Wildland Fire Management: A Cohesive Strategy and Clear Cost-Containment Goals Are Needed for Federal Agencies to Manage Wildland Fire Activities Effectively
Published: 2007-06-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Increasing wildland fire threats to communities and ecosystems, combined with rising costs of addressing those threats--trends that GAO and others have reported on for many years--have not abated. On average, the acreage burned annually by wildland fires from 2000 to 2005 was 70 percent greater than the acreage burned annually during the 1990s. Annual appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires have also increased substantially over the past decade, totaling about $3 billion in recent years. The Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior (Interior) are responsible for responding to wildland fires on federal lands. This testimony summarizes several key actions that federal agencies need to complete or take to strengthen their management of the wildland fire program, including the need to (1) develop a long-term, cohesive strategy to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems and (2) improve the management of their efforts to contain the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires. The testimony is based on several previous GAO reports and testimonies addressing wildland fire issues.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Forest Service and Interior agencies need to complete several actions to strengthen their overall management of the wildland fire program. First, because a substantial investment and decades of work will be required to address wildland fire problems that have been decades in the making, the agencies need a cohesive strategy that addresses the full range of wildland fire management activities. Such a strategy should identify the available long-term options and associated funding for reducing excess vegetation and responding to wildland fires if the agencies and the Congress are to make informed decisions about an effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland fire problems. GAO first recommended in 1999 that such a strategy be developed to address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to increase the severity of wildland fires and cost of suppression efforts. By 2005, the agencies had yet to develop such a strategy, and GAO reiterated the need for a cohesive strategy and broadened the recommendation's focus to better address the interrelated nature of fuel reduction efforts and wildland fire response. Further, because the agencies said they would be unable to develop a cohesive strategy until they have completed certain key tasks, GAO recommended that the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining these tasks and the time frames needed for completing each task and a cohesive strategy. Although the agencies concurred with GAO's recommendations, as of April 2007, they had yet to develop a tactical plan. Second, as GAO testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in January 2007, the steps the Forest Service and Interior agencies have taken to date to contain wildland fire costs lack several key elements fundamental to sound program management, such as clearly defining cost-containment goals, developing a strategy for achieving those goals, and measuring progress toward achieving them. For cost-containment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland fire program--such as protecting life, resources, and property--and to recognize that trade-offs will be needed to meet desired goals within the context of fiscal constraints. Further, because cost-containment goals need to be considered in relation to other wildland fire program goals, it is important that the agencies integrate cost-containment goals within an overall cohesive strategy. GAO's forthcoming report on federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland fire costs includes more-detailed findings and recommendations to the agencies to improve the management of their cost-containment efforts; this report is expected to be released at a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing scheduled for June 26, 2007.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the key steps that we believe  federal wildland fire agencies—the Forest Service within the Department  of Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior  (Interior)—need to complete to manage their efforts to prepare for and  respond to wildland fires effectively. Increasing wildland fire threats to  communities and ecosystems, combined with rising costs of addressing  those threats—trends that we and others have reported on for many  years—have not abated. On average, the acreage burned annually by  wildland fires from 2000 to 2005 was 70 percent greater than the acreage  burned annually during the 1990s. Appropriations to federal agencies to  prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including appropriations for  reducing fuels, have also increased substantially, from an average of $1.1  billion annually from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to an average of more  than $2.9 billion annually from fiscal years 2001 through 2005 (adjusted for  inflation, these appropriations increased from $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion).  A number of factors have contributed to more-severe fires and  corresponding increases in expenditures for wildland fire management  activities. These factors include an accumulation of fuels due to past fire  suppression policies; severe weather and drought in some areas of the  country; and growing numbers of homes built in or near wildlands, an area  known as the wildland-urban interface. In light of the federal deficit and  the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation, attention has increasingly  focused on ways to contain these growing expenditures and to ensure that  federal agencies’ wildland fire activities are appropriate and carried out in  a cost-effective and efficient manner.
My testimony today is based on several of our previous reports and  testimonies, which together discuss key issues we have identified over the  last 7 years in federal agencies’ management of wildland fire and critical  actions the agencies need to complete if they are to effectively manage  their efforts to prepare for and respond to wildland fires. Specifically, my  testimony focuses on the Forest Service and Interior agencies’ (1) efforts  to develop a long-term, cohesive strategy to reduce fuels and address  wildland fire problems and (2) management of their efforts to contain the  costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Over the past decade, the number of acres burned annually by wildland  fires in the United States has substantially increased. Federal  appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including  appropriations for fuel treatments, have almost tripled. Increases in the  size and severity of wildland fires, and in the cost of preparing for and  responding to them, have led federal agencies to fundamentally reexamine  their approach to wildland fire management. For decades, federal agencies  aggressively suppressed wildland fires and were generally successful in  decreasing the number of acres burned. In some parts of the country,  however, rather than eliminating severe wildland fires, decades of  suppression contributed to the disruption of ecological cycles and began  to change the structure and composition of forests and rangelands,  thereby making lands more susceptible to fire.
Increasingly, federal agencies have recognized the role that fire plays in  many ecosystems and the role that it could play in the agencies’  management of forests and watersheds. The agencies worked together to  develop a federal wildland fire management policy in 1995, which for the  first time formally recognized the essential role of fire in sustaining natural  systems; this policy was subsequently reaffirmed and updated in 2001. The  agencies, in conjunction with Congress, also began developing the  National Fire Plan in 2000. To align their policies and to ensure a  consistent and coordinated effort to implement the federal wildland fire  policy and National Fire Plan, Agriculture and Interior established the  Wildland Fire Leadership Council in 2002. In addition to noting the  negative effects of past successes in suppressing wildland fires, the policy  and plan also recognized that continued development in the wildland- urban interface has placed more structures at risk from wildland fire at the  same time that it has increased the complexity and cost of wildland fire  suppression. Forest Service and university researchers estimated in 2005  that about 44 million homes in the lower 48 states are located in the  wildland-urban interface.
To help address these trends, current federal policy directs agencies to  consider land management objectives—identified in land and fire  management plans developed by each local unit, such as a national forest  or a Bureau of Land Management district—and the structures and  resources at risk when determining whether or how to suppress a wildland  fire. When a fire starts, the land manager at the affected local unit is  responsible for determining the strategy that will be used to respond to the  fire. A wide spectrum of strategies is available, some of which can be  significantly more costly than others. For example, the agencies may fight  fires ignited close to communities or other high-value areas more  aggressively than fires on remote lands or at sites where fire may provide  ecological or fuel-reduction benefits. In some cases, the agencies may  simply monitor a fire, or take only limited suppression actions, to ensure  that the fire continues to pose little threat to important resources, a  practice known as “wildland fire use.”
section_title: Agencies Need a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Problems
paragraphs: Federal firefighting agencies need a cohesive strategy for reducing fuels  and addressing wildland fire issues. Such a strategy should identify the  available long-term options and associated funding for reducing excess  vegetation and responding to wildland fires if the agencies and the  Congress are to make informed decisions about an effective and  affordable long-term approach for addressing problems that have been  decades in the making. We first recommended in 1999 such a strategy be  developed to address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to  increase the severity of wildland fires and cost of suppression efforts. By  2005, the agencies had yet to develop such a strategy, and we reiterated  the need for a cohesive strategy and broadened our recommendation’s  focus to better address the interrelated nature of fuel reduction efforts and  wildland fire response. The agencies said they would be unable to develop  a cohesive strategy until they have completed certain key tasks. We  therefore recommended that the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining  these tasks and the time frames needed for completing each task and a  cohesive strategy. These tasks include (1) finishing data systems that are  needed to identify the extent, severity, and location of wildland fire threats  in our national forests and rangelands; (2) updating local fire management  plans to better specify the actions needed to effectively address these  threats; and (3) assessing the cost-effectiveness and affordability of  options for reducing fuels and responding to wildland fire problems.
First, federal firefighting agencies have made progress in developing a  system to help them better identify and set priorities for lands needing  treatment to reduce accumulated fuels. Many past studies have identified  fuel reduction as important for containing wildland fire costs because  accumulated fuels can contribute to more-severe and more costly fires.  The agencies are developing a geospatial data and modeling system, called  LANDFIRE, intended to produce consistent and comprehensive maps and  data describing vegetation, wildland fuels, and fire regimes across the  United States. The agencies will be able to use this information to help  identify fuel accumulations and fire hazards across the nation, help set  nationwide priorities for fuel-reduction projects, and assist in determining  an appropriate response when wildland fires do occur. LANDFIRE data  are nearly complete for most of the western United States, with data for  the remainder of the country scheduled to be completed in 2009. The  agencies, however, have not yet finalized their plan for ensuring that  collected data are routinely updated to reflect changes to fuels, including  those from landscape-altering events, such as hurricanes, disease, or  wildland fires themselves. The agencies expect to submit a plan to the  Wildland Fire Leadership Council for approval later this month.
Second, we reported in 2006 that 95 percent of the agencies’ individual  land management units had completed fire management plans in  accordance with agency direction issued in 2001. As of January 2007,  however, the agencies did not require regular updates to ensure that new  data (from LANDFIRE, for example) were incorporated into the plans. In  addition, in the wake of two court decisions—each holding that the Forest  Service was required to prepare an environmental assessment or  environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy  Act (NEPA) to accompany the relevant fire management plan—the  Forest Service decided to withdraw the two plans instead of completing  them. It is unclear whether the agency would withdraw other fire  management plans successfully challenged under NEPA; nor is it clear  whether or to what extent such agency decisions could undermine the  interagency policy directing that every burnable acre have a fire  management plan. Without such plans, however, current agency policy  does not allow use of the entire range of wildland fire response strategies,  including less aggressive, and potentially less costly, strategies. Moreover,  in examining 17 fire management plans, a May 2007 review of large  wildland fires managed by the Forest Service in 2006 identified several  shortcomings, including that most of the plans examined did not contain  current information on fuel conditions, many did not provide sufficient  guidance on selecting firefighting strategies, and only 1 discussed issues  related to suppression costs.
Third, over the past several years, the agencies have been developing a  Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, which was proposed and funded to  help the agencies    determine national budget needs by analyzing budget alternatives at the  local level—using a common, interagency process for fire management  planning and budgeting—and aggregating the results;   determine the relative costs and benefits for the full scope of fire  management activities, including potential trade-offs among investments  in fuel reduction, fire preparedness, and fire suppression activities; and identify, for a given budget level, the most cost-effective mix of personnel  and equipment to carry out these activities.
We have said for several years—and the agencies have concurred—that  FPA is critical to helping the agencies contain wildland fire costs and plan  and budget effectively. Recent design modifications to the system,  however, raise questions about the agencies’ ability to fully achieve key  FPA goals. A midcourse review of the developing system resulted in the  Wildland Fire Leadership Council’s approving in December 2006  modifications to the system’s design. FPA and senior Forest Service and  Interior officials told us they believed the modifications would allow the  agencies to meet the key goals. The officials said they expected to have a  prototype developed for the council’s review in June 2007 and to  substantially complete the system by June 2008. We have yet to  systematically review the modifications, but after reviewing agency  reports on the modifications and interviewing knowledgeable officials, we  have concerns that the modifications may not allow the agencies to meet  FPA’s key goals. For example, under the redesigned system, local land  managers will use a different method to analyze and select various budget  alternatives, and it is unclear whether this method will identify the most  cost-effective allocation of resources. In addition, it is unclear how the  budget alternatives for local units will be meaningfully aggregated on a  nationwide basis, a key FPA goal.
Although the agencies have made progress on these three primary tasks,  as of April 2007, they had yet to complete a joint tactical plan outlining the  critical steps, together with related time frames, that the agencies would  take to complete a cohesive strategy, as we recommended in our 2005  report. We continue to believe that, until a cohesive strategy can be  developed, it is essential that the agencies create a tactical plan for  developing this strategy, so Congress understands the steps and time  frames involved in completing the strategy.
section_title: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Contain Wildland Fire Costs
paragraphs: As we testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural  Resources in January 2007, the steps the Forest Service and Interior  agencies have taken to date to contain wildland fire costs lack several key  elements fundamental to sound program management, such as clearly  defining cost-containment goals, developing a strategy for achieving those  goals, and measuring progress toward achieving them. First, the agencies  have not clearly articulated the goals of their cost-containment efforts. For  cost-containment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to integrate  cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland fire program— such as protecting life, property, and resources. For example, the agencies  have established the goal of suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost,  considering firefighter and public safety and values being protected, but  they have not defined criteria by which these often-competing objectives  are to be weighed. Second, although the agencies are undertaking a variety  of steps designed to help contain wildland fire costs, the agencies have not  developed a clear plan for how these efforts fit together or the extent to  which they will assist in containing costs. Finally, the agencies are  developing a statistical model of fire suppression costs that they plan to  use to identify when the cost for an individual fire may have been  excessive. The model compares a fire’s cost to the costs of suppressing  previous fires with similar characteristics. However, such comparisons  with previous fires’ costs may not fully consider the potential for managers  to select less aggressive—and potentially less costly—suppression  strategies. In addition, the model is still under development and may take a  number of years to fully refine. Without clear program goals and  objectives, and corresponding performance measures to evaluate  progress, the agencies lack the tools to be able to determine the  effectiveness of their cost-containment efforts. Our forthcoming report on  federal agencies’ efforts to contain wildland fire costs includes more- detailed findings and recommendations to the agencies to improve the  management of their cost-containment efforts; this report is expected to  be released at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and  Natural Resources scheduled for June 26, 2007.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Complex conditions have contributed to increasing wildland fire severity.  These conditions have been decades in the making, and will take decades  to resolve. The agencies must develop an effective and affordable strategy  for addressing these conditions in light of the large federal deficit and the  long-term fiscal challenges facing our nation. To make informed decisions  about an effective and affordable long-term approach to addressing  wildland fire problems, the agencies need to develop a cohesive strategy  that identifies the available long-term options and associated funding for  reducing excess vegetation and responding to wildland fires. Because the  agencies cannot develop such a strategy until they complete certain key  tasks, we continue to believe that in the interim the agencies must create a  tactical plan for developing this strategy so that Congress can monitor the  agencies’ progress. While the agencies continue to work toward  developing a cohesive strategy, they have initiated a number of efforts  intended to contain wildland fire costs, but the agencies cannot  demonstrate the effectiveness of these cost containment efforts, in part  because the agencies have no clearly defined cost-containment goals and  objectives. Without clear goals, the agencies cannot develop consistent  standards by which to measure their performance. Further, without these  goals and objectives, federal land and fire managers in the field are more  likely to select strategies and tactics that favor suppressing fires quickly  over those that seek to balance the benefits of protecting the resources at  risk and the costs of protecting them. Perhaps most important, without a  clear vision of what they are trying to achieve and a systematic approach  for achieving it, the agencies—and Congress and the American people— have little assurance that their cost-containment efforts will lead to  substantial improvement. Moreover, because cost-containment goals  should be considered in relation to other wildland fire program goals— such as protecting life, resources, and property—the agencies must  integrate cost-containment goals within the overall cohesive strategy for  responding to wildland fires that we have consistently recommended.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee  may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)  512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Ellen W. Chu;  Jonathan Dent; Janet Frisch; Chester Joy; and Richard Johnson made key  contributions to this statement.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.