congress and other stakeholders to monitor and assess progress 

 

78These measures w ere proposed to the Wildland Fire Executive Council by a 2013 task 

group, as discussed in our report.
Letter

toward achieving the strategy’s goals. Interior did not indicate any steps it 

would take to meet the Cohesive Strategy’s call for measuring national, 

rather than departmental, progress in meeting the strategy’s goals.

Third, Interior noted that federal entities cannot control or mandate 

response or participation from non-federal partners. However, given the 

Cohesive Strategy’s emphasis on collaboration between federal and 

nonfederal entities to achieve its goals, the WFLC—as the interagency 

body charged with implementing the strategy—is an appropriate forum for 

working to develop measures. While we understand that federal entities 

cannot control or mandate response or participation from non-federal 

partners, we believe that, as members of WFLC, Interior and other federal 

agencies can provide leadership in helping ensure accountability for the 

mutually agreed upon goals of the Cohesive Strategy.

Interior also provided technical comments regarding the Cohesive 

Strategy. In response, we incorporated additional information to note that 

implementation of the Cohesive Strategy is not separately funded.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, 

and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to the report are listed in appendix IX.

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Page 51 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Appendix I: Objectiv es, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix I: Objectives, 

Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) factors federal officials and nonfederal 

stakeholders cited as affecting federal-nonfederal collaboration aimed at 

reducing wildland fire risk to communities and (2) actions federal officials 

and nonfederal stakeholders said could help improve their ability to 

reduce wildland fire risk to communities.

To perform this work, we reviewed various laws, policies, guidance, state 

and local zoning codes and ordinances, agency budget justifications, 

academic literature, and reviews related to federal wildland fire 

management. Among the laws we reviewed were the Federal Land 

Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act; Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003; Good Neighbor Authority; Wyden Amendment; 

and Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004.

1

In addition, we reviewed policy 

documents and agency budget justifications, such as the 2009 Guidance 

for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, the 

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, and the Forest 

Service fiscal year 2017 budget justification. We also reviewed other 

documents such as the 2014 Quadrennial Fire Review Final Report, the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2014 National Climate 

Assessment, Headwaters Economics’ paper Do Insurance Policies and 

Rates Influence Home Development on Fire-Prone Lands?, and the 

Forest Stewards Guild report Evaluating the Effectiveness of Wildfire 

Mitigation Activities in the Wildland-Urban Interface. We conducted a 

basic assessment of these studies’ methodologies, assumptions, and 

limitations and determined them to be sufficiently credible for our 

purposes. We also interviewed headquarters officials from each of the 

five federal land management agencies responsible for wildland fire 

management—the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service in the Department of the 

Interior—as well as Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire. Because our report 

addresses reducing risk to communities, we focused our review on 

federal wildland fire management activities intended to reduce risk before 

 

1These law s are described in appendix III. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

a potential wildland fire occurs, through fire preparedness, fuel reduction, 

prevention, and education.

To address our first objective, we interviewed fire management officials 

from 10 federal land management units, such as national forests and 

national parks, as well as representatives of communities near these 

lands. We selected land management units from each of the five federal 

agencies using the following criteria: the size of the estimated population 

in nearby wildland-urban interface areas, as defined by the Forest 

Service, with high wildland fire hazard potential; the size in acres of the 

land management unit; input from regional land management agency 

officials; and the geographic location of the land management unit, with 

units selected to provide geographic diversity. We then selected 

communities adjacent to the federal land management units by 

considering input from local land management agency officials. For each 

community selected, we interviewed representatives from nonfederal 

entities with which land management unit officials interacted; these 

representatives included county officials, local fire department officials, 

and homeowners. Using these criteria, we selected land management 

units and adjacent communities in five states: Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Florida, and Oregon. During our interviews with federal officials 

and community representatives, we asked about ways in which federal 

and nonfederal entities collaborated and factors that enhanced or 

hindered their ability to collaborate.

In addition, for the five states we selected, we interviewed officials with 

state wildland fire and forestry agencies. To gain a wider range of 

perspectives from states that were not included in our site selection, we 

interviewed officials with the National Association of State Foresters, the 

Southern Group of State Foresters, and the Northeastern Area 

Association of State Foresters, which represent states across the 

country.

Page 53 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

2

In addition, to gain a better perspective on the Cohesive 

Strategy, we interviewed members of the Wildland Fire Leadership 

Council (WFLC) and the three regional committees—Northeast, 

Southeast, and West—responsible for overseeing the Cohesive 

Strategy’s implementation. We also interviewed representatives of 

nongovernmental organizations that were identified by federal officials we 

interviewed or in reports we reviewed as being involved in federal-

 

2We w ere unable to schedule an interview w ith representatives of the Council of Western 

State Foresters, w hich represents states in the western United States.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

nonfederal efforts to reduce wildland fire risk. During these interviews we 

asked about ways in which they collaborated with federal land 

management agencies, factors that enhanced or hindered their ability to 

collaborate. Table 2 provides a list of nonfederal associations, 

organizations, and committees included in our review.

Table 2. Nonfederal Associations, Committees, and Organizations Included in our 

Page 54 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Review

Fire Adapted Communities 

Headw aters Economics

Intertribal Timber Council

National Association of Counties

National Association of State Foresters

National Fire Protection Association

Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters

Northeast Regional Cohesive Strategy Committee

Southeast Regional Cohesive Strategy Committee

Southern Group of State Foresters

The Nature Conservancy

West Regional Cohesive Strategy Committee

Wildland Fire Leadership Council

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-357

We reviewed and analyzed interviewees’ responses and identified broad 

categories of factors they said enhance or hinder federal-nonfederal 

collaboration to reduce fire risk to communities and actions they said 

could improve their ability to reduce such risk. In response to our 

interview questions about factors that affect collaboration efforts aimed at 

reducing risk to communities, officials and stakeholders described factors 

that we defined as having affected direct collaboration and indirect 

collaboration. For example, direct collaboration (i.e., situations involving a 

tangible relationship between two or more parties) includes federal 

policies and authorities that require or enable collaboration. Factors that 

affect indirect collaboration (i.e., situations in which actions by one entity 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

may affect other entities attempting to achieve a similar outcome) include 

community education, which can affect communities’ ability to take risk 

reduction actions that may or may not include collaboration with others. 

We include both types of factors in our report, distinguishing between 

direct and indirect collaboration as appropriate.

Based on the frequency of factors identified, as well as information we 

obtained through our review of documents mentioned above related to 

this topic, we reported on factors associated with nine categories. The list 

of factors and associated definitions we used for analytical purposes 

were:

· Federal authorities: laws that authorize federal and nonfederal 

entities to conduct risk-reducing efforts across jurisdictions.

· State and local authorities: state and local laws or ordinances that 

may require homeowners, businesses, or communities to conduct 

certain risk-reducing actions or meet specified building requirements.

· Initiatives: federal efforts aimed at conducting cross-jurisdictional 

projects to reduce risk.

· Joint planning: federal-nonfederal efforts to discuss and document 

future risk reduction activities.

· Agency resources for collaboration: the ability of federal and 

nonfederal entities to share staff or funding and the presence of staff 

or funding to engage in collaborative activities.

· Leadership: efforts to collaborate, communicate, and seek input from 

others, among other characteristics.

· Education: efforts to educate individuals about steps they can take to 

reduce risk.

· Wildfire prevention messaging: efforts to provide prevention 

information or materials.

· Community engagement: the extent to which communities are 

aware of and engaged in taking actions to reduce risk, such as 

establishing defensible space.

Two analysts coded each response into these categories. Because many 

of the responses were broad in nature and could be categorized into 

multiple categories, analysts verified each other’s categorizations. After 

completing the categorization of responses, we assessed the frequency 

with which responses occurred in each category to help identify factors to 

Page 55 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

discuss in our report. Our report generally does not discuss infrequently 

identified factors.

To address our second objective, we interviewed federal officials and 

nonfederal entities described above to obtain information about actions 

they said could reduce risk to communities from wildland fire. We 

categorized and coded their responses using the method described 

above. Based on the frequency of solutions identified, as well as 

information we obtained through our review of documents mentioned 

above related to this topic, we reported on solutions associated with 

seven categories: improving implementation of the Cohesive Strategy, 

increasing collaborative planning, expanding education, increasing 

prevention efforts, improving timber-processing capability, adopting state 

and local ordinances, and providing insurance incentives. To increase our 

understanding of the actions identified, we reviewed information about 

related programs and initiatives, including information about the Forest 

Service’s Wood Innovations grant program, documents such as Best 

Management Practices for Creating a Community Wildfire Protection 

Plan, and information about the Smokey Bear campaign. We reviewed 

the Cohesive Strategy and action plans for implementing it, various 

“success story” project descriptions, guiding documents for WFLC and its 

regional committees, and other relevant documents. We also reviewed 

Cohesive Strategy implementation guidance and a 2016 report on the 

Cohesive Strategy by WFLC’s National Strategic Committee. We then 

compared agency efforts to assess progress toward achieving the

Cohesive Strategy’s goals against guidance contained in the strategy and 

associated action plans. To obtain additional insight into the use of 

performance information on the part of federal agencies, we reviewed our 

previous reports related to interagency strategies and agencies’ efforts to 

collaborate. We also reviewed various state and local ordinances that 

encourage fire-resistant building and the removal of potentially flammable 

vegetation around structures and that discourage development in areas at 

high risk from wildland fire. In addition, upon completing our analysis of 

interviewee responses, we followed up with Forest Service and Interior 

headquarters officials to learn the extent to which the agencies were 

implementing or considering the actions the interviewees suggested.

For both objectives, when providing general statements to describe 

factors that affect collaboration and actions to reduce risk, we use the 

term stakeholders to refer to representatives of the nonfederal entities 

listed above. When describing individual examples, we often refer to the 

Page 56 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

specific type of stakeholder, such as community members.

Page 57 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

3

In addition, 

because this is a nonprobability sample, the information we report is not 

generalizable to all land management units and communities. It does not 

represent a comprehensive list of collaborative programs or efforts 

nationwide or in these states but, rather, provides illustrative examples 

from a geographically diverse range of land management units and 

communities that are at high risk of experiencing wildland fire.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2015 to May 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

3

In this report, w e use the follow ing qualifiers w hen summarizing federal officials’ and 

stakeholders’ view s: “some,” w hich w e define as tw o or three federal officials and 

stakeholders collectively; “several,” w hich w e define as four to six federal officials and 

stakeholders collectively; and “many,” w hich w e define as seven or more federal officials 

and stakeholders collectively. 
Appendix II: Full Text of Figure 2, 

Characteristics of Communities Included in 

Our Rev iew

Page 58 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix II: Full Text of 

Figure 2, Characteristics of 

Communities Included in Our 

Review

Table 3 shows various characteristics of the communities included in our 

review.

Table 3: Descriptions of Communities Included in Our Review

Name and population Description

Fort Apache Indian Reservation, 

Arizona

13,409

Located in eastern Arizona adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. The almost 1.7 

million-acre Fort Apache Indian Reservation is home to 15 White Mountain Apache tribal 

communities. Recreational activities, such as fishing and hunting, and timber management are 

important sources of revenue for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The tribe has experienced 

w ildland fires, including the 2011 Wallow Fire, w hich burned more than 534,000 acres, of w hich 

almost 13,000 acres w ere on the reservation.

Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona

4,282

Located in eastern Arizona, bordered to the north and west by the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forest and to the south by the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The area is a tourist destination for 

recreational activities, such as fishing and camping, and the community includes many secondhome ow ners and part-time residents. The community has experienced several w ildland fires 

nearby, including the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire, w hich burned more than 460,000 acres, destroyed 

nearly 500 homes and other structures, and forced the evacuation of more than 30,000 people.

Calabasas and Topanga, 

California

23,058 (Calabasas)

8,289 (Topanga)

Located in the Santa Monica Mountains in Southern California, w ithin densely populated Los 

Angeles County. The area has a hot, dry, Mediterranean climate w ith steep terrain. Predominant 

vegetation includes chaparral shrublands, one of the most fire-hazardous landscapes in North 

America. The Topanga community includes homes scattered throughout Topanga Canyon, w ith 

more homes and businesses clustered along the canyon road that runs from the Pacific Ocean 

north to Highw ay 101. Calabasas, in the northern Santa Monica Mountains, includes many homes 

located in close proximity. The area has experienced numerous fires, including the 1993 Old 

Topanga Fire, w hich destroyed more than 300 structures; the 1996 Calabasas Fire; and the 2016 

Old Fire.

Grizzly Flats, California

1,066

Located in northern California, approximately 60 miles east of Sacramento and adjacent to the 

Eldorado National Forest. Grizzly Flats is one of several communities located near a major highw ay 

that intersects the Eldorado National Forest betw een Sacramento and Lake Tahoe. Recent nearby 

fires include the 2014 King Fire, w hich destroyed 80 structures, of w hich 12 w ere residences and 68 

w ere other buildings.
Appendix II: Full Text of Figure 2, 

Characteristics of Communities Included in 

Our Rev iew

Page 59 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Name and population Description

Estes Park, Colorado

5,858

Located about 70 miles northw est of Denver, Colorado, at the eastern entrance of Rocky Mountain 

National Park. Approximately 4 million people visit Rocky Mountain National Park annually, and 

many of those visitors stay in or travel through Estes Park. Some homeow ners live in the tow n of 

Estes Park w hile other residents live in homes scattered throughout w ooded areas around the 

community. The 2012 Fern Lake Fire, w hich occurred inside Rocky Mountain National Park, 

threatened the community but w as extinguished w ithin the park.

Rifle and Silt, Colorado

9,172 (Rifle)

2,930 (Silt)

Located along the Colorado River in w estern Colorado in Garfield County, w here BLM and the 

Forest Service manage 62 percent of the land. The area contains diverse ecosystems and 

recreational opportunities, as w ell as substantial oil and gas drilling infrastructure. Significant nearby 

fires include the 1994 South Canyon Fire, w hich resulted in the deaths of 14 firefighters.

The Great Outdoors, Florida

3,000 (in w inter)

Located east of Orlando near the Atlantic coast of Florida, adjacent to the Merritt Island National 

Wildlife Refuge. This 2,800-acre community primarily includes a recreational vehicle community, 

along w ith some houses. Each home or vehicle site w as planned to leave as much vegetation as 

possible. Many residents are part-time residents w ho live in the community only during the w inter 

months. Recent fires include the 2011 Iron Horse Fire, w hich burned nearly 17,500 acres and one 

home.

La Pine, Oregon

1,653

Located southw est of Bend in central Oregon, surrounded by BLM and Forest Service lands. The 

area contains a significant amount of public land w ith developed and dispersed recreation sites, 

resulting in seasonal fluctuations in the number of visitors to the area. Dense stands of trees and 

thick ground vegetation contribute to the overall w ildland fire risk in the La Pine area. 

Warm Springs Indian 

Reservation, Oregon

4,000

Located north of Bend in central Oregon, adjacent to BLM and Forest Service lands. The 640,000-

acre Warm Springs Indian Reservation is home to a confederation of three tribes: the Warm 

Springs, Wasco, and Paiute tribes. The tow n of Warm Springs is the most populated area on the 

reservation. The reservation is characterized by timber resources, fisheries, and other natural and 

cultural resources.

Sources: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Census Bureau, GAO review of Community Wildfire Protection Plans, GAO interviews with 

community members, and Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. | GAO-17-357

Notes: We generally obtained information for these descriptions from each community’s Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan, if available, as well as from officials with the adjacent federal land 

management unit. Population numbers are generally based on 2010 U.S. Census data for 

incorporated towns, cities, and Census Designated Places. As such, these figures may not include 

populations that live in surrounding unincorporated areas. Areas within land management unit 

boundaries may include both federal and nonfederal lands.

Community members near the Ocala National Forest did not respond to our request for a telephone 

interview.
Appendix III: Summary of Federal Laws Aimed 

at Reducing Wildland Fire Risk through 

Collaboration

Page 60 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix III: Summary of 

Federal Laws Aimed at 

Reducing Wildland Fire Risk 

through Collaboration

Table 4 describes several federal laws aimed at reducing wildland fire risk 

through collaboration.

Table 4: Descriptions of Several Federal Law s Aimed at Reducing Wildland Fire Risk through Collaboration

Federal Law Description 

Cooperative Forestry 

Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. 

L. No. 95-313)

Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide financial, technical, educational, and related 

assistance to state foresters or equivalent state officials to carry out activities such as protecting forest 

lands from damage caused by fire.

Good Neighbor Authority 

(Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2014)

Authorizes the Forest Service to permit state forest management agencies to conduct certain 

w atershed restoration activities––such as reducing hazardous fuel to prevent wildland fires, 

addressing insect outbreaks, and improving drainage to prevent sediment from eroding into forest 

w atersheds––on Forest Service lands w hen conducting similar activities on adjacent state or private 

lands. Under the act, the state may in some circumstances act as an agent of the federal government 

to conduct these projects. Although the projects are conducted by the state, projects on federal lands 

remain subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), w hich requires 

federal agencies to consider any significant environmental impacts that may result from their actions.

Good Neighbor Authority 

(2014 Farm Bill) (16 U.S.C. § 

2113a)

Authorizes the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to enter into “good neighbor” 

agreements w ith state governors, under w hich the federal agencies and the states can carry out

similar and complementary forest, rangeland, and w atershed restoration services, including fuel 

reduction projects, on both federal and nonfederal lands. Such agreements can take the form of 

cooperative agreements or grants. Although the projects are conducted by the state, projects on 

federal lands remain subject to the provisions of NEPA.

Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. § 

6501 et. seq.)

Authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to carry out fuel reduction projects on federal lands, including 

w ithin the w ildland-urban interface and certain municipal w atersheds. One of the main purposes of the 

act is to reduce w ildfire risk to communities, municipal w ater supplies, and other at-risk federal lands 

through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing hazardous fuel reduction 

projects. The act requires the agencies to prioritize projects identified in Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans, w hich identify the community’s w ildland-urban interface and are developed collaboratively w ith 

federal, state, and local entities to identify priority fuel reduction projects.a

Tribal Forest Protection Act of 

2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-278)

Authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to enter into agreements or contracts w ith 

Indian tribes meeting certain criteria to carry out projects to protect Indian forest lands.

Wyden Amendment (16 

U.S.C. § 1011a)

Under the Wyden Amendment, the Forest Service and BLM may enter into cooperative agreements 

w ith landow ners for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and w ildlife habitat and other 

resources on public or private lands, as long as the agreement benefits the fish, w ildlife, and other 

resources on national forest and BLM lands w ithin the w atershed.

Source: GAO analysis of federal laws shown. | GAO-17-357
Appendix III: Summary of Federal Laws Aimed 

at Reducing Wildland Fire Risk through 

Collaboration

a

The act also authorizes the agencies to prioritize projects in communities that do not have 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans but that have taken proactive measures to encourage willing 

property owners to reduce fire risk on private property.

Page 61 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Appendix IV: National and State Air Quality 

Standards

Page 62 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix IV: National and 

State Air Quality Standards

Several federal officials and stakeholders we interviewed said that some 

national and state air quality standards under the Clean Air Act have the 

effect of limiting fuel reduction treatments that rely on prescribed burning. 

Under the act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes 

standards for controlling air pollution. Pollutants in smoke, including those 

emitted from prescribed fires, can cause health issues and also cause air 

quality to exceed EPA’s health standards for fine particulate matter and 

ozone. Wildfire smoke can reach hazardous levels in downwind 

communities for long periods of time, while prescribed fire can cause 

nuisance and shorter but still significant smoke impacts. To help ensure 

that EPA’s standards are met, state officials responsible for enforcing the 

act might not in all cases provide land managers with the permits 

necessary to conduct prescribed burns.

Federal agencies have taken steps to address the issue of balancing the 

need to protect public health with conducting prescribed burns as a 

method of fuel reduction. Specifically, since 2015, the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council’s priorities have included smoke and air quality, and 

in January 2016, EPA and the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior 

issued a joint Wildland Fire and Air Quality summary. Among other things, 

the summary describes EPA’s commitment to working with land 

managers to effectively use prescribed fire to reduce the effects of 

wildfire-related emissions. EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule provides 

regulatory relief for states that exceed national air quality standards 

because of emissions from certain sources of pollution, including wildfires 

and certain prescribed fires. EPA finalized updates to the rule in October 

2016 intended to simplify and shorten the process for state air quality 

agencies to address the impacts of wildfire smoke in their air quality 

plans.1 EPA also released a guidance document in 2016 intended to help

state air quality agencies develop supporting information for wildfires that 

affect monitored ozone concentrations.

 

1

81 Fed. Reg. 68216 (October 3, 2016).
Appendix V: Selected Federal Programs 

Prov iding Risk-Reduction Funding to States 

and Localities

Page 63 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix V: Selected Federal 

Programs Providing RiskReduction Funding to States 

and Localities

This appendix provides information about selected federal programs that 

provide risk-reduction funding to states and localities.

· The Forest Service’s State Fire Assistance (SFA) program provides 

financial assistance through partnership agreements with state 

foresters for fire management activities, including helping 

communities become fire adapted.1 According to the Forest Service’s 

fiscal year 2017 budget justification, SFA is a critical part of the 

agency’s efforts to reduce wildland fire risk to communities, residents, 

property, and firefighters because it helps ensure that state, local, and 

private landowners have the capacity and tools they need to prepare 

for, respond to, and mitigate fire risk in the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) and other critical areas. In each fiscal year from 2014 through 

2016, approximately $78 million was enacted for the program. Of the 

total $78 million enacted for SFA in fiscal year 2015, $15.9 million was 

spent on hazardous fuel reduction treatments in the WUI, directly 

paying for the treatment of 148,020 acres of hazardous fuel and 

contributing to the treatment of another 126,368 acres with in-kind 

partner support, according to the Forest Service’s fiscal year 2017 

budget justification. In addition, SFA funding supports national 

partnerships and agreements, including, among others, the National 

Fire Protection Association’s Firewise program, the wildfire prevention 

 

1The SFA program w as authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to 

provide financial and technical assistance to states and communities for w ildland fire 

management. State foresters are to allocate SFA funds according to the priorities 

identified through State Forest Action Plans—strategic plans for all forests in each state, 

that include an analysis of forest conditions and trends and that identify priority forest 

landscape areas.
Appendix V: Selected Federal Programs 

Prov iding Risk-Reduction Funding to States 

and Localities

campaign with the Ad Council, and The Nature Conservancy Fire 

Learning Network.

Page 64 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

2

· The Forest Service’s Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) program 

provides technical and financial assistance to local volunteer fire 

departments serving rural communities with a population of 10,000 or 

fewer. According to the Forest Service’s fiscal year 2017 budget 

justification, rural fire departments represent the first line of defense in 

addressing fires and other emergencies, and without the cooperation 

of rural fire departments, the agency would be unable to provide the 

level of fire response needed to keep fires near communities small. In 

each fiscal year from 2014 through 2016, $13 million was enacted for 

the program. In 2015, this funding helped 9,318 communities to train 

22,272 firefighters and purchase, rehabilitate, and maintain $8.1 

million in equipment, according to the 2017 budget justification.

· The Department of the Interior’s Rural Fire Assistance program (RFA) 

provided assistance in education and training, as well as supplies and 

equipment, to rural fire districts.3 However, funding for this program 

ended in fiscal year 2012 because of the increased availability of 

other fire assistance grant programs outside of Interior, according to 

officials with Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire.

· Interior’s Community Assistance is intended to support activities that 

improve and sustain community and individual responsibilities to 

adapt to, prepare for, and respond to wildfire. Unlike the Forest 

Service’s VFA or Interior’s now-expired RFA, Interior does not 

manage Community Assistance as a grant program, but as an activity 

under the existing wildland fire management programs of fuel

reduction and preparedness, with funding levels determined by each 

Interior agency. Interior officials estimated that overall Community 

Assistance funding decreased from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal 

year 2013. For example, during this period, funding for Community 

Assistance decreased from an estimated $4.5 million to $2.1 million 

 

2The Nature Conservancy Fire Learning Netw ork is a coalition of hundreds of federal and 

nonfederal partners in 30 landscapes working to promote the resiliency and restoration of 

fire-adapted ecosystems across the United States.

3Under the RFA program, Interior agencies w orked w ith state foresters and other partners 

to allocate funding to rural fire departments serving communities w ith populations of 

10,000 or few er in the WUI and w ith the capability to meet a minimum 10 percent cost 

share.
Appendix V: Selected Federal Programs 

Prov iding Risk-Reduction Funding to States 

and Localities

for BLM and from an estimated $1.2 million to $355,000 for Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, according to these officials.

Page 65 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

4

 

4

Interior officials could not provide more recent estimates.
Appendix VI: Department of the Interior’s RiskBased Wildland Fire Management Model

Page 66 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix VI: Department of 

the Interior’s Risk-Based 

Wildland Fire Management 

Model

Since 2014, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire has 

been developing a Risk-Based Wildland Fire Management model, which it 

plans to use to help support decisions about how to distribute funding for 

preparedness and fuel reduction to four Interior agencies: Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. The proposed system is to 

assess the probability and likely intensity of wildland fire, values at risk,1

and the expected value of acres likely to burn. Several Interior officials we 

interviewed raised concerns about the equity of the model because it 

makes determinations based on priority values at risk across the four 

Interior agencies, which can be challenging given the variation in agency 

missions and types of land they manage. For example, a threatened 

species located primarily on BLM lands may be among that agency’s 

highest priorities, but a forested area relied upon by an Indian tribe for its 

livelihood may be among BIA’s highest priorities. We found in 2015 that 

Interior officials said they expected to identify the prioritized values and 

issue guidance on the proposed system by the end of calendar year 2015 

and use its results to inform their fiscal year 2016 funding distributions to 

the four agencies.2 As of February 2017, officials with Interior’s Office of 

Wildland Fire said they had not completed final revisions to the model but 

planned to do so in 2017.

 

1Values at risk can include ecological, social, and economic values that could be lost or 

damaged due to fire, including people, property, infrastructure, natural and cultural 

resources, and air quality.

2See GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Agencies Have Made Several Key Changes but 

Could Benefit from More Information about Effectiveness, GAO-15-772 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 16, 2015).
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 67 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Agriculture
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 68 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 69 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 70 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 71 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix IX: GAO Contact 

and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty (Assistant 

Director), Ulana M. Bihun, Mark Braza, Richard P. Johnson, and Keesha 

Luebke made key contributions to this report. Important contributions 

were also made by Martin (Greg) Campbell, William Carrigg, Lee Carroll, 

Charles Culverwell, Christopher P. Currie, Dan Royer, and Sarah Veale.
Appendix X: Accessible Data

Page 72 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Appendix X: Accessible Data

Data Tables

Figure 3: Actions to Help Reduce Wildland Fire Risk in the Wildland-Urban Interface

Education and prevention can help inform the public about steps that can 

be taken to make homes and buildings less susceptible to wildland fire 

and to respond in the event of a wildland fire, and ways to prevent fires 

caused by humans from occurring.

Fuel reduction treatment projects reduce flammable vegetation, which 

can minimize the severity of wildland fires, increase landscape resiliency 

to fire, and provide firefighter access during fire suppression activities.

Land use and development regulations and ordinances may restrict 

development within areas at high risk from wildland fire, require property 

owners to manage hazardous vegetation on their properties, require fireresistant construction materials for new developments and housing 

retrofits, or require other features such as adequate water supply for 

firefighting efforts and minimum road widths for safe evacuations.

Preparedness includes efforts by federal, tribal, state, and local agencies 

and communities to ensure the availability of firefighting assets (e.g., fire 

engines and crews) and establish clear responsibilities with regard to fire 

response in advance of wildland fire seasons.

Agency Comment  Letters

Text of Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of 

Agriculture

Page 1

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service
Appendix X: Accessible Data

Washington Office 

201 14th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024

File Code: 1420; 5100

Date: APR 1 7 2017

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20548 Dear Ms. Fennell:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture appreciates the opportunity to 

respond to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report 

"Wildland Fire Risk Reduction: Multiple Factors Affect Federal-Nonfederal 

Collaboration, but Action Could Be Taken to Better Measure Progress, 

(GA0-17-357)." We generally agree with the findings in the GAO draft 

report.

The Forest Service takes the responsibility of collaborating with our 

Department of the Interior partners, State partners, Tribal, nongovernmental and other partners very seriously, and is committed to 

implementing the 2014 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy (Cohesive Strategy). We will continue to work with Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council and other entities towards reducing the risk of 

wildland fire on all lands in the United States.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to review the draft report. If you 

have any questions, please contact Antoine L. Dixon, Chief Financial 

Officer, at 202-205-0429 or aldixon@fs.fed.us.

Sincerely,

THOMAS L. TIDWELL

Chief

Page 73 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Appendix X: Accessible Data

Appendix VIII:  Comments from the Department of the 

Page 74 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

Interior

Page 1

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Washington, DC 20240

APR 24 2017

Ms. Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW

Washington, DC 20548 Dear Ms. Fennell:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, Wildland Fire Risk 

Reduction: Multiple Factors Affect Federal- Nonfederal Collaboration, but 

Action Could Be Taken to Better Measure Progress (GA0-17- 357). We 

appreciate GAO's review of the factors affecting Federal-nonfederal 

collaboration aimed at reducing wildland fire risk and the actions that 

could improve their ability to reduce risk to communities.

The GAO issued one recommendation to address its findings. GAO 

recommends that, in order to help determine the extent to which the goals 

of the Cohesive Strategy are being met, the Secretaries of Agriculture 

and the Interior direct the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of 

the Office of Wildland Fire respectively to work with the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council (WFLC) to develop measures to assess national 

progress toward achieving the strategy's goals.

The Department of the Interior (Department) does not concur with the 

recommendation. While acknowledging that measures to assess 

national progress towards achieving the goals of the National Cohesive 
Appendix X: Accessible Data

Strategy could be beneficial, such measures were previously developed 

and presented to the Fire Executive Council (FEC), a group chartered by 

the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Homeland Security (DHS), and 

the Interior to provide a common integrated, and coordinated Federal 

agency approach to wildland fire policy, leadership, budget, and program 

oversight. The FEC determined and recommended to WFLC that 

instituting the measures would place an undue burden on the agencies 

and their partners 1 by necessitating a considerable amount of time and 

cost to collect, review, and analyze the information. Without the adoption 

of national measures, the Department's Office of Wildland Fire (OWF) 

used existing programmatic reporting metrics to assess the Department's 

progress towards achieving the goals of the National Cohesive Strategy. 

We also recognize that Federal entities cannot control or mandate 

response or participation from Non-federal partners.

The Department's Wildland Fire Management (WFM) guiding principles 

and priorities are to restore and maintain fire-resilient landscapes, 

promote fire-adapted communities, reduce human1 United States. Cohesive Strategy National Strategic Committee. 

Cohesive Strategy Crosswalk and Strategic Alignment. Washington, D.C.: 

n.p., 2016. Print.

Page 2

Page 75 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

caused ignitions, and safely and effectively respond to wildfires through 

direct program activities and Federal, Tribal, State, and local 

collaboration. These guiding principles and priorities align with the three 

goals of the National Cohesive Strategy. In 2014, the WFM changed 

strategic performance metrics2 to demonstrate Departmental progress 

towards meeting the goals of the National Cohesive Strategy by 

increasing: (1) percent of Department-managed landscape acres that 

are in a desired condition as a result of fire management objectives; (2) 

percent of Department-managed treatments that reduce risk to 

communities that have a wildland fire mitigation plan; and (3) percent of 

wildfire on Department-managed landscapes where the initial 

strategy(ies) fully succeeded during the initial response phase.

In light of the above and in the spirit of enterprise risk management and 

efficiency, the Department believes it would cost more than it would save 

taxpayers to assess national progress toward achieving the Cohesive 

Strategy's goals. The Department believes the existing measures are 

sufficient at this time to adequately measure progress towards 
Appendix X: Accessible Data

implementation of the Cohesive Strategy. As the Ecological Restoration 

Institute has noted, developing measures to assess progress 

"understanding the ecologic and economic effectiveness of hazardous 

fuel and restoration treatments at the national level poses challenges 

that prevent simple answers to these questions. "3

The following technical comments are for your consideration as you 

finalize the report.

Pages 20 to 21, Lines 467 - 485 from the Statement of Facts should not 

have been excluded from the draft report.

Pages 20 to 21, Lines 467 - middle of line 474 describes how the Forest 

Service and Departmental interviewees responded to concerns of the 

Cohesive Strategy. "Inaddition tofederally funded landscape-scale 

initiatives, many officials and stakeholders said that the Cohesive 

Strategy, which was issued in 2014, provides for enhanced collaboration.

Unlike the initiatives discussed above, implementation of the Cohesive 

Strategy is not separately funded because the agencies do not consider 

it a program. Rather, several Forest Service and Interior agency officials 

described the Cohesive Strategy as a "way of conducting business." 

This statement accurately captures some of our discussion on March 31, 

2017, recognizing that developing measures to assess national progress 

toward achieving the strategy's goals may take significant resources and 

the difficulty of such when the Cohesive Strategy is not a "nationally 

funded program."

Page 21, Lines 474 - 485 describes one of the Department's longest 

standing examples (Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners) of 

how a localized group of diverse stake holders can achieve the goals of 

the Cohesive Strategy when they work together.

2 "DOI strategic Plan 2014 - 2018." , Mission Area 1: Celebrating 

and Enhancing America's Great Outdoors, Goal #1: Protect America's 

Landscapes, Strategy #3: Manage wildland fire for landscape resiliency, 

strengthen the ability of communities to protect against fire, and provide 

for public and firefighter safety in wildfire response. . N.p., n.d. Web. 6 

Apr. 2017.

3 Ecological Restoration Institute. 2013. Efficacy of hazardous fuel 

treatments: A rapid assessment of the economic and ecologic

Page 76 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
Appendix X: Accessible Data

consequences of alternative hazardous fuel treatments: A summary 

document for policy makers. Northern Arizona University. 28 pp.

Page 3

Page 77 GAO-17-357 Wildland Fire Risk Reduction

If you have any questions about this response, please contact Craig Leff, 

Deputy Director - Policy and Budget, Office of Wildland Fire, at (202) 606-

3053 or cleff@blm.gov.

Sincerely,

Kathy Holle

Acting Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and Budget

(100357)
GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.govand read The Watchblog.

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal 

Programs

Contact:
Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional  Relations

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

Strategic Planning  and External Liaison

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.