Wildfire Disasters: FEMA Could Take Additional Actions to Address Unique Response and Recovery Challenges

In 2017 and 2018, deadly wildfires struck the state of California, tragically resulting in 159 deaths and over 32,000 structures destroyed. FEMA, as the lead federal agency for responding to and recovering from disasters, has obligated about $2 billion in housing, debris removal, and other assistance following these disasters. According to recent environmental assessments, fire seasons are increasing in length, putting more people and infrastructure at risk.

GAO was asked to assess a range of response and recovery issues related to the 2017 disasters. Specifically, this report addresses (1) the assistance FEMA provided to jurisdictions in response to major disaster declarations stemming from wildfires from 2015 through 2018, (2) selected jurisdictions' perspectives on FEMA wildfire response and recovery efforts, and (3) the extent to which FEMA has identified and addressed key lessons learned. GAO obtained data on FEMA wildfire disaster assistance and statistics on fire damages and fatalities; reviewed key documentation, such as incident action plans and after action reports; and interviewed officials from FEMA headquarters and regional offices, states, and a nonprobability sample of affected local jurisdictions (e.g., counties).

For wildfire-related major disaster declarations from 2015 through 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—consistent with its authorities and responsibilities—helped state and local officials obtain and coordinate federal resources to provide for the needs of wildfire survivors and execute recovery efforts. This support totalled over $2.4 billion and included providing staff to assist at Emergency Operations Centers and establishing Disaster Recovery Centers to coordinate disaster assistance services for survivors. In addition, FEMA provided Public Assistance grant funds to local jurisdictions to help address community infrastructure needs, such as debris removal. FEMA also assigned federal agencies to perform various missions to help with response and recovery—for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was assigned with contracting for debris removal services in some instances.

Officials from jurisdictions that GAO spoke with described practices that aided in wildfire response and recovery, but also reported experiencing challenges. Specifically, officials in affected areas noted that collaboration between FEMA and California's Office of Emergency Services allowed for timely information sharing, and FEMA's assistance at Disaster Recovery Centers greatly assisted survivors in obtaining necessary services. Among the challenges cited were onerous documentation requirements for FEMA's Public Assistance grant program and locating temporary housing for survivors whose homes were completely destroyed. In addition, the unique challenge of removing wildfire debris led to confusion over soil excavation standards and led to overexcavation on some homeowners' lots, lengthening the rebuilding process.

FEMA has developed an after-action report identifying lessons learned from the October and December 2017 wildfires, but could benefit from a more comprehensive assessment of its operations to determine if additional actions are needed to ensure that policies and procedures are best suited to prepare for future wildfires. The combination of recent devastating wildfires and projections for increased wildfire activity suggest a potential change in FEMA's operating environment. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government , such changes should be analyzed and addressed to help ensure that agencies maintain their effectiveness.

GAO recommends that FEMA comprehensively assess operations to identify additional updates to policies and procedures that could enhance future wildfire response and recovery efforts. The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendation.

In 2017, deadly wildfires ravaged both Northern and Southern regions of  California resulting in two separate major disaster declarations.  Additional California wildfires occurred in 2018, including the Camp Fire in  Butte County, which claimed 85 lives, becoming the deadliest wildfire in  California history. In total, the wildfires in California that ultimately led to  major disaster declarations in 2017 and 2018 resulted in 159 deaths,  nearly 1.5 million acres burned, and over 32,000 structures destroyed. To  date, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—which is the  lead federal agency for responding to and recovering from domestic  disasters—has obligated about $2 billion to assist in response to and  recovery from these disasters.

According to recent assessments of wildfire management strategies and  climate factors, fire seasons are increasing in length and the occurrence  of large fires in the western United States and Alaska is increasing. In  addition, human development in and around wildland areas continues to  increase, putting more people, structures, and infrastructure at risk of  being affected by wildfires. Although historically wildfire disasters are  generally a small proportion of the major disaster declarations FEMA  supports, assessments from the United States Global Change Research  Program and others suggest that demand for FEMA resources to help  communities recover from wildfire disasters may increase.

You asked us to review a broad range of issues related to disaster  response and recovery following the 2017 disaster season. Because of  the devastation caused by wildfires in 2017 and 2018 and the potential for  increased wildfire activity in the future, this report addresses:  1.  Assistance that FEMA provided to jurisdictions with major disaster  declarations from wildfires from 2015 through 2018;  2.  Selected jurisdictions’ perspectives on FEMA wildfire response and  3.  The extent to which FEMA has identified and addressed key lessons  learned.

To determine the assistance FEMA provided during the major wildfire  disasters in our review, we gathered data from 2015 through 2018 from  various FEMA databases, including FEMA systems for financial  accounting, grants tracking, and gathering of other disaster-related  information. These data included the dollar amount of Public Assistance  provided to state and local applicants, Individual Assistance provided to  survivors, and monies reimbursed to other federal agencies to which  FEMA assigned various tasks. We also gathered data through the  California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection on acreage burned,  structures destroyed, and lives lost and verified these data with officials  from this state department. By leveraging information such as data  gathered and interviews conducted during other assessments of data  reliability from previous GAO reviews, and confirming data with relevant  officials from the California state department, we determined that these  data were reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. The six  disaster declarations in this review represent the universe of major  disaster declarations for wildfires for which FEMA provided both Public  Assistance and Individual Assistance from 2015 through 2018. We  identified them by reviewing data available on FEMA’s website. We  selected this date range to reflect the very active 2017 and 2018 seasons  and the years immediately prior, to be able to observe similarities and  differences in these experiences. These disaster declarations are listed in  table 1.

In addition, we developed fire maps for the six major disasters in our  review using open source data from the Homeland Infrastructure  Foundation-Level Data website and the U.S. Census Bureau. We also  reviewed documents from FEMA, such as timelines of key events,  situation reports, and action plans to gather additional descriptive  information on efforts to assist local entities in recovering from these  disasters.

To identify selected jurisdictions’ perspectives on FEMA response and  recovery efforts after these wildfires, we interviewed officials from the  California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and a  nongeneralizable sample of seven affected counties (six in California, one  in Tennessee), selected to represent at least one county from every  declared disaster in our scope, considering such factors as the extent and  nature of the damage. During these interviews, we discussed officials’  perspectives on successes and challenges, and potential areas for  improvement. We supplemented the information gathered during these  interviews during site visits to Napa and Sonoma Counties to meet with  county and city officials in-person and observe wildfire-damaged areas  and efforts to rebuild neighborhoods damaged or destroyed by the fires.  We also gathered additional state and federal perspectives on the August  2018 California wildfires during a site visit to the Joint Field Office in  Sacramento, California, and the Shasta County Disaster Recovery Center  in Redding, California. While the views of these officials cannot be  generalized to represent all jurisdictions affected by wildfires, they provide  valuable perspectives on the successful elements of the response and  recovery process and particular challenges experienced by local officials.

To determine the extent to which FEMA has identified and addressed key  lessons learned, we interviewed officials from FEMA’s headquarters  responsible for Public Assistance program delivery as well as FEMA’s  Regions IV and IX, which coordinate assistance in Tennessee and  California, respectively. In addition, we reviewed documents such as prior  GAO reports, FEMA program guidance, and after action reports. We then  compared FEMA’s efforts to identify and address lessons learned from  these wildfires with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, which, among other things, provides standards for how  management responds to changes in operating environments.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2018 to October 2019 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.

FEMA’s Role in Providing Assistance During and After Wildfires

The activities and resources required to suppress wildfires generally  belong to the states and federal agencies with land management  missions, such as the U.S. Forest Service and four bureaus (Bureau of  Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, and  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) within the U.S. Department of the Interior.  FEMA can provide reimbursement to help support wildfire suppression  (e.g., labor costs for overtime or seasonal personnel involved in fire  suppression activities). When a wildfire burns on nonfederal lands and  threatens to become a major disaster, a state governor or governor’s  representative may request federal assistance via a Fire Management  Assistance Grant (FMAG) administered by FEMA. While the fire is  burning, a governor’s office can submit a verbal request for an FMAG to  the designated FEMA regional office, followed within 14 days by a formal  written request. The regional administrator then either approves or denies the request after consulting with relevant officials from the U.S.  Forest Service or bureaus within the U.S. Department of the Interior about  technical aspects of the fire. Eligible FMAG costs include, among other  things, equipment and supplies, labor costs, travel and per diem,  temporary repairs of damage caused by firefighting activities, mobilization  and demobilization of resources, and limited costs of pre-positioning fire  prevention or suppression resources.

From fiscal years 2009 through 2018, FEMA awarded 374 FMAGs  totaling $952,318,049. The average FMAG during this timeframe was  about $2.5 million. The state of California received the majority of those  grant funds—over $543 million. Figure 1 below illustrates the states that  received FMAGs during this 10 year period, figure 2 provides annual  FMAG totals, and figure 3 provides a breakout of the dollars distributed by  state for this same 10 year period.

If a wildfire increases in size and intensity in a manner that overwhelms  the ability of state, tribal, territorial or local governments to respond and  recover effectively, a state or tribal government can request and the  President can approve a major disaster declaration, as with other types of  disasters (e.g., a hurricane or flood). A disaster declaration is the  primary mechanism by which the federal government gets involved in  funding and coordinating response and recovery activities. Under the  National Response Framework, the Department of Homeland Security  (DHS) is the federal department with primary responsibility for  coordinating disaster response, and within DHS, FEMA has lead  responsibility. From fiscal years 2009 through 2018, a total of 19 major  disasters were declared as a result of wildfires. Figure 4 shows the  number and locations of these major disaster declarations.

Once a major disaster is declared, FEMA can provide funds for response  and recovery efforts through the Disaster Relief Fund and coordinate  other federal support through the National Response Framework’s 14  Emergency Support Functions. Federal assistance following a major  disaster declaration includes the following:  Individual Assistance: FEMA’s Individual Assistance programs provide  assistance directly to individuals and households, as well as state, local,  tribal, and territorial governments to support individual survivors. This  assistance covers necessary expenditures and serious needs that cannot  be met through insurance or low-interest loans, such as temporary  housing assistance, counseling, unemployment compensation, or medical  expenses. See appendix I for a further description of FEMA’s Individual  Assistance program.

Public Assistance: FEMA’s Public Assistance program provides  supplemental federal disaster grant assistance to state, local, tribal, and  territorial governments and certain types of private nonprofit organizations  for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the restoration  of disaster-damaged, publicly-owned facilities and the facilities of certain  private nonprofit organizations. The eligibility rules outline the types of  damage that can be reimbursed by the federal government and steps that  federal, state, and local governments must take in order to document  eligibility. If the debris on private property is determined to be so  widespread that it threatens the health, safety, or economic recovery of  the community, FEMA may determine that debris removal from private  property, including contaminated soil, is eligible for reimbursement under  the Public Assistance program. An applicant (a state, territorial, or tribal  government) may contract for debris removal. Alternatively, if an applicant  lacks the capability to perform or contract for debris removal, the  applicant may request that the federal government perform the work. In  such cases, FEMA may task another federal agency, typically the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to perform or contract the work by  issuing a mission assignment (see description below). See appendix I for  a further description of FEMA’s Public Assistance program.

Mission Assignment to Other Agencies: FEMA can fulfill disaster  response needs through mission assignments—work orders it issues to  another federal agency to provide a service or other response need. For  example, FEMA may request medical teams from the Department of  Health and Human Services and logistical support from the Department of  Defense.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: This program is designed to improve  disaster resilience—the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover  from, and more successfully adapt to disasters—during recovery. The  program funds a wide range of projects, such as use of non-combustible  materials on new and existing homes to mitigate risk from future wildfires,  adding shutters to windows to prevent future damage from hurricane  winds and rains, and rebuilding culverts in drainage ditches to prevent  future flooding damage.

Table 2 below shows money obligated for Individual Assistance, Public  Assistance, mitigation efforts, operations (including mission assignments),  and administrative costs for the 19 major disaster declarations resulting  from wildfires from fiscal years 2009 through 2018.

Other Federal Roles and Responsibilities for Wildfires

The U.S. Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the  Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service, and National Park Service within the Department of the  Interior, are responsible for managing wildfires on federal lands. Wildfire  management consists of three primary components:  1.  Preparedness involves acquiring and positioning firefighting assets.  2.  Suppression involves selecting among strategies to extinguish or  contain a fire, with the aim of protecting firefighters and public safety  and using the minimum resources necessary.  3.  Fuels Reduction involves acting in advance of wildfires to manage  vegetation with the aim of reducing the intensity, severity, or negative  effects of a wildfire. We are currently reviewing federal fuel reduction  efforts, and how those efforts consider community protection, and  plan to issue a report on the subject later this year.

State Efforts and Assistance Available for Fighting Wildfires

State forestry agencies and other nonfederal entities—including tribal,  county, city, and rural fire departments—have primary responsibility for  managing wildfires on nonfederal lands, and share responsibility for  protecting homes and other private structures. When a wildfire occurs on  nonfederal lands and begins to exceed the state or local entity’s ability to  effectively respond to the wildfire, the state or local entity may seek  assistance from neighboring jurisdictions, typically through prescribed  mutual aid agreements. For example, during wildfires in California in  October and December of 2017, the California Governor’s Office of  Emergency Services used the California fire and rescue and law  enforcement mutual aid systems, along with the national Emergency  Management Assistance Compact to mobilize and organize a large  number of emergency services. In total, according to California  Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, over 400 state and local  government and 200 out-of-state fire departments sent engines, crews,  and other assets to assist the local firefighting efforts. When a state or  local jurisdiction needs further firefighting assistance, it may request  additional support through Geographic Area Coordination Centers  overseen by the National Interagency Fire Center. Once a Geographic  Area Coordination Center has exhausted the resources it can provide, it  can turn to the National Interagency Coordination Center within the  National Interagency Fire Center for further assistance.

FEMA Provided Assistance to Help Wildfire-Affected State and Local Jurisdictions Consistent with Its Role in the National Response and Recovery Frameworks

For wildfire disaster declarations from 2015 to 2018, FEMA provided a  variety of assistance to state and local emergency management officials  consistent with roles and responsibilities in the National Response  Framework and National Disaster Recovery Framework.  Specifically,  FEMA helped these jurisdictions by reimbursing some fire suppression  costs, supporting state-led efforts to coordinate the response and provide  for the immediate needs of displaced survivors, and helping localities plan  and execute recovery. FEMA has obligated over $2.4 billion to assist in  response to and recovery from these disasters to date.

As previously discussed, although states and other federal agencies have  primary responsibility for fire suppression, some state and local fire  suppression costs are eligible for reimbursement through FMAGs. Most  wildfire-affected states and localities in our scope received this kind of fire  suppression support from FEMA initially in the form of the FMAGs. As the  fires ultimately led to major disaster declarations, any funding that FEMA  would have provided through the FMAGs were ultimately provided under  Public Assistance as part of the declaration.

To support state-led response and provide for the immediate needs of  displaced survivors, FEMA deployed staff to assist in state Emergency  Operations Centers and secured needed resources for mass care—such  as cots to help with temporary sheltering, according to state officials. In  addition, FEMA assigned federal agencies to perform various missions to  help with disaster response. For example, the Environmental Protection  Agency provided hazardous material cleanup of damaged properties, and  USACE provided public works services, such as contracting for debris  removal.

As response activities continued and recovery began, FEMA and the  state emergency management agencies established Joint Field Offices,  which are temporary field offices established to coordinate federal and  state efforts in disaster response and recovery, and provided resources to  help individual disaster survivors with community services and housing  needs. For example, following wildfires in November 2018—including the  Camp Fire in Butte County—FEMA provided over $55 million to survivors  to reimburse them for the cost of temporary lodging and rentals after their  homes were destroyed. In addition, FEMA provided funding and support  to local jurisdictions to help address community infrastructure needs. For  example, FEMA obligated money to pay for wildfire debris removal from  public property as well as from private property, given the widespread  effect on the community of toxic fire debris.

Also to support recovery, in coordination with state and local entities,  FEMA established and staffed Disaster Recovery Centers, which are  facilities or mobile offices where survivors can go for information about  FEMA programs or other disaster assistance programs. Representatives  from the relevant state agencies, FEMA, U.S. Small Business  Administration, volunteer agencies, and other agencies were at the  centers to answer questions about and help survivors apply for disaster  assistance and low-interest disaster loans for homeowners, renters, and  businesses.

Finally, to assist local jurisdictions with longer-term recovery, FEMA  provided assistance to some locally-led long-term recovery activities  designed to address housing and other survivor needs in the community.  Table 3 shows the amount of assistance FEMA provided for each of the  six major disasters that we reviewed, and Appendix II provides a more  detailed breakdown of each major disaster, including a map of each  disaster, the number of structures that were destroyed, and mission  assignment data.

Multiple Jurisdictions Reported FEMA Practices that Aided in Wildfire Response and Recovery, But also Experienced Challenges

State and local officials we spoke with reported practices that aided in  wildfire response and recovery and also experienced challenges that  arose in multiple jurisdictions across different disasters.

Jurisdictions Noted Specific Actions that Aided Response and Recovery Efforts

When asked what worked well, officials from three out of the six California  counties told us that FEMA and the California Governor’s Office of  Emergency Services collaborated effectively during response and  recovery efforts. For example, one of the three counties reported that  when posing questions or concerns to the California Governor’s Office of  Emergency Services, they were able to quickly obtain answers or further  information and get help navigating complex issues. As we reported in  2018, according to officials in the California Governor’s Office of  Emergency Services and FEMA, they have developed a strong  relationship with each other over time, which helps both agencies deliver  consistent, unified information to stakeholders and disaster survivors.

Local officials also praised FEMA’s role in helping to set up and operate  Disaster Recovery Centers. Officials in four of the six California counties  that we interviewed noted that FEMA was quick to send staff to assist  local jurisdiction staff and disaster survivors at the facilities established to  provide assistance, such as Local Assistance Centers (generally  activated by the county in the immediate wake of a disaster to provide  government services to survivors) and Disaster Recovery Centers  established by FEMA. For example, one of these counties noted that  FEMA had staff available at their Local Assistance Center to support  requests for Individual Assistance and other items shortly after the  disaster was declared, and the county received positive feedback from  the public about the varied types of support provided by experienced staff  at their Local Assistance Center.

Officials in one of the counties mentioned above, as well as FEMA  officials, cited as good practices efforts to bring together local and state  providers of governmental services to provide a variety of assistance in  one place. For example, FEMA credited one county for their efforts in  partnering with a local mental health service provider to offer mental  health counseling on site at a Disaster Recovery Center, as opposed to  referring individuals to such services off site.

Similarly, one Disaster Recovery Center we visited in California included  representation from a number of different state agencies, such as the  state’s contractors’ licensing board, insurance regulators, department of  employment opportunities, and franchise tax board. Officials explained  that being able to access a variety of state services in a Disaster  Recovery Center can be particularly helpful for fire survivors, as they may  have evacuated their homes with very little notice and lost all their  identifying documentation to the fire.

Jurisdictions Experienced a Number of Response and Recovery Challenges

State and county officials described challenges that were present in  several of the wildfire disaster declarations that we reviewed. Some of  these challenges—such as a complex Public Assistance application  process or FEMA staff turnover—are not specific to wildfires and could  also affect recovery efforts after a hurricane, flood, or other natural  disaster. Some challenges were more specific to and further complicated  by the nature of wildfire disasters. These challenges include the  complexity and scale of fire debris removal, shortage of temporary  housing for wildfire survivors, and lack of local experience dealing with  the magnitude of the wildfires encountered in 2017 and 2018.

Complexity and Timeframes for FEMA Public Assistance Applications

Officials in three of the seven counties we met with said that the onerous  and confusing documentation required when applying for Public  Assistance grants was a challenge. For example, an official from one  county told us that the Public Assistance guidance in effect at the time his  county was recovering from disaster contained conflicting information,  though he believed this issue has since been resolved.

Officials in two counties also described difficulty meeting the deadlines for  application submission, especially while managing the other demands of  disaster response and recovery. We have previously reported on  challenges with FEMA’s administration of the Public Assistance program,  including effectively overseeing and staffing the program, among other  things. Officials from FEMA’s Public Assistance Division acknowledged  that the complexity of the program has been a challenge for local officials  in recent years. The officials pointed to the development of a new Public  Assistance delivery model as the key initiative to address these  challenges. This new delivery model, which includes a new information  portal designed to improve local officials’ ability to upload and submit  information, was intended to clarify program requirements, improve  operations, and respond to previously-identified challenges, according to  FEMA officials. FEMA introduced the new model in California during the  recovery phase of the 2017 wildfires.

Officials from two of the selected counties stated that the new information  portal eased the process of submitting documentation for FEMA review.  In 2017, we reported on the historical challenges with FEMA’s Public  Assistance program and identified additional challenges with the roll-out  of the new delivery model, including the need to determine its staffing  needs for supporting rollout of the system and strengthen controls over  the information system being used. California officials we spoke with  also noted that in order for the new delivery model to be used efficiently, it  would be helpful for FEMA to provide additional training to stakeholders  who use the system. According to FEMA officials, FEMA provided a  number of training sessions on the new model to California stakeholders  between August 2017 and April 2019.

Officials in three of the seven selected counties told us that frequent  rotations of FEMA staff during disaster response and recovery was  disruptive. For example, after working with state and local officials  following a disaster, the rotations of FEMA staff resulted in having to re- share information that was already provided to FEMA, as well as  inconsistent advice or interpretation of FEMA guidelines. FEMA officials  acknowledged that ensuring continuity following staff turnover has long  been an issue in multiple complex disaster environments. They noted a  number of reasons why a staff member in a position might turn over. For  example, according to FEMA officials, the disasters in 2017, including  Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, as well as the California wildfires,  required FEMA management to redeploy response personnel from one  disaster to the next. We have reported on multiple FEMA workforce  challenges in prior work and continue to observe workforce challenges in  our ongoing work. We are currently reviewing how FEMA deploys and  trains staff to meet disaster mission needs and plan to report early in  2020.

Complexity and Scale of Wildfire Debris Removal

Debris removal is an important first step in the disaster recovery process,  allowing communities to expedite the recovery process by restoring  accessibility to public services and space, while ensuring public health  and safety in the aftermath of a disaster. Debris removal posed several  challenges for state and local jurisdictions affected by the wildfires.  Wildfires typically leave no remaining structure, and the resulting ash  contains contaminants that must be carefully removed, wrapped, and  disposed of before survivors can move back to their properties. This can  make the wildfire debris removal process costlier and more complicated  than for other types of disaster debris. California’s Department of  Resources, Recycling, and Recovery typically handles debris removal  after local disasters in the state, but it did not have the capacity to handle  the high volume of debris caused by the 2017 Northern California  wildfires. As a result, the state asked FEMA to assign USACE with the  debris removal mission.

According to local officials, there was some confusion over how much  contaminated soil should be removed from some properties. Specifically,  in some cases, USACE removed more soil than necessary at home sites  in an attempt to “scrape” the soil deeply enough to remove all possible  contaminants at the site; however, this did not take into account that  some contaminants, such as arsenic, occur naturally in the soil. As a  result, some property owners were left with large over-excavated pits on  their property that needed to be filled in before rebuilding could occur.  Figure 5 shows a property site that, according to local officials, had been  excavated below the foundation of the home and thus needed to be  refilled with soil, complicating the rebuilding effort. In addition, officials  from one county stated that USACE staff rotations made it difficult for  state and local officials to communicate debris removal options clearly both internally and to the public, leading to confusion among some  survivors about their best options for debris removal.

In 2018 and 2019, we reported on issues with contracting for wildfire  debris removal. We found that USACE’s debris removal contracts, while  broad enough to cover any type of debris, had been used primarily to  manage hurricane debris removal and did not address issues posed by  wildfire debris removal. We also found that miscommunication at the  federal level resulted in differing expectations between USACE and state  and local officials about debris removal work to be performed, such as the  types of structures to be removed from private property and acceptable  soil contamination levels. According to USACE officials, they relied on  FEMA to manage communication with states and localities and to identify  and manage expectations about the scope of work to be performed. We  recommended, among other things, that FEMA take the lead to work  together with USACE to revise the mission assignment policy and related  guidance to better incorporate consideration of contracting needs and to  ensure clarity of contracting-related coordination responsibilities. DHS  concurred with this recommendation and reported that it will take steps— such as development of mission assignment project management tools  and training for mission assignment work—to implement it.

Shortage of Temporary Housing for Wildfire Survivors

According to DHS’s 2017 National Preparedness Report, providing  effective and affordable temporary housing for disaster survivors has  been a longstanding and continuing challenge. Wildfires pose an  additional challenge because in contrast to disasters such as hurricanes  or floods where there may be a substantial portion of a home left  standing, and property may be habitable after the most dangerous debris  is removed, wildfires generally destroy entire structures and leave a pile  of contaminated debris and soil. This kind of damage requires a lengthier  clean-up and necessarily precludes survivors from occupying the property  until state and local officials declare the lot safe for habitation.

In the meantime, one of FEMA’s responsibilities under the Mass Care,  Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing and Human Services  Emergency Support Function is to help displaced disaster survivors with  access to temporary housing. This has posed challenges for some of the  counties we spoke with, most notably in select Northern California  communities. In particular, officials in two California counties noted that  vacancy rates are very low in these areas, and there were few places to  house survivors who were either waiting to rebuild on their property or  had been living in rental properties that were destroyed. In addition, in  one California county there have been a limited number of potential sites  available (such as commercial parks or group sites) to place transportable  temporary housing units. According to FEMA, several factors limited the  number of commercial or group sites available for such housing units,  including limited space for the housing units, contaminated utilities, and  challenges with local jurisdictions responsible for deciding whether and  where to place group sites.

According to FEMA officials, the nature of fire debris affects the array of  post-disaster housing options that FEMA can offer through its Individual  Assistance program. For example, although FEMA can provide  replacement assistance for destroyed homes and repair assistance for  homes with damage that can be repaired, the complete destruction of  homes due to fires significantly lengthens the recovery processes. Rental  assistance and lodging reimbursement are limited by lack of access to  rental properties, and the use of manufactured housing units is limited by  lack of group sites that meet requirements, including adequate space for  such units and access to utilities (e.g., potable water not contaminated by  fire damage). See Appendix I for more information on this program.

FEMA officials acknowledged that providing housing for survivors has  long been a challenge for the agency. They also acknowledged that  several of FEMA’s housing tools are less relevant to wildfires versus other  disasters (as discussed above). According to FEMA, the agency is  currently reviewing various aspects of its housing mission to better  identify ways to address some of these challenges.

Lack of Experience with Large- Scale Wildfires

Officials from two of the counties we spoke with said that their lack of  experience in response to and recovery from wildfires of the magnitudes  encountered was very challenging. Officials from one of those counties  stated that they did not have the knowledge or skill-set needed at the  local level to best identify response and recovery needs and relied heavily  on FEMA and California’s Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for  resources and training in these areas.

Officials from another county stated that neither they nor FEMA were  accustomed to the level of destruction in a rural area, which created  challenges identifying resources and processes to remove damaged trees  from private property, storing the volume of downed trees, and  maintaining the few roads available for hauling debris.

Officials from another county in California described being unprepared  when they were tasked with collecting duplicate payments for private  property debris removal after survivors received their insurance benefits.  Residents who participated in the private property debris removal  program who were paid out of FEMA’s Public Assistance program, and  subsequently also received an insurance benefit for debris removal, were  required to repay the federal government for the duplicate benefit.  According to these county officials, they were not aware that collection  would be their responsibility until about 2 years after the initial debris  removal took place. The officials noted that the administrative burden for  identifying the affected homeowners and the amount owed and then  collecting the payments was significant, and taxed their administrative  capacity. They said they wished they had been aware sooner that they  would have to absorb this duty, so they could put systems in place.  According to FEMA and state officials, however, these requirements were  included in FEMA’s Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, which  states that local governments are responsible for implementing private  property debris removal, including the requirement to collect and  reimburse FEMA for any duplicate benefits. Nevertheless, the confusion  described by the county government illustrates the difficulty jurisdictional  officials with little previous wildfire experience can have navigating  complex program rules while simultaneously confronting the disaster  aftermath.

FEMA Has Identified Lessons Learned from 2017 Wildfires but Could Further Benefit from a Comprehensive Assessment of Its Operations, Policies, and Procedures

FEMA Has Prepared an After-Action Report for 2017 California Wildfires

In June 2019, FEMA Region IX—which provides disaster assistance in  California—finalized the after-action report for the October and December  2017 wildfire disasters in Northern and Southern California. FEMA’s  2017 wildfire after-action report offered response and recovery lessons  learned from both the challenges identified and successful practices.  Some, but not all, of these were mirrored in our interviews with California  jurisdictions that were affected by recent wildfires. Among its findings, the  2017 wildfire after-action report identified several areas for improvement.  For example, FEMA’s immediate activation of the Transitional Sheltering  Assistance program and lack of a unified information system to track  applicants’ eligibility for all Individual Assistance programs at the time of  the wildfires resulted, in some instances, in applicants receiving sheltering  benefits inappropriately (i.e., receiving Transitional Sheltering Assistance  benefits despite their residence being undamaged). One potential action  to address this challenge identified in the report was to add information on  Transitional Sheltering Assistance program applicants into the database  that FEMA uses to track disaster information to ensure those applicants  have access to all benefits and reduce the potential for duplication. FEMA  officials have stated that since the 2017 wildfires, policy changes have  been made to address this issue, including adding Transitional Sheltering  Assistance program applicant data to the information system used to  track eligibility for all Individual Assistance programs.

In addition, FEMA reported that the typical contracts USACE had in place  for debris removal were not designed to address the nature (i.e., fire- related debris) and scope of work required, particularly with respect to  private property debris removal. The agencies worked together to rapidly  scope the statements of work for the debris removal contracts to provide  services to survivors, but FEMA ultimately found that the contract  requirements lacked detail and clarity, resulting in additional costs.  USACE prepared its own after-action report after the 2017 wildfires,  which also identified challenges with the scope of its debris removal  contracts and the mission assignment task orders, and planned to  incorporate lessons learned in future debris removal contracts.

According to FEMA Region IX officials, many of the issues regarding  debris removal stemmed from not having documented processes in place  to govern wildfire debris removal specifically. In its after-action report,  FEMA identified potential actions to address these challenges—such as  developing standard operating procedures in coordination with USACE  for fire debris removal—to correct these and other identified areas for  improvement. According to USACE officials, FEMA subsequently  provided funds through a 2018 wildfire disaster declaration to USACE to  develop such standard operating procedures. USACE officials told us  they had shared these procedures with FEMA and stated that the  procedures will help guide future wildfire private property debris removal  operations.

The 2017 after-action report also identified a number of strengths and  best practices during 2017 wildfire response and recovery efforts in  California. For example, the report noted that collaboration and pre- existing relationships between federal and state personnel helped to  overcome knowledge gaps about certain programs and improved survivor  outcomes (such as the placement of temporary housing units based on  work done by an interagency task force). In addition, Facebook provided  FEMA with pre- and post-disaster survivor locations (provided voluntarily  by the survivor) that helped identify where survivors were located after the  wildfires. Using this information, FEMA then worked with the state and  private sector in order to help plan for short- and long-term housing  solutions.

FEMA Could Improve Its Preparation for Potential Effects of Heightened Wildfire Risks by Comprehensively Assessing Its Operations, Policies, and Procedures

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes  that could impact its internal control system, which would include actions  established through policies and procedures. Agency management,  therefore, should analyze the effect of identified change on policies and  procedures and revise such policies and procedures—and other elements  of its internal control system—on a timely basis to maintain effectiveness.

The combination of back-to-back devastating wildfire seasons in  California, overall upward trends in wildfire disaster declarations, and  several factors that point to increased likelihood of severe wildfire activity  in the future suggest a change that may have significant impacts on  FEMA’s operating environment. As shown in figure 6, from 1953 to the  present, the number of major disaster declarations from wildfires has  increased in nearly every decade since 1950 and most dramatically in the  last two decades. During Congressional testimony from March 2018,  FEMA’s Region IX Administrator stated that fire season has changed  from covering spring through early fall to a now year-round event, and  that the unprecedented impacts from the 2017 wildfire season would  linger for years to come.

Land use practices and climate trends increase the likelihood that severe  and intense wildfires will affect people and communities. As we have  described in previous reports, land use practices over the past century  have reduced forest and rangeland ecosystems’ resilience to fire. Land  use practices like fire suppression and timber harvesting have contributed  to abnormally dense accumulations of vegetation. These accumulations  can fuel uncharacteristically large or severe wildfires. At the same time,  development occurring in and around wildlands—an area often called the  wildland-urban interface—has increased, placing more people,  businesses, and infrastructure at risk. The wildland-urban interface  contains 46 million single-family homes, representing about 40 percent of  single-family homes in the United States. According to the 2014  Quadrennial Fire Review, 60 percent of new homes built in the United  States since 1990 were built in the wildland-urban interface. As the  footprint of human activity and settlement into the wildland-urban interface  expands, the risk of fire exposure to people and property is expected to  increase further.

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. According  to the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2018 National Climate  Assessment, warmer and drier conditions have led to a greater incidence  of large forest fires (fires with an area greater than 386 square miles) in  the western United States and Alaska, a trend expected to continue as  climate warms and the fire season gets longer.

Despite these trends and projections, FEMA does not plan to  comprehensively assess operations to determine whether and how  policies and procedures might need to change to better respond to  changing operational conditions. According to FEMA officials, they had  not considered conducting this kind of review, because they believe their  existing mechanisms—specifically after-action reporting, the continuous  improvement process, and program specific mechanisms such as the  Public Assistance Change Control Tool—will allow them to incorporate  relevant lessons into policies and procedures.

According to FEMA officials, after a major disaster, FEMA’s standard  practice is to identify areas for improvement and develop lessons learned  that can improve FEMA planning and policy and support national  preparedness by preparing an after-action report which is required by  FEMA policy. FEMA has a continuous improvement program which  serves as the overarching process by which it identifies and responds to  operational lessons learned identified in after-action reporting.  According to FEMA officials, FEMA headquarters reviews all completed  after-action reports to identify any areas for improvement that may need  to be addressed through changes in policies and procedures.

Although the continuous improvement process and its reliance on after- action reporting offers the opportunity to incorporate discrete lessons  learned into select policies and procedures, there are some limitations in  its ability to offer a comprehensive assessment of its internal controls in  light of the strong potential that wildfire disasters will continue to increase.  By its nature, after-action reporting captures select issues at a specific  time and in a specific place, but it is not a dedicated effort to assess how  various policies and procedures may need to be changed to better  respond to changing operational conditions. For example, in our  discussions with fire-affected jurisdictions, we noted that some  programmatic or policy challenges were specific to or made more difficult  by the nature of wildfires, such as the complexities of debris removal and  difficult housing missions. A comprehensive review of internal controls,  such as policies, procedures, and training, may shed light on aspects of  FEMA’s operations—well tested over the years in hurricane and flood  situations—that could be adapted for greater responsiveness to the  wildfire environment, helping to ensure attention to a broad range of  issues in addition to those that might be noticed in a specific time and  place through after-action reporting.

In light of the potential for high-impact wildfires to become more frequent,  a dedicated effort to comprehensively assess operations could help  FEMA better ensure that its management controls—such as policies,  procedures, and training—are as well designed as possible to respond to  the unique challenges.

Devastating wildfires have exacted a large human and financial toll in  recent years, with 159 lives lost and $2 billion obligated by FEMA in  response during the major disasters of 2017 and 2018. FEMA has  provided support personnel and resources to affected state and local  jurisdictions to aid in wildfire response and recovery efforts. Given some  reports of projected increase in risk from wildfires—as well as the  challenges we have noted in providing housing, conducting debris  removal operations, and other areas—comprehensively assessing  agency operations in response to and recovery from wildfires to  determine if any actions or changes to agency policies and procedures  are needed could provide guidance or insight for communities that may  be affected in the future. Comprehensively identifying, analyzing, and  responding to the significant operating changes posed by wildfires, as  recommended in internal control standards, could provide FEMA with an  opportunity to better ensure the nation is ready to address the unique  challenges posed by increased large-scale wildfires.

We recommend that the FEMA Administrator comprehensively assess  operations to identify any additional updates to its management  controls—such as policies, procedures, or training—that could enhance  future response and recovery from large-scale and severe wildfires.  (Recommendation 1)

In August 2019, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the  Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and Homeland Security.  The Departments of Agriculture and Defense had no formal or technical  comments. In September 2019, FEMA and the Department of the Interior  provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as  appropriate. In addition, DHS provided an official letter for inclusion in the  report, which can be seen in appendix III, stating that it concurred with our  recommendation. DHS’s letter describes a number of ongoing and  planned actions that it plans to leverage in addressing our  recommendation. These actions include, among other things, the use of  sheltering and housing field teams to support states’ efforts to house  disaster survivors; continued updates to direct housing guidance;  developing guidance for the use of FEMA-issued, state-administered  direct housing grants authorized by the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of  2018; and development of a project to analyze and improve capabilities  and identify areas of innovation in response to wildfire disasters. DHS  anticipates that these efforts will be put into effect by December 2020. We  will continue to monitor DHS and FEMA’s efforts in addressing our  recommendation.

We will send copies of the final report to the Secretaries of the  departments mentioned above, the FEMA Administrator, and appropriate  congressional committees. If you or your staff have any questions about  this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Other key  contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Individual Assistance and Public Assistance Programs

FEMA’s Individual Assistance programs provide assistance directly to  individuals and households, as well as state, local, tribal, and territorial  governments to support individual survivors. This assistance covers  necessary expenditures and serious needs that cannot be met through  insurance or low-interest loans, such as temporary housing assistance,  counseling, unemployment compensation, or medical expenses. FEMA  provides this assistance through seven different programmatic areas, with  a substantial amount of the assistance coming from the Individuals and  Households Program.

The Individuals and Households Program provides financial assistance  and direct services to eligible individuals and households who have  uninsured or underinsured necessary expenses and serious needs.  Individuals and Households Program assistance is intended to meet basic  needs and supplement recovery efforts and is not a substitute for  insurance. The Individuals and Households Program consists of two  forms of assistance: Housing Assistance and Other Needs Assistance.

Housing Assistance: Housing assistance may be provided in the  form of financial assistance, direct assistance, or a combination of the  two. Financial assistance may include lodging expense  reimbursement for time spent at hotels or other temporary lodging,  rental assistance, and home repair or replacement assistance. Direct  housing assistance may be provided when applicants are unable to  use rental assistance due to a lack of available housing resources.  This type of assistance may include the repair and lease of multi- family housing units—such as apartments—for temporary use by  applicants, direct lease assistance, or the provision of transportable  temporary housing units, such as recreation vehicles or manufactured  housing units. Transportable temporary housing units can be placed  on private sites, commercial sites or on group sites. Commercial sites  are existing manufactured home sites with available pads that FEMA  may lease. Group sites require additional approval when housing  needs cannot be met by other direct temporary housing options. They  may include publicly-owned land with adequate available utilities.

Other Needs Assistance: This consists of financial assistance for  other expenses and serious needs caused by the disaster. Some  Other Needs Assistance is only provided if an applicant does not  qualify for a Small Business Administration disaster loan; this  assistance would include personal property, moving and storage, and  transportation assistance. Other types of Other Needs Assistance can  be provided regardless of SBA loan qualification, including funeral,  medical, dental, and child care assistance, and other miscellaneous  items.

Mass Care and Emergency Assistance  This program provides life-sustaining services to disaster survivors  immediately before a potential incident, during the response phase, and  during the beginning of post-disaster recovery. Services provided include  sheltering, feeding, distribution of emergency supplies, support for  individuals with disabilities and others with access and functional needs,  reunification services for adults and children, support for household pets  and service/assistance animals, and mass evacuee support.

This program provides supplemental federal financial assistance to  states, territories, tribal governments, or private nonprofit entities in order  to provide the services of a case manager to a disaster survivor. Through  this service, a case manager assists a survivor with developing a disaster  recovery plan for meeting his or her unmet needs.

Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program  This program provides supplemental funding to eligible state, territorial,  tribal, or local governments, and non-governmental organizations to  assist disaster-impacted individuals and communities in recovering from  the major disasters through the provision of community-based outreach  and psycho-educational services.

This program provides legal aid to survivors who qualify as low-income  through an agreement with the American Bar Association. The service is  limited to cases that would not normally incur legal fees, such as  assistance with insurance claims or recovery or reproduction of legal  documents lost in the disaster.

This program provides unemployment benefits and re-employment  assistance services to survivors under the responsibility of the U.S.  Department of Labor. This assistance is only available to survivors who  are not eligible for regular state unemployment insurance.

FEMA employs Voluntary Agency Liaisons who establish and maintain  relationships with voluntary agencies active in response and recovery,  coordinate with the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster,  provide guidance on donations, and act as subject matter experts in  development of long term recovery groups with local community  organizations, faith-based groups, and other voluntary organizations.

FEMA’s Public Assistance program provides supplemental federal  disaster grant assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments,  and certain types of private nonprofit organizations for debris removal,  emergency protective measures, and the restoration of disaster- damaged, publicly-owned facilities and the facilities of certain private  nonprofit organizations. The Public Assistance program also encourages  protection of these damaged facilities from future events by providing  assistance for hazard mitigation measures. The program—which  represents the largest share of federal aid from the Disaster Relief  Fund—is administered through a partnership between FEMA and the  state, tribal or territorial grantee, which provides funding to local or tribal  entities who are the subrecipients of a Public Assistance grant award.  The Public Assistance program funds both emergency work and  permanent work.

Public Assistance for Emergency Work  FEMA provides funding for emergency work such as emergency  protective measures and debris removal that must be conducted  immediately to save lives, protect public health and safety, protect  improved property, or eliminate or lessen a threat of immediate additional  damage. This assistance is divided into two categories, described below.

Debris Removal (Category A): Debris removal activities, such as  clearance, removal, and disposal, are eligible if the removal is in the  public interest based on whether the work eliminates immediate  threats to lives, public health, and safety or of significant damage to  improved public or private property; ensures economic recovery of the  affected community to the benefit of the community at large; or  mitigates risk to life and property by removing substantially damaged  structures and associated structures. In limited circumstances, based  on the severity of the impact of an incident, FEMA may determine that  debris removal from private property is eligible under the Public  Assistance Program. If debris on private property is so widespread  that it threatens public health and safety or the economic recovery of  the community, FEMA may provide Public Assistance funding for  debris removal from private property.

Emergency Protective Measures (Category B): Emergency  protective measures conducted before, during, and after an incident  are eligible if the measures: eliminate or lessen immediate threats to  lives, public health, or safety; or eliminate or lessen immediate threats  of significant additional damage to improved public or private property  in a cost-effective manner. Examples of such measures include  transporting and pre-positioning equipment, flood fighting, supplies  and commodities, evacuation and sheltering, child care, security, or  searches to locate and recover human remains.

Public Assistance for Permanent Work  Permanent Work is work required to restore a facility to its pre-disaster  design (size and capacity) and function in accordance with applicable  codes and standards. This assistance is divided into the five categories  listed below:

Appendix II: Information on Major Disasters Resulting from Wildfires, 2015 through 2018

Below are details on the six wildfire disasters selected for our review and  the support the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  provided under the major disaster declarations.

Northern California Wildfires, September 2015

On September 9, 2015, the Butte Fire began burning across Calaveras  County, and on September 12, 2015, the Valley Fire began burning  across Lake County. FEMA subsequently approved a Fire Management  Assistance Grant (FMAG) for the Butte Fire on September 10, 2015, and  an FMAG for the Valley Fire on September 12, 2015.

On September 22, 2015, the President issued a major disaster  declaration at the request of the state for Lake County, which was  ultimately expanded to include Calaveras County. On September 28,  2015, FEMA—in collaboration with the state and counties—opened two  Disaster Recovery Centers in Calaveras and Lake Counties, and on  October 2, 2015, FEMA opened a third Disaster Recovery Center in Lake  County.

In total, the Valley and Butte Fires burned 146,935 acres, destroyed  2,876 structures, and resulted in 6 deaths. See figure 7 for a map of the  fire locations, and tables 4 and 5 for data on FEMA’s mission  assignments, Individual Assistance, and Public Assistance support.

On November 28 2016, strong winds pushed a wildfire—named the  Chimney Tops 2 fire—beyond the boundaries of the Great Smoky  Mountains National Park and into the surrounding wildland urban  interface. The fire primarily spread into Sevier County, Tennessee, which  includes the cities of Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge. That same day, FEMA  approved an FMAG for Tennessee to support fire suppression activities.

On December 15, following a request by the governor of Tennessee on  December 9, the President issued a major disaster declaration for Sevier  County. On December 23 and December 28, FEMA—in collaboration with  the state and counties—opened Disaster Recovery Centers in Gatlinburg  and Pigeon Forge, respectively.

The Tennessee wildfires ultimately burned approximately 17,000 acres,  destroyed 2,545 structures, and led to 14 fatalities. See figure 8 for a map  of the fires’ location, tables 6 and 7 for data on FEMA’s mission  assignments, Individual Assistance, and Public Assistance support.

Northern and Southern California Wildfires, October 2017

On October 8, 2017, multiple fires began burning in northern California,  spreading rapidly due to high winds and dry conditions. Among these fires  was the Tubbs Fire in Sonoma and Napa Counties, which was, at the  time, the most destructive fire in California’s history. On October 9, 2017,  FEMA approved FMAGs for ten separate fires.

On October 10, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration at  the request of the state for seven counties—Butte, Lake, Mendocino,  Napa, Nevada, Sonoma, and Yuba. On October 13, 2017, Solano County  and Orange County (in southern California) were added to the  declaration. In total, the fires included in this disaster declaration burned  240,138 acres, destroyed 8,924 structures, and resulted in 44 deaths.

From October 17 through November 28, FEMA—in in collaboration with  the state and counties—established five Disaster Recovery Centers to  assist disaster survivors. See figure 9 for a map of the fires’ locations, and  tables 8 and 9 for data on FEMA’s mission assignments (including  FEMA’s assignment of debris removal responsibilities to the U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers), Individual Assistance, and Public Assistance  support. Figure 10 provides an aerial snapshot of the destruction in one  area of the city of Santa Rosa in Sonoma County.

Southern California Wildfires, Flooding, Mudflows and Debris Flows, December 2017

On December 4, 2017, the Thomas Fire started burning in Ventura  County. Over the next three days, the Thomas Fire and other wildfires  spread rapidly through Ventura and neighboring counties—due in part to  the Santa Ana Winds—and FEMA approved a number of FMAGs for  these wildfires.

On December 20, the governor of California requested a major disaster  declaration for Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura  Counties. The request was approved on January 2, 2018 for Santa  Barbara and Ventura Counties for Public Assistance. In the week that  followed, heavy rains exacerbated the damages caused by the fires,  leading to mudflows and debris flows. On January 10, FEMA expanded  the disaster declaration to include the flooding, mudflows, and debris  flows related to the wildfires. Five days later, FEMA added Los Angeles  and San Diego Counties to the disaster declaration, and granted all four  counties eligibility for Individual Assistance, in addition to the Public  Assistance eligibility previously approved.

From January 19 through February 5, 2018, FEMA—in collaboration with  the state and counties—established five Disaster Recovery Centers to  assist disaster survivors. The Southern California wildfires, debris flows,  and mudflows ultimately burned 308,083 acres, destroyed 1,378  structures, and caused 23 fatalities. See figure 11 for a map of the fires’  locations, and tables 10 and 11 for data on FEMA’s mission assignments,  Individual Assistance, and Public Assistance support.

Northern California Wildfires and High Winds, July 2018

On July 23, 2018, the Carr Fire began burning in Shasta County. On July  27, 2018, the Mendocino Complex Fire, a combination of the River and  Ranch Fires, began burning in Lake County. FEMA soon approved  FMAGs for these fires. On August 4, 2018, the President issued a major  disaster declaration for Shasta County, which was ultimately expanded to  include Lake County. On August 9, 2018, FEMA—in collaboration with  the state and counties—established a Disaster Recovery Center in  Shasta County, with a second Disaster Recovery Center established in  Lake County on August 21, 2018.

One of the wildfires—the Mendocino Complex Fire—was the largest fire  in California’s history, burning 459,123 acres. In total, the Carr and  Mendocino Complex Fires burned 688,774 acres, destroyed 1,894  structures, and resulted in 4 deaths. See figure 12 for a map of the fires’  locations, and tables 12 and 13 for data on FEMA’s mission assignments,  Individual Assistance, and Public Assistance support. Figure 13 shows  the aftermath of the Carr Fire in one residential neighborhood.

Northern and Southern California Wildfires, November 2018

Information on Fires and Assistance Provided

On November 8, 2018, the Camp Fire struck the city of Paradise in Butte  County. According to California’s Department of Forestry and Fire  Protection, the Camp Fire grew into the deadliest and most destructive  fire in California history, resulting in 18,793 structures destroyed, 153,336  acres burned, and 85 deaths. On the same day two other major fires—the  Woolsey Fire in Los Angeles County and the Hill Fire in Ventura County— began.

On November 8-9, FEMA approved FMAGs for these fires, and the  President issued a major disaster declaration for these counties on  November 12, 2018. FEMA—in collaboration with the state and  counties—opened a Disaster Recovery Center in Butte County on  November 16 and four other Disaster Recovery Centers in Butte,  Ventura, and Los Angeles counties over the next month. In total, the three  fires resulted in 20,295 structures destroyed, 254,816 acres burned, and  88 deaths. See figure 14 for a map of the fires’ locations, and tables 14  and 15 for data on FEMA’s mission assignments, Individual Assistance,  and Public Assistance support.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact above, the following staff members made  significant contributions to this report:  Kathryn Godfrey (Assistant Director), Adam Couvillion (Analyst-in- Charge), Elizabeth Dretsch, Ricki Gaber, Eric Hauswirth, Hannah  Hubbard, Tracey King, John Mingus, Ben Nelson, and Kevin Reeves.

In 2017 and 2018, wildfires in California killed 159 people and destroyed more than 32,000 structures, including many homes. In response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency put about $2 billion toward housing, debris removal, and other assistance.

According to state and local officials, FEMA’s assistance helped their recovery efforts. For example, FEMA set up centers that helped survivors find services. Officials also reported challenges, such as removing debris after large-scale fires.

FEMA reviewed its performance but could more broadly assess how its policies and procedures work for large-scale fires. We recommended such an assessment.