Wildland Fire Risk Reduction: Multiple Factors Affect Federal-Nonfederal Collaboration, but Action Could Be Taken to Better Measure Progress
Published: 2017-05-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
Conditions such as dense vegetation and drought have resulted in more severe wildland fires in recent years, and some communities are experiencing the devastating effects of these fires.
Federal agencies can collaborate with nonfederal stakeholders to reduce the risk of wildland fires. This is a key aspect of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
We recommended that federal agencies work with the Wildland Fire Leadership Council—which provides oversight and leadership for the strategy—to develop measures to assess progress toward achieving the strategy’s goals.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 community-level 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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  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. 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. 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.” 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 “fire- adapted”—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.
You asked us to examine federal and nonfederal collaboration to reduce  wildland fire risk to communities. 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, 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. 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.
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  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.
Warm Springs Indian  Reservation  La Pine  Community 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. 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  Protection Association, the Intertribal Timber Council, and The Nature  Conservancy.
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.
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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.  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. Figure 1 shows the Forest Service’s assessment of  wildfire hazard potential across the country as of 2014.
subsections: section_title: Land Ownership and Wildland Fire Management Responsibilities
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. As noted, BIA is responsible  for the administration and management of lands held in trust by the  United States for Indian tribes, individuals, and Alaska Natives. 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.
section_title: Wildland-Urban Interface
paragraphs: 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, 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.
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.
section_title: Key Wildland Fire Risk- Reducing Activities
paragraphs: 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. Federal agencies have also funded landscape-scale fuel  reduction projects that span multiple jurisdictions and include multiple  partners. Federal initiatives involving such projects include the  Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Reserved  Treaty Rights Lands Program.
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. 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. 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 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.
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.” 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. 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.
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  (WFLC), an intergovernmental committee of federal, tribal, state, county,  and municipal government officials. 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.
section_title: Federal Policies and Laws Aimed at Federal- Nonfederal Collaboration to Reduce Risk
paragraphs: 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.
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  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 fire- sensitive 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  activities on adjacent state or private lands. 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. See appendix III for additional  details about these and other relevant laws.
section_title: Factors Such as Agency Initiatives and Joint Planning Were Cited by Federal Officials and Stakeholders in Our Review as Affecting Collaboration
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Federal Legal Authorities Aimed at Facilitating Collaboration
paragraphs: 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  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. 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. 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. We also  found that little data exist on the costs and benefits of NEPA analysis.  With respect to the Clean Air Act, see appendix IV for additional  information about the act and its effect on risk-reducing activities.
section_title: Specific Agency Initiatives Aimed at Collaborating Across Jurisdictions
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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. Figure 4 shows an example of tree thinning  in the Greater La Pine Basin 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. 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  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. 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. 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.
section_title: Joint Community-Level Planning
paragraphs: 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  parties. 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. 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. 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  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.
section_title: Leadership
paragraphs: 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  and community members said that engaged leaders enhance federal- nonfederal 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. 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.
section_title: Community Engagement
paragraphs: 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 federal- nonfederal 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,  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. 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  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.
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.
section_title: Agency Resources for Collaboration
paragraphs: 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. 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 risk- reduction 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”  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 non- suppression projects, such as fuel reduction projects. 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. 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. 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. The officials also said that  proposed changes to the department’s process for determining funding  distribution to its four agencies may have similar effects. 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.
section_title: Other Factors that Indirectly Affect Collaboration
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Community Education
paragraphs: 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. For example, a Florida Forest  Service official said the Firewise program helped communicate to  communities across the state the importance of reducing wildland fire  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.
Federal officials also said they have used the Ready, Set, Go! program to  educate the public. 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  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. 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.
section_title: Wildfire Prevention Messaging
paragraphs: 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. In  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.
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  40 in 2016. 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.
section_title: State and Local Requirements for Private Property Owners to Reduce Risk
paragraphs: 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 forestland- urban interface areas must reduce excess vegetation around structures  and along driveways that can fuel a fire. 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.  California state law also requires property owners in certain areas to  maintain a specified amount of defensible space around structures.
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. 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 high- frequency 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  create defensible space; instead, they decided to place such  requirements on homes located in the community’s highest risk areas.
section_title: Federal Officials and Stakeholders in Our Review Identified Several Actions They Said May Improve Their Ability to Reduce Wildland Fire Risk
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Improving Implementation of the Cohesive Strategy
paragraphs: 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  consistent with key characteristics we have described for developing and  implementing effective national strategies. 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. 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. 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  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.
section_title: Increasing Collaborative Planning
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.” 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  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.
section_title: Expanding Education
paragraphs: 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  educational approaches and information pathways that meet differing  learning styles.
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.
section_title: Increasing Prevention Efforts
paragraphs: 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  Forestry officials said that better studies and analyses on how human- caused 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.
section_title: Improving Timber- Processing Capability
paragraphs: Many community and tribal members said that improving their timber- processing 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 timber- processing market. 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.
section_title: Adopting State and Local Laws and Ordinances
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Providing Insurance Incentives for Property Owner Action
paragraphs: 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  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.
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. 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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 fire- prone 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.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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. 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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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. 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  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. 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- nonfederal efforts to reduce wildland fire risk. During these interviews we  asked about ways in which they collaborated with federal land  management agencies and factors that enhanced or hindered their ability  to collaborate. Table 2 provides a list of nonfederal associations,  organizations, and committees included in our review.
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  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  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  specific type of stakeholder, such as community members. 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Full Text of Figure 2, Characteristics of Communities Included in Our Review
paragraphs: Table 3 shows various characteristics of the communities included in our  review.
section_title: Appendix III: Summary of Federal Laws Aimed at Reducing Wildland Fire Risk through Collaboration
paragraphs: Table 4 describes several federal laws aimed at reducing wildland fire risk  through collaboration.
section_title: Appendix IV: National and State Air Quality Standards
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Appendix V: Selected Federal Programs Providing Risk-Reduction Funding to States and Localities
paragraphs: 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. 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  campaign with the Ad Council, and The Nature Conservancy Fire  Learning Network.
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. 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  for BLM and from an estimated $1.2 million to $355,000 for Bureau of  Indian Affairs, according to these officials.
section_title: Appendix VI: Department of the Interior’s Risk-Based Wildland Fire Management Model
paragraphs: 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,  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. 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.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.