Wildland Fire: Management Improvements Could Enhance Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires
Published: 2007-06-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Annual appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires have increased substantially over the past decade, in recent years totaling about $3 billion. The Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior (Interior) are responsible for responding to wildland fires on federal lands. GAO determined what steps federal agencies have taken to (1) address key operational areas that could help contain the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires and (2) improve their management of their cost-containment efforts. This testimony is based on GAO's June 2007 report, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires (GAO-07-655).
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Forest Service and Interior agencies have initiated a number of steps to address key operational areas previously identified as needing improvement to help federal agencies contain wildland fire costs, but the effects on containing costs are unknown, in part because many of these steps are not yet complete. First, federal firefighting agencies are developing a system to help them better identify and set priorities for lands needing treatment to reduce fuels, but they have yet to decide how they will keep data in the system current. Second, federal agencies have taken some steps to improve how they acquire and use personnel, equipment, and other firefighting assets--such as implementing a computerized system to more efficiently dispatch and track available firefighting assets--but have not yet completed the more fundamental step of determining the appropriate type and quantity of firefighting assets needed for the fire season. Third, the agencies have clarified certain policies and are improving analytical tools that assist officials in identifying and implementing an appropriate response to a given fire, but several other policies limit the agencies' use of less aggressive firefighting strategies, which typically cost less. Fourth, federal agencies, working with nonfederal entities, have recently taken steps to clarify guidance to better ensure that firefighting costs are shared consistently for fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources, but it is unclear how the agencies will ensure that this guidance is followed. The agencies have also taken steps to address previously identified weaknesses in their management of cost-containment efforts, but they have neither clearly defined their cost-containment goals and objectives nor developed a strategy for achieving them--steps that are fundamental to sound program management. Although the agencies have established a broad goal of suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost--considering firefighter and public safety and resources and structures to be protected--they have no defined criteria by which to weigh the relative importance of these often-competing priorities. As a result, according to agency officials and reports, officials in the field lack a clear understanding of the relative importance the agencies' leadership places on containing costs and, therefore, are likely to select firefighting strategies without due consideration of the costs of suppression. The agencies have also yet to develop a vision of how the various cost-containment steps they are taking relate to one another or to determine the extent to which these steps will be effective. The agencies are working to develop a better cost-containment performance measure, but the measure may take a number of years to fully refine. Finally, the agencies have taken, or are beginning to take, steps to improve their oversight and increase accountability--such as requiring agency officials to evaluate firefighting teams according to how well they contained costs--although the extent to which these steps will assist the agencies in containing costs is unknown.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss federal firefighting agencies’  efforts to contain the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland  fires—costs that have increased substantially over the past decade.  Wildland fire appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires,  including appropriations for reducing fuels, have increased from an  average of $1.1 billion annually from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to an  average of more than $2.9 billion annually from fiscal years 2001 through  2005; adjusted for inflation, these appropriations increased from $1.3  billion to $3.1 billion. Accumulations of fuels, due in part to past  suppression policies; severe drought and weather in some areas of the  country; and continued development in or near wildlands—an area  commonly known as the wildland-urban interface—have contributed to  increased costs. Five federal land management agencies—the Forest  Service within the Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) and the Bureau  of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, and  Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior  (Interior)—are responsible for managing wildland fires on federal lands.  Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, federal agency officials,  and others have expressed concerns about the mounting federal wildland  fire expenditures. These concerns have led federal agencies (including the  Forest Service, Interior, the Agriculture Office of Inspector General, and  GAO) and others to conduct numerous reviews of the federal wildland fire  program.
My testimony is based on our report, released today, that discusses steps  the Forest Service and Interior agencies have taken to (1) address key  operational areas that could help contain the costs of preparing for and  responding to wildland fires and (2) improve their management of their  cost-containment efforts. I presented the preliminary results of our work  before this Committee in January 2007.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Over the past decade, the number of acres burned annually by wildland  fires in the United States has substantially increased. Federal  appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including  appropriations for fuel treatments, have almost tripled. Increases in the  size and severity of wildland fires, and in the cost of preparing for and  responding to them, have led federal agencies to fundamentally reexamine  their approach to wildland fire management. For decades, federal agencies  aggressively suppressed wildland fires and were generally successful in  decreasing the number of acres burned. In some parts of the country,  however, rather than eliminating severe wildland fires, decades of  suppression contributed to the disruption of ecological cycles and began  to change the structure and composition of forests and rangelands,  thereby making lands more susceptible to fire.
Increasingly, the agencies have recognized the role that fire plays in many  ecosystems and the role that it could play in the agencies’ management of  forests and watersheds. The agencies worked together to develop a federal  wildland fire management policy in 1995, which for the first time formally  recognized the essential role of fire in sustaining natural systems; this  policy was subsequently reaffirmed and updated in 2001. The agencies, in  conjunction with Congress, also began developing the National Fire Plan  in 2000. To align their policies and to ensure a consistent and coordinated  effort to implement the federal wildland fire policy and National Fire Plan,  Agriculture and Interior established the Wildland Fire Leadership Council  in 2002. In addition to noting the negative effects of past successes in  suppressing wildland fires, the policy and plan also recognized that  continued development in the wildland-urban interface has placed more  structures at risk from wildland fire at the same time that it has increased  the complexity and cost of wildland fire suppression. Forest Service and  university researchers estimated in 2005 that about 44 million homes in the  lower 48 states are located in the wildland-urban interface.
To help address these trends, current federal policy directs agencies to  consider land management objectives—identified in land and fire  management plans developed by each local unit, such as a national forest  or a Bureau of Land Management district—and the structures and  resources at risk when determining whether or how to suppress a wildland  fire. When a fire starts, the land manager at the affected local unit is  responsible for determining the strategy that will be used to respond to the  fire. A wide spectrum of strategies is available to choose from, some of  which can be significantly more costly than others. For example, the  agencies may fight fires ignited close to communities or other high-value  areas more aggressively than fires on remote lands or at sites where fire  may provide ecological or fuel-reduction benefits. In some cases, the  agencies may simply monitor a fire, or take only limited suppression  actions, to ensure that the fire continues to pose little threat to important  resources, a practice known as “wildland fire use.”
section_title: Federal Agencies Are Taking Some Steps to Contain Wildland Fire Costs, but Results Are Unknown
paragraphs: The Forest Service and Interior agencies have initiated a number of steps  to address issues that we and others have identified as needing  improvement to help federal agencies contain wildland fire costs, but the  effects of these steps on containing costs are unknown, in part because  many of the steps are not yet complete. Dozens of studies by federal  agencies and other organizations examining federal agencies’ management  of wildland fire have repeatedly identified a number of similar issues  needing improvement to help contain wildland fire costs. These issues  generally fall into one of three operational areas—reducing accumulated  fuels, acquiring and using firefighting assets, and selecting firefighting  strategies. Recent studies have also raised concerns about the framework  used to share the cost of fighting fires between federal and nonfederal  entities.
First, federal firefighting agencies have made progress in developing a  system to help them better identify and set priorities for lands needing  treatment to reduce accumulated fuels. Many past studies have identified  fuel reduction as important for containing wildland fire costs because  accumulated fuels can contribute to more-severe and more costly fires.  The agencies are developing a geospatial data and modeling system, called  LANDFIRE, intended to produce consistent and comprehensive maps and  data describing vegetation, wildland fuels, and fire regimes across the  United States. The agencies will be able to use this information to help  identify fuel accumulations and fire hazards across the nation, help set  nationwide priorities for fuel-reduction projects, and assist in determining  an appropriate response when wildland fires do occur. According to  Forest Service and Interior officials, the agencies completed mapping the  western United States in April 2007; mapping of the eastern states is  scheduled to be completed by 2008 and of Alaska and Hawaii by 2009. The  agencies, however, have not yet finalized their plan for ensuring that  collected data are routinely updated to reflect changes to fuels, including  those from landscape-altering events, such as hurricanes, disease, or  wildland fires themselves. Forest Service and Interior officials told us that  they recognize the importance of ensuring that data are periodically  updated and are developing a plan to operate and maintain the system,  including determining how often data will be updated. The agencies  expect to submit this plan to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council for  approval in June 2007.
Second, the agencies have also taken some steps to improve how they  acquire and use firefighting personnel, aviation resources, and  equipment—assets that constitute a major cost of responding to wildland  fires—but much remains to be done. The agencies have improved their  systems for dispatching and monitoring firefighting assets and for  gathering and analyzing cost data. However, they have yet to complete the  more fundamental step of determining the appropriate type and quantity  of firefighting assets needed for the fire season. Over the past several  years, the agencies have been developing a Fire Program Analysis (FPA)  system, which was proposed and funded to help the agencies    determine national budget needs by analyzing budget alternatives at the  local level—using a common, interagency process for fire management  planning and budgeting—and aggregating the results;   determine the relative costs and benefits for the full scope of fire  management activities, including potential trade-offs among investments  in fuel reduction, fire preparedness, and fire suppression activities; and  identify, for a given budget level, the most cost-effective mix of personnel  and equipment to carry out these activities.
We have said for several years—and the agencies have concurred—that  FPA is critical to helping the agencies contain wildland fire costs and plan  and budget effectively. Recent design modifications to the system,  however, raise questions about the agencies’ ability to fully achieve these  key goals. A midcourse review of the developing system resulted in the  Wildland Fire Leadership Council’s approving in December 2006  modifications to the system’s design. FPA and senior Forest Service and  Interior officials told us in April 2007 they believed the modifications will  allow the agencies to meet the key goals. The officials said they expected  to have a prototype developed for the council’s review in June 2007 and to  substantially complete the system by June 2008. We have yet to  systematically review the modifications, but after reviewing agency  reports on the modifications and interviewing knowledgeable officials, we  have concerns that the modifications may not allow the agencies to meet  FPA’s key goals. For example, under the redesigned system, local land  managers will use a different method to analyze and select various budget  alternatives, and it is unclear whether this method will identify the most  cost-effective allocation of resources. In addition, it is unclear how the  budget alternatives for local units will be meaningfully aggregated on a  nationwide basis, a key FPA goal.
Third, the agencies have clarified certain policies and are improving  analytical tools to assist agency officials in identifying and implementing  an appropriate response to a given fire. Officials have a wide spectrum of  strategies available to them when responding to wildland fires, some of  which can be significantly more costly than others. For individual fires,  past studies have found that officials may not always consider the full  range of available strategies and may not select the most appropriate one,  which would consider the cost of suppression; value of structures and  other resources threatened by the fire; and, where appropriate, any  benefits the fire may provide to natural resources. The agencies call a  strategy that considers these factors the “appropriate management  response.” The agencies updated their policies in 2004 to require officials  to consider the full spectrum of available strategies when selecting one to  use. Nevertheless, other policies limit the agencies’ use of less aggressive  strategies, which typically cost less. The Forest Service and Interior  agencies are working together to revise these policies—revisions that  could, for example, allow different areas of the same fire to be managed  for suppression and wildland fire use concurrently or allow a fire that was  previously being suppressed to be managed instead for wildland fire use.  The agencies are also continuing to refine existing tools, and to develop  new ones, for analyzing both fuel and predicted weather conditions to  model expected fire behavior, information that officials can use to identify  appropriate suppression strategies; these tools are still being designed and  tested. It is still too early to tell, however, to what extent the policy  changes being considered or the new tools being developed will help to  contain costs.
Finally, we and others have also reported that the existing framework for  sharing firefighting costs between federal and nonfederal entities insulates  state and local governments from the cost of protecting homes and  communities in or near wildlands, which may reduce those governments’  incentive to adopt building codes and land use requirements that could  help reduce the cost of suppressing wildland fires. Federal agencies,  working with nonfederal entities, have recently taken steps to clarify  guidance and better ensure that firefighting costs are shared consistently  for fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. In  early 2007, the Forest Service and Interior agencies approved an updated  template that land managers can use when developing master  agreements—which establish the framework for sharing costs between  federal and nonfederal entities—as well as agreements on how to share  costs for a specific fire. Because master agreements are normally updated  every 5 years, however, it may take several years to fully incorporate this  new guidance. Although the new guidance states that managers must  document their rationale for selecting a particular cost-sharing method,  officials told us that the agencies have no clear plan for how they will  provide oversight to ensure that appropriate cost-sharing methods are  used.
section_title: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies’ Management of Wildland Fire Cost- Containment Efforts
paragraphs: Despite steps taken to strengthen their management of cost-containment  efforts, the agencies have neither clearly defined their cost-containment  goals and objectives nor developed a strategy for achieving them—steps  that are fundamental to sound program management. To manage their  cost-containment efforts effectively, the Forest Service and Interior  agencies should, at a minimum, have (1) clearly defined goals and  measurable objectives, (2) a strategy to achieve the goals and objectives,  (3) performance measures to track their progress, and (4) a framework for  holding appropriate agency officials accountable for achieving the goals.
First, although the agencies have established a broad goal of suppressing  wildland fires at minimum cost considering firefighter and public safety  and the resources and structures to be protected, they have established  neither clear criteria by which to weigh the relative importance of these  often-competing priorities nor measurable objectives by which to  determine if they are meeting their goal. Without such criteria and  objectives, according to agency officials we interviewed and reports we  reviewed, officials in the field lack a clear understanding of the relative  importance that the agencies’ leadership places on containing costs and,  therefore, are likely to select firefighting strategies without due  consideration of costs.
Second, the agencies have yet to establish an overall cost-containment  strategy. Without a strategy designed to achieve clear cost-containment  goals, the agencies (1) have no assurance that the variety of steps they are  taking to help contain wildland fire costs are prioritized so that the most  important steps are undertaken first and (2) are unable to determine to  what extent these steps will help contain costs and if a different approach  may therefore be needed.
Third, the agencies recently adopted a new performance measure—known  as the stratified cost index—that may improve the agencies’ ability to  evaluate their progress in containing costs, but the measure may take a  number of years to fully refine. Also, although the agencies have in recent  years improved their data on suppression costs and fire characteristics,  additional improvement is needed. In particular, cost data for “fire  complexes”—that is, two or more fires burning in proximity that are  managed as a single incident—are particularly difficult to identify. Thus,  the costs of many of the largest fires are not included in the index, limiting  its effectiveness. Further, to date, the index is based solely on fires  managed by the Forest Service. Forest Service researchers are currently  developing, at Interior’s request, a similar index for fires managed by the  Interior agencies, but it will be several years, at the earliest, before enough  data have been collected for the index to be useful. In addition, because  the stratified cost index is based on costs from previous fires—and  because the agencies have only recently begun to emphasize the  importance of using less aggressive suppression strategies—we are  concerned that the index does not include data from many fires where less  costly firefighting strategies were used. As a result, the index may not  accurately identify fires where more, or more-expensive, resources were  used than needed. According to Forest Service officials, data from recent  fires will be added annually; over time, the index should therefore include  more fires where less aggressive firefighting strategies were used.
Finally, the agencies have also taken, or are beginning to take, steps to  improve their oversight and accountability framework, although the extent  to which these steps will assist the agencies in containing costs is  unknown. For example, the agencies have issued guidance clarifying that  land managers, not fire managers, have primary responsibility for  containing wildland fire costs, but they have not yet determined how the  land managers are to be held accountable for doing so. Rather, the  agencies have taken several incremental steps intended to assist land  managers in carrying out this responsibility—such as assigning “incident  business advisors” to observe firefighting operations and work with fire  managers to identify ways those operations could be more cost-effective,  and requiring land managers to evaluate fire managers for how well they  achieve cost-containment goals. The utility of these steps, however, may  be limited because the agencies have yet to establish a clear measure to  evaluate the benefits and costs of alternative firefighting strategies. Some  past studies have concluded that the absence of such a measure  fundamentally weakens the agencies’ ability to provide effective oversight.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Continuing concerns about the cost of preparing for and responding to  wildland fires have spurred numerous studies and actions by federal  wildland fire agencies, but little in the way of a coordinated and focused  effort to rein in these costs. Although the agencies have taken—and  continue to take—steps intended to contain wildland fire costs, the effect  of these steps on containing costs is unknown, in part because the  agencies lack a clear vision for what they want to achieve. Without clearly  defined cost-containment goals and objectives, federal land and fire  managers in the field are more likely to select strategies and tactics that  favor suppressing fires quickly over those that seek to balance the benefits  of protecting the resources at risk and the costs of protecting them.  Further, without clear goals, the agencies will be unable to develop  consistent standards by which to measure their performance. Perhaps  most important, without a clear vision of what they are trying to achieve  and a systematic approach for achieving it, the agencies—and Congress  and the American people—have little assurance that cost-containment  efforts will lead to substantial improvement.
Thus, to help the agencies manage their ongoing efforts to contain  wildland fire costs effectively and efficiently, and to assist Congress in its  oversight role, we recommended in our report that the Secretaries of  Agriculture and the Interior work together to direct their respective  agencies to (1) establish clearly defined goals and measurable objectives  for containing wildland fire costs, (2) develop a strategy to achieve these  goals and objectives, (3) establish performance measures that are aligned  with these goals and objectives, and (4) establish a framework to ensure  that officials are held accountable for achieving the goals and objectives.  Because of the importance of these actions and continuing concerns about  the agencies’ response to the increasing cost of wildland fires—and so that  the agencies can use the results of these actions to prepare for the 2008  fire season—the agencies should provide Congress with this information  no later than November 2007.
In commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service and Interior  generally disagreed with the characterization of many of our findings; they  neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. In particular, the  Forest Service and Interior stated that they did not believe we had  accurately portrayed some of the significant actions they had taken to  contain wildland fire costs, and they identified several agency documents  that they believe provide clearly defined goals and objectives that make up  their strategy to contain costs. Although documents cited by the agencies  provide overarching goals and objectives, we believe that they lack the  clarity and specificity needed by their land management and firefighting  officials in the field to help manage and contain wildland fire costs.  Therefore, we believe that our recommendations, if effectively  implemented, would help the agencies better manage their cost- containment efforts and improve their ability to contain wildland fire  costs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be please to  answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may  have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)  512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Ellen W. Chu;  Jonathan Dent; Janet Frisch; Chester Joy; and Richard Johnson made key  contributions to this statement.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.