Wildland Fire: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Reduce Wildland Fuels and Lower Risk to Communities and Ecosystems

Wildfires have been increasing in size and severity, exacerbated by abnormally dense vegetation, drought, and other climate stressors. Development in and around wildlands also continues to increase, placing more people at risk from wildfires. To reduce vegetation that can fuel such fires, federal land management agencies implement fuel reduction projects on public lands.

GAO was asked to examine the federal government's preparedness, response, and recovery efforts following the wildfires and other natural disasters of 2017. This report describes (1) methods federal agencies use to reduce fuels to help protect communities and ecosystems, (2) information the agencies considered in allocating fuel reduction funds in fiscal year 2018, and (3) factors affecting agency efforts to implement fuel reduction projects.

GAO examined laws, regulations, and agency policies and budget documents; interviewed federal agency officials at headquarters, as well as in eight regional offices and 10 field units selected based on their locations' high wildland fire hazard potential; and interviewed officials from nonfederal entities, including representatives from the state forestry agencies for the seven states where selected field units were located (three field units were in California and two were in New Mexico).

Five federal land management agencies—the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service—use several methods to reduce fuels (vegetation) to help lower the intensity of wildland fires on lands they manage or administer. These methods primarily include mechanical treatments, which use equipment to cut and remove vegetation, and prescribed burns, which are deliberate, planned fires set by land managers. The agencies have long-standing research programs designed to further develop their understanding of how to implement effective fuel reduction projects, including conducting assessments to evaluate project effectiveness. Officials said the research helps the agencies to improve how they design and implement fuel reduction projects to address site-specific conditions.

In fiscal year 2018, when allocating fuel reduction funds, the agencies considered information on wildfire hazard potential, the location of communities, and ecosystem health and the location of natural resources. Total fuel reduction appropriations exceeded $5 billion in fiscal years 2009 through 2018 (see figure).

Officials from the five agencies cited several factors affecting implementation of fuel reduction projects. A key factor officials cited is that the number of acres needing treatment is significantly larger than the agencies can treat annually. The agencies have estimated that over 100 million acres they manage or administer are at high risk from wildfire, but, for example, in fiscal year 2018 they treated approximately 3 million acres. The agencies are developing risk assessments to help identify areas to prioritize for fuel reductions.

Wildfires are both natural and inevitable, and they play an important  ecological role in maintaining healthy ecosystems on our nation’s  wildlands. Over time, however, fire suppression and other land  management practices have disrupted the normal frequency of wildfires in  many ecosystems, resulting in abnormally dense accumulations of  vegetation. According to a multi-agency federal research effort, this  altered landscape, combined with drought and other climate stressors,  has contributed to larger and more severe wildfires. At the same time,  development in and around wildlands—an area called the wildland-urban  interface (WUI)—continues to increase, placing more communities and  infrastructure at risk from wildfire. In recent years, wildfires have  demonstrated the potential for devastating consequences to communities.  For example, in 2018, the Camp Fire destroyed or damaged over 18,000  structures and resulted in 85 deaths in and around Paradise, California,  and the Mendocino Complex Fire was the largest fire in state history,  burning over 410,000 acres in northern California.

Damage from wildfires has led to a growing awareness of the importance  of increasing communities’ resilience to such disasters, as well as to other  natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods. Promoting community  resilience is one of the goals of the United Nations Sendai Framework for  Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Likewise, promoting the nation’s  resilience to disasters is one of the goals of both The 2014 Quadrennial  Homeland Security Review (an interagency report that includes  information on federal disaster preparedness) and the 2017 U.S. National  Security Strategy. Consistent with the framework, review, and strategy,  reducing vulnerability to threats such as wildfires helps to build  community resilience by reducing the amount of risk facing the  community exposed to the threat.

Federal wildland fire management is guided by, among other things, the  2014 Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy).  The Cohesive Strategy’s goals include both building fire-adapted  communities and restoring and maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems,  which can help communities prepare for wildfires and can promote  ecosystem health, respectively. The primary federal agencies responsible  for wildland fire management are the Department of Agriculture’s Forest  Service and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs  (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service  (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS). One approach the five agencies  use to implement the goals of the Cohesive Strategy is fuel reduction— reducing the amount of brush, trees, and other vegetation that can fuel  fires. Reducing these fuels—for example, by using chainsaws and other  machines to cut and remove vegetation—is intended to lower the  potential for severe wildfires, lessen the damage caused by fires that  occur, and restore and maintain healthy ecosystems.

Federal agencies have estimated that tens of millions of acres they  manage or administer are at high risk of wildfire. Recognizing that  reducing the risks from wildfires on those lands may take decades, the  agencies have acknowledged the importance of setting priorities for  selecting fuel reduction projects that may be the most effective at  reducing the overall risk posed from wildfire. We have previously reported  on the agencies’ fuel reduction programs, including how the agencies  identify and set priorities for lands needing fuel reduction and their efforts  to track their accomplishments. To help the Forest Service and Interior  better understand the effectiveness of their approach to wildland fire  management, in our 2015 report we recommended that the agencies  develop specific criteria for selecting wildfires to review and revise their  policies to align with the criteria developed. The Forest Service and  Interior implemented these recommendations.

You asked us to examine the federal government’s preparedness,  response, and recovery efforts following the natural disasters of 2017,  including wildfires. This report describes (1) methods the five federal  agencies use to reduce fuels to help protect communities and  ecosystems, (2) information considered and approaches the agencies  used in allocating fuel reduction funds in fiscal year 2018, and (3) factors  the agencies identified as affecting their efforts to implement fuel  reduction projects.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations  and agency strategy, policy, and budget documents. We conducted semi- structured interviews with officials from the Forest Service, Interior, BIA,  BLM, FWS, and NPS, including headquarters officials in Washington,  D.C. and at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho;  regional officials from a nonprobability sample of eight regional offices  (four regional offices from the Forest Service and one from each of the  Interior agencies); and local officials from a nonprobability sample of  10 field units (e.g., a national forest or a BLM district office) located within  the selected regions, including at least one field unit in each of these  regions for each agency. The 10 field units were located in seven states  (three field units were located in California and two were located in New  Mexico). To better understand how field units selected and implemented  fuel reduction projects, we visited four of the 10 field units (the Cibola and  Santa Fe National Forests in September 2018 and the Shasta-Trinity  National Forest and Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in April  2019). The results of these interviews cannot be generalized to all the  agencies’ regional offices and field units but provide examples of fuel  reduction projects and officials’ experiences with these projects.

To select offices, we reviewed the wildland fire hazard potential for each  region, based on the Forest Service’s 2018 estimates, to identify the  regions within the Forest Service and each of the four Interior agencies  with the greatest hazard potential. For each agency, we judgmentally  selected from among the high hazard potential regions that also generally  received higher fuel reduction funding. Because we were also interested  in geographic diversity, and associated diversity in vegetation types, we  chose from among the high hazard potential regions but did not  necessarily always choose the region with the highest hazard potential. In  making our selections, we also considered suggestions from agency  headquarters’ officials. We then asked officials from the regional offices  we selected to identify several field units in their regions that met  characteristics we identified: high wildfire hazard potential, relatively  larger fuel reduction program funding levels, challenging fuel conditions to  address, having developed innovative approaches to reducing fuels, or a  combination of these. We judgmentally selected from these field units,  while considering geographic diversity and associated diversity in  vegetation types.

In addition, we interviewed several nonfederal agency partners, including  officials from the state forestry agency for each of the seven states where  the federal field units we selected were located, as well as  representatives from the National Association of State Foresters and the  Western Governors’ Association—given their involvement with federal  wildland fire policy issues. We also interviewed a local government official  and representatives from nongovernmental organizations during our site  visit in New Mexico who were working with federal agencies in that state  to design or implement fuel reduction projects. For a list of the agencies,  field units, and nonfederal entities included in our review, see appendix I.

To address our first objective, we reviewed agency documents and  interviewed agency officials to describe the various methods the agencies  use to reduce fuels and how implementing fuel reduction projects help the  agencies lower the risk to communities and ecosystems. Additionally, to  describe examples of agency fuel reduction projects, we asked officials at  the 10 field units selected to identify and describe fuel reduction projects  their unit had completed during the previous 3 fiscal years (i.e., fiscal  years 2016 through 2018). We also reviewed agency documentation  related to these projects.

Regarding our second objective, we reviewed applicable laws,  regulations, and agency policies and guidance to determine the  information the agencies considered and approaches the agencies used  in fiscal year 2018—the most recently completed fiscal year at the time  we began our review—when allocating their fuel reduction funds. We also  interviewed agency headquarters officials and officials from the selected  regional and field offices about the information they considered and the  approaches they used when allocating their fuel reduction funds.

To address our third objective, we developed a preliminary list of potential  factors that might affect agency efforts to implement fuel reduction  projects based on initial discussions with agency headquarters officials  and our previous work related to federal wildland fire management. We  then interviewed agency officials from the selected regional and field  offices to determine the extent to which they viewed the preliminary  factors, or other factors, as affecting their implementation of fuel reduction  projects. We also asked officials about any steps the agencies had taken,  or planned to take, to address the factors. For various factors identified,  we obtained supplemental documentation and data when available.  Specifically, for one factor, the scope and scale of the need for fuel  reduction, we analyzed data from the National Fire Plan Operations and  Reporting System for fiscal years 2009 through 2018 to describe the  average number of acres annually treated for fuel reductions in the United  States. To assess these data for reliability, we reviewed national-level  data reported by the agencies and discussed the data’s completeness,  accuracy, and consistency with officials at the Forest Service and Interior.  We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2018 to December  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.

Wildfires play an important ecological role on the nation’s landscapes but  various management practices over the past century—including fire  suppression, timber harvesting, and grazing—have altered the normal  frequency of fires in many forest and grassland ecosystems and have  reduced these ecosystems’ resilience to wildland fire. This history of fire  exclusion and changes in forest management have resulted in a buildup  of surface fuels—burnable material found on or near the ground—and the  overstocking of some forests with trees and other fuels. In addition, the  reduced frequency of wildfire in some ecosystems has resulted in  increased amounts of vegetative debris (e.g., dead trees, branches,  leaves, and grasses) accumulating on the ground, which serves to  increase fuel quantities and can create more continuous fuels. When this  occurs, surface fires—fires that occur on the ground—may ignite more  quickly and burn with greater intensity, causing fires to spread more  rapidly and extensively than they may have in the past.

The arrangement of living vegetation also affects the way wildfires burn.  For example, an increase in the density of small trees creates a layered  forest structure with fuels going from the forest floor into the forest’s  canopy. These layers are sometimes referred to as ladder fuels. This  arrangement may allow fire that previously would have remained on the  ground to climb the ladder fuels and spread into the trees’ crowns,  becoming a high-intensity crown fire. In addition, reducing the frequency  of fire in fire-adapted forests and other ecosystems can result in changes  to the plant species that make up the forest or ecosystem, which may  cause the vegetative composition to shift toward species that are not well  adapted to fire, including non-native invasive species. For example, many  areas with sagebrush ecosystems—that historically had fires only once  every few decades—have been invaded by cheatgrass that when dried  creates large swaths of fuels that increase rates of fire spread, intensity,  and frequency.

Approximately 70,000 communities nationwide are considered to be at  risk from wildfire, according to the National Association of State  Foresters, Communities at Risk, Fiscal Year 2018 Report. Communities  face different levels of risk from wildfires depending on such factors as  the flammability of vegetation in and around the community, the  flammability of materials used in constructing structures, and the location  of the structures in relation to vegetation. Structures not located  immediately adjacent to wildland vegetation can also be vulnerable to  wildfire because winds can transport flaming embers that can ignite  homes more than a mile away from a wildfire. In addition to residential  housing, other valuable assets and infrastructure that support  communities may be located in the WUI, including power lines; highways;  and natural resources that provide economic benefits, such as timber, oil  and gas wells, and recreational areas. According to the Cohesive  Strategy, reducing fuels can help reduce a wildland fire’s intensity, which  in turn can help lower the risk fires pose to communities, structures, and  other valuable assets and infrastructure.

Federal Agencies Involved in Fuel Reduction Projects

The Forest Service, BLM, FWS, and NPS manage more than 670 million  acres of federal land across the country. In addition, BIA is responsible for  administering approximately 55 million acres of lands held in trust by the  United States for Indian tribes, individuals, and Alaska Natives. Figure 1  shows the lands that these five agencies managed or administered in the  contiguous United States. The agencies have estimated that over  100 million of these acres are at high risk from wildfire.

Each agency has a unique mission that shapes how it manages or  administers its associated lands. Specifically:

The Forest Service manages land for multiple uses, such as grazing,  timber, recreation, and watershed protection, and to sustain the  health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and  grasslands. The agency operates through nine regional offices that  manage 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands.

BIA provides services, directly or through contracts or compacts, to  federally recognized tribes comprising approximately 1.9 million  American Indian and Alaska Natives, many of whom live on BIA- administered lands. Tribal forests provide a source of revenue and  jobs for many tribal governments and their members, and play an  important role in sustaining tribal cultures and traditions, according to  BIA documents. The agency operates through 12 regional offices that  manage 83 BIA field units.

BLM manages land for multiple uses, such as recreation, mining,  grazing, timber, and natural scenic values. The agency operates  through 12 state offices that manage subsidiary district and field  offices.

FWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, a network of  lands and waters that provides for the conservation; management;  and, where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants and  their habitats, as well as opportunities for wildlife-dependent  recreation, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. The  refuge system includes approximately 585 refuges. The agency  operates through eight regional offices that manage the refuges.

NPS manages the National Park System to conserve the scenery,  natural and historic objects, and wildlife therein and to leave them  unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Individual park  units have varied designations corresponding to the natural or cultural  features they are to conserve, including national parks, monuments,  lakeshores, seashores, recreation areas, preserves, and historic sites.

The agency operates through seven regional offices that manage  419 individual park units.

Federal Agencies’ Appropriations and Allocations of Funds for Fuel Reduction

Generally, after receiving its annual appropriation, the Forest Service  allocates its fuel reduction funds to its nine regional offices, which in turn  allocate the funds they receive to individual field units (e.g., national  forests and grasslands). Interior, upon receiving its annual appropriation,  allocates its fuel reduction funds through its Office of Wildland Fire to BIA,  BLM, FWS, and NPS. These agencies then allocate the funds to their  regional offices, which, in turn, allocate the funds to individual field units,  such as national parks or wildlife refuges. Once the field units receive  their allocations, they select fuel reduction projects to implement during  the fiscal year. For fiscal years 2009 through 2018, the Forest Service  and Interior implemented fuel reduction projects that treated, respectively,  approximately 1.4 million and 1.1 million acres per fiscal year on average.  Figure 2 illustrates the annual appropriation and allocation processes for  fuel reduction funds.

From fiscal years 2009 through 2018, Congress appropriated  approximately $5 billion in fuel reduction funds to the Forest Service and  Interior, with the Forest Service and Interior annually receiving on  average about $339 million and $177 million, respectively (see fig. 3).

Most development in the WUI occurs on nonfederal lands. Accordingly,  state and local government agencies, as well as property owners, play a  major role in protecting communities and other development from  wildfire. The Forest Service and the National Institute of Standards and  Technology have developed publicly available resources that describe  ways communities can adapt to wildfire. Specifically, two critical actions  for protecting structures from wildfires are (1) reducing vegetation and  flammable objects within an area of 30 to 100 feet around a structure,  referred to as creating defensible space, and (2) using fire-resistant  roofing materials and covering attic vents with mesh screens to block  embers from entering the structure. Individuals and communities can  also take steps to mitigate fire risk by avoiding development in higher-risk  areas. To help protect structures, state and local agencies may conduct,  or help fund, fuel reduction projects to protect communities and other  nonfederal lands from wildfire. For example, a rural fire department in  Montana funds a crew to reduce fuels around private residences to create  defensible space for those homes. In addition, individual property owners  may reduce fuels around their homes. In previous reports, we found that  state and local agencies have adopted laws or ordinances that require  homeowners to maintain a specified level of defensible space or have  adopted building codes that require the use of fire-resistant building  materials in fire-prone areas. For example, in our May 2017 report, we  found that under an Oregon law, property owners in certain at-risk areas  must reduce excess vegetation around structures and along driveways.

Agencies Use Various Fuel Reduction Methods to Help Lower Risk to Communities and Ecosystems

According to Forest Service and Interior documents and officials, the  Forest Service and the four Interior agencies use various methods to  reduce fuels, which have advantages and disadvantages under different  conditions. For example:

Mechanical treatments. This method entails using equipment such  as chainsaws, masticators, bulldozers, or mowers to cut and remove  vegetation. Mechanical treatments reduce tree density where there  are abnormally dense groups of trees or ladder fuels to help reduce  the risk of a wildfire becoming severe. Interior officials said that  mechanical treatments are also widely used for removing shrubs and  other vegetation in rangeland ecosystems. However, mechanical  treatments may also increase the amount of smaller fuels on the  ground, including treetops and limbs (referred to as slash) and other  debris from thinning, which can in some cases increase a fire’s  intensity or rate of spread.

Prescribed burns. This method entails using deliberate, planned fires  set by land managers to restore or maintain desired ecosystem  conditions and reduce fuels. Prescribed burning under specified fuel  and weather conditions is designed to enable a fire to burn at a  relatively low intensity level within a confined area. Prescribed burns  typically work best when combined with previous prescribed burns or  mechanical treatments because they are effective in removing smaller  vegetation that can fuel a fire—such as grasses, leaves, pine needles,  and twigs—which can reduce a fire’s intensity and rate of spread, but  are not as effective in removing larger fuel, such as trees. Smoke  produced from prescribed burns and the risk of a prescribed burn  spreading into other areas can limit the use of prescribed burns  around communities, according to the Forest Service’s Fuels  Technical Guide.

Herbicides and targeted grazing. Herbicides can be used to reduce  fuels or when needed to kill fast growing vegetation to maintain an  existing fuel reduction project. However, herbicide kills vegetation but  does not remove it, potentially increasing an area’s susceptibility to  fire if further action is not taken to remove the dead fuel. Targeted  grazing—the intentional use of cows, sheep, or goats to eat  vegetation in a specified area—can also be used to reduce grasses  and other smaller fuels that can fuel fires. One advantage of such  methods is that they often can be applied with a greater level of  control over the location, timing, and desired outcome of the  treatment. These methods can be particularly helpful in removing  smaller fuels in areas where prescribed burning is undesirable, such  as in proximity to structures. With grazing, however, it may take  multiple years before there is a noticeable difference in the fuels, and  according to agency officials, moving livestock to different areas for  grazing is labor-intensive and can potentially increase the spread of  invasive plants if livestock movement is not controlled.

While some fuel reduction projects may be completed with a single  treatment method, other projects may require multiple treatment methods  and may span several years. For example, a project may first use  mechanical treatment to thin accumulated vegetation, followed by a  prescribed burn to remove remaining slash and litter on the ground.  Moreover, once a project is completed, it needs to be maintained over  time to retain its effectiveness as vegetation grows back. Depending on  the ecosystem, fuels treatment effectiveness can vary in length from only  a few years to over a decade. For example, fuel reduction projects are  generally effective for 3 to 5 years in southeastern U.S. pine forests given  the high rate at which vegetation grows in that region. In contrast, projects  are generally effective for 8 to 12 years in dry conifer forests in the  western United States.

The most appropriate fuel reduction method or methods—as well as how  they are applied (i.e., how much vegetation is removed)—depends on the  outcomes desired (e.g., protecting communities, restoring ecosystems);  the type of forest or other vegetation present; and site-specific factors,  such as topography and proximity to communities, according to the  Forest Service’s Fuels Technical Guide and agency officials. The Forest  Service and Interior have long-standing research programs that are  designed to support agency managers’ understanding of how to  implement effective fuel reduction projects. As of November 2019,  Forest Service research priorities included refining the scientific  understanding of how wildfire burns across landscapes and the effects of  fuel reduction projects conducted at different scales. In addition, the  agencies conduct assessments, known as fuel treatment effectiveness  monitoring reports, in cases where a wildfire either starts within or burns  into a fuel reduction project area to evaluate the project’s effect on fire  behavior and fire suppression actions. Officials believe that such research  helps their agencies continue to improve how they design and implement  fuel reduction projects to account for site-specific factors.

Regardless of the method used, the purpose of fuel reduction projects is  to reduce the intensity of future wildfires to help protect communities,  restore ecosystems, or both, according to agency documents. The  following examples illustrate various fuel reduction methods that the  agencies have used to help protect communities and ecosystems:

Officials from BIA and the San Carlos Apache Tribe said that they  perform prescribed burns and mechanical treatments annually on  approximately 1,000 to 1,600 acres of the San Carlos Apache Indian  Reservation in Arizona to remove rapidly growing grasses, which  could quickly carry a wildfire into the community. The officials said that  they primarily use prescribed burns as this allows them to  inexpensively treat the most acres. The officials said that they perform  these treatments close to the community, to help keep fires from  reaching structures and to provide space for firefighters to work more  safely in the event of a fire (see fig. 4).

An FWS official at the Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife  Refuge said that the refuge uses prescribed burns and mechanical  treatments to reduce the wildfire risk to several nearby communities.  For example, for a 1,000-acre area near Ocean Springs, Mississippi,  the refuge has been doing fuel reduction projects for decades in an  effort to protect nearby residential and commercial areas, as well as a  highway, railroad, and other infrastructure (see fig. 5). The official said  that because the dominant tree species on the refuge is slash pine,  which grows very quickly, they have to treat the area every 3 to  5 years to maintain the effectiveness of the project. The official also  said that the refuge uses more mechanical treatments than prescribed  burns in this area because of concerns about smoke drifting into  nearby communities but that they also use prescribed burns when  weather conditions are favorable.

Santa Fe National Forest officials said that since the early 2000s, they  have partnered with the New Mexico State Forestry Division and the  New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to conduct a series of fuel  reduction projects, including mechanical treatments and prescribed  burns, covering 8,000 acres in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico.  These projects were designed to reduce both the likelihood of a fire  reaching nearby communities and potential ecosystem damage. The  officials said that given the proximity to development and the large  accumulation of fuels in that area, they used mechanical treatments  first because a prescribed burn would be hazardous until fuel levels  were reduced. After the mechanical treatments were completed, they  used prescribed burns to remove as much of the remaining fuels as  possible. Officials told us that the utility of these projects was  demonstrated in July 2018 when the Venado Fire burned from an  untreated into a treated area and changed from a high-intensity fire  burning the crowns of the trees to primarily a low-intensity fire burning  on the ground (see fig. 6). The officials said that while they do not  know what the Venado Fire would have done without the fuel  reduction projects, they believe that the projects slowed the fire  sufficiently to provide firefighters with time to contain the fire before it  spread to populated areas and also helped reduce ecosystem  damage.

NPS officials at the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area near  Redding, California, said that many of the fuel reduction projects they  undertake are designed to reduce risk to local communities and  restore ecosystem health. For example, the officials said that in 2013  they began a 1,000-acre project, consisting primarily of prescribed  burns but also some mechanical treatments, located adjacent to  privately owned houses and timber land. The officials said that they  primarily use prescribed burns because the lower cost of the burns  allows them to treat more acres. The project was intended to reduce  fire risk to adjacent private property and to help improve the ecological  health of old-growth Douglas-fir stands within the recreation area. The  officials said that they believed the project helped to reduce the  intensity in some areas burned by the 2018 Carr Fire but also noted  that the fire was too intense for the treatments to be effective in other  areas, as shown in figure 7.

Officials at the BLM West Desert District office in Utah said that they  have been working on a 4,680-acre fuel reduction project since 2017.  The primary purpose of this project is to improve breeding and winter  habitat for the greater sage-grouse by removing juniper and other  vegetation that pose a wildfire risk to the sagebrush habitat the bird  relies on. The project area is home to the largest population of  greater sage-grouse in the state. The officials said that they mostly  use mechanical treatments, including mastication, because  mastication, unlike other fuel reduction methods, allows for the  selective removal of juniper trees while still preserving sagebrush.  Figure 8 shows the project area before and after treatment, with  juniper trees removed and sagebrush remaining.

Agencies Considered Similar Information on Potential Wildfire Damage to Communities and Ecosystems and Used Different Approaches to Allocate Fuel Reduction Funds

Agencies Considered Similar Types of Information in Allocating Funds in Fiscal Year 2018

Agency officials told us that in deciding how to allocate their fuel reduction  funds in fiscal year 2018, they primarily considered information related to  the wildfire hazard potential on lands they manage or administer, the  proximity of communities and infrastructure to those potential fires, and  ecosystem health.

Wildfire hazard potential. To allocate their fuel reduction funds,  officials from the five agencies said they considered information  regarding the likelihood and severity of wildfires that may occur across  the areas they manage and administer. For example, officials said  they generally used information incorporated into a national geospatial  database that the Forest Service developed to estimate the relative  probability a given area faces of experiencing a wildfire that would be  difficult for suppression resources to contain and therefore may cause  damage to communities or ecosystems. To produce this database,  the Forest Service used, among other things, satellite imagery to  identify fuel conditions across the landscape. The Forest Service then  ran computer models that used this fuel condition information to  estimate the potential intensity of future wildfires. The Forest  Service’s identification of the likelihood and potential intensity of a  wildfire in a given area helps the agencies compare the relative  hazard potential different geographic areas face from such fire. The  agencies also used information from another national geospatial  database that the Forest Service developed on historical fire  occurrence data to identify where fires have most frequently occurred,  whether because of natural causes (e.g., lightning) or human causes  (e.g., accidental ignitions or arson). Figure 9 shows the wildfire  hazard potential, as assessed by the Forest Service in July 2018, on  lands the five agencies managed and administered in the contiguous  United States.

Location of communities and infrastructure. Officials from the five  agencies told us that they considered the location of communities and  important infrastructure, such as municipal watersheds and electrical  transmission lines, which could be damaged by wildfires. The  officials said they used several information sources to help them  identify the locations of these communities and infrastructure. For  example, the agencies used a national geospatial database that the  Forest Service developed that maps the WUI as defined by the Forest  Service and Interior in 2001. Field unit officials said that they also  considered local knowledge about areas that are important to protect  in or near to a given community when selecting fuel reduction projects  to prioritize and implement. For example, officials said that many  communities had developed Community Wildfire Protection Plans— plans identifying areas the communities believe are important to  protect—and that they would consider these local plans when  selecting fuel reduction projects to implement.

Ecosystem health and location of natural resources. Officials from  four of the five agencies said that they considered information on the  locations of particularly valued natural resources, such as rare or  otherwise important plants, including those that provide habitat for  threatened or endangered species. Using an interagency tool, they  also considered information on the overall ecological condition of  forests, grasslands, and other vegetation and how current conditions  related to historical conditions in given locations. The officials said  that this information helped them identify areas where wildfires may  be more damaging than they were in the past because of changes in  the density, age, and species composition of the vegetation. For  example, officials said that in part because of decades of fire  suppression, many ponderosa pine forests currently contain more  trees than they would have historically, and as a result, today’s  wildfires may burn hotter and cause more damage to those forests  than fires did in the past. Reducing fuels can help the agencies to  restore an area closer to its historical conditions, which in some  ecosystems may reduce the risk of wildfire damaging an ecosystem  and the resources it contains, according to the Cohesive Strategy.

Agencies Used Different Approaches for Allocating Funds in Fiscal Year 2018

As they considered similar information on potential damage to  communities and ecosystems, each agency used a different approach for  allocating fuel reduction funds in fiscal year 2018, according to agency  documents and agency officials. Officials from each of the agencies said  that professional judgment plays an important role in making these  decisions. The general approaches each agency used for allocating fuel  reduction funds in fiscal year 2018 were:

Forest Service. Forest Service headquarters officials said they  allocated fuel reduction funds to their regions based primarily on the  allocation levels from the previous fiscal year. However, they also said  they considered information based on the best available science on  the wildfire risk facing the regions and each region’s contributions to  meeting the agency’s acreage targets for fuel reduction projects in the  previous fiscal year. According to a 2017 Forest Service manual, the  agency was to develop national and regional risk assessments to help  inform their approach to allocation decisions, but the national  assessment had not been finalized for use in fiscal year 2018.  Forest Service officials initially allocated approximately 70 percent of  the agency’s total fuel reduction funds to the regions, withholding  about 30 percent to make available to regions and national forests on  a competitive basis later in the fiscal year. The regions and forests  then competed for additional fuels funds for projects aligned with  specific national priorities as determined by Forest Service  headquarters.

Interior. Interior’s Office of Wildland Fire officials said they allocated  fuel reduction funds to the Interior agencies based primarily on  allocation levels from fiscal year 2017. However, late in the third  quarter of fiscal year 2018, Interior officials began testing an approach  for reviewing each of the four Interior agencies’ planned fuel reduction  projects for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s priorities  for the fiscal year. The agencies’ plans for such projects were to be  updated each quarter to keep Interior officials informed on the  implementation status for projects underway and of changes to  planned projects, according to Interior documents.

BIA. BIA headquarters officials told us they allocated fuel reduction  funds to their regional offices based on an allocation model that the  agency adopted around fiscal year 2012. The model analyzes wildfire  hazard potential and agency staffing levels across BIA regions,  among other factors. According to a BIA document, the model  includes information that captures risk-related information for wildfires  on BIA-administered tribal lands. It also captures information on  performance and fiscal management for each BIA regional office’s  fuel reduction program during the previous fiscal year and each BIA  regional office’s contributions to the total number of acres treated  overall by the BIA fuel reduction program. BIA officials said the  comparative scores for each regional office derived from the model  served as a starting point for discussions with BIA senior leadership  when determining the fuel reduction allocations to the regions.

BLM. BLM headquarters officials said they allocated fuel reduction  funds to their state offices based on the results of the 5-year allocation  model the agency adopted in 2015. The model analyzes the location  of communities, critical infrastructure, and sagebrush habitat, among  other factors, as well as wildfire fire hazard potential for the area  covered by each BLM state office. According to BLM officials, the  model provides a relative ranking for each BLM state office based on  acreage at risk, which helps determine the state offices’ respective  fuel reduction allocations. For example, BLM state offices that  manage more sage-grouse habitat that is at high risk for wildfire  received larger allocations than offices in states without such habitat  or where the sage-grouse habitat was at lower risk for wildfire.

FWS. FWS headquarters officials said they allocated fuel reduction  funds to their regional offices based on the results of an allocation  system—the Fuels Management Allocation and Accountability  System—that they have used since fiscal year 2016. This system  generates a risk profile for each FWS region based on, for example,  the location of infrastructure, population density, and how fuel  conditions may affect wildfires that occur on FWS-managed land.  According to FWS officials, this system provides a relative ranking for  each FWS region based on acreage at risk, which helps determine  the regions’ respective fuel reduction allocations. In general, the FWS  regions with the most acreage at risk receive the largest percentage  of FWS’s fuel reduction funds.

NPS. NPS headquarters officials told us that they allocated fuel  reduction funds to their regions based primarily on historical allocation  levels from fiscal year 2017. Headquarters officials said they are  considering ways to improve their allocation process, such as  potentially adopting a model developed in one of their regions.  Specifically, officials from the NPS region in our review said that they  had developed a model to help analyze the relative risk facing the  field units in their region when making allocation decisions. This  model is designed to identify highly valued assets in the national  parks and other NPS-managed lands in the region and provide  relative rankings for those assets requiring protection through fuel  reduction projects, according to the officials.

Agency Officials Cited a Variety of Factors Affecting Their Efforts to Implement Fuel Reduction Projects

Officials we interviewed from the five federal agencies cited a variety of  factors affecting their efforts to implement fuel reduction projects. The  officials also identified steps they were taking to help mitigate some of the  factors.

Scale of problem. Officials from all five agencies we interviewed said  that the number of acres needing fuel reductions is significantly larger  than the number of acres the agencies are able to treat in any given year.  As previously noted, the Forest Service estimated in 2018 that there were  approximately 63 million acres of national forest lands at high to very high  risk from uncharacteristic wildfire, and Interior officials estimated in 2019  that 54 million acres of the lands that they manage or administer were at  high or very high risk from wildfire. In fiscal year 2018, the Forest Service  and Interior implemented fuel reduction projects that treated  approximately 1.7 million and 1.3 million acres, respectively, of lands they  manage or administer.

Agency officials told us that they recognize that their efforts will not allow  them to reduce fuels on all high-risk lands needing treatment but said that  in addition to the projects they undertake to reduce fuels, wildfires also  serve to reduce fuels in areas burned by such fires. In some  circumstances, officials said, wildfires may provide similar fuel reduction  benefits as prescribed burns and other fuel reduction methods. To the  extent that wildfires reduce fuels in areas that the agencies would  otherwise plan to implement fuel reduction projects, such wildfires would  serve to reduce fuels on more acreage than they would otherwise be able  to treat.

Agency officials also said, as previously discussed, that they are working  to improve their ability to identify areas to prioritize for treatment. For  example, scientists at the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research  Station are helping the agency refine its methods for identifying areas  most at risk from wildfire and the communities closest to those areas by  expanding and updating agency risk assessments to more accurately  depict where fuels reduction projects on national forest lands could  provide the most protection to communities. This may also allow Forest  Service officials to reduce the total number of acres needing treatment  through better targeting of the highest-risk acres. According to Forest  Service officials, the agency intends to consider this research to help  inform its budget requests and funding allocations for fuel reduction  efforts in future fiscal years. The Forest Service and Interior are also  working to improve their existing fuel reduction project computer  simulation software—called the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision  Support System—so that it can be used to model and quantify the risk  reduction effects of potential projects across larger geographic areas.  Officials said these improvements would help them prioritize areas to  treat by allowing agency officials to explore how different combinations of  locations and types of treatments affect predicted future wildfire  behavior.

Operating under continuing resolutions. Officials we interviewed from  all five agencies said that operating under continuing resolutions  negatively affected their ability to implement fuel reduction projects.  Specifically, agency officials said that they tend to budget conservatively until they receive their regular appropriation and therefore implementation  of planned projects may be delayed. For example, Forest Service  officials said that the weather for doing prescribed burns is often better in  the fall and winter and that receiving their annual appropriation later in the  fiscal year can reduce their ability to perform these burns in a given year.  In addition, the officials said they had delayed hiring and training staff in  previous years when the agencies were operating under continuing  resolutions, reducing the number of staff available to implement projects.

The Forest Service has taken some steps to mitigate the effects of  operating under continuing resolutions. For example, officials in one  region said they recently adopted an approach that allows them to more  readily shift funding from one planned fuels project to another, either  within the same national forest or to other national forests in the region, to  complete projects as weather conditions and budgets allow. Officials from  one national forest in this region said that this approach has facilitated  sharing fuels reduction staff among neighboring national forests to plan  additional projects, thereby leading to a broader array of projects being  ready for implementation when the agency receives its regular annual  appropriations.

Balancing fuels projects in new areas with maintaining past  treatments. Officials from all five agencies said that it can be difficult to  balance conducting fuel reduction projects in new areas with maintaining  areas that have already had initial fuel reduction projects completed.  Some agency officials said that while it is important to conduct projects to  reduce wildfire risk in new areas, they also need to conduct projects in  previously treated areas to maintain the effectiveness of past treatments.

Agency officials said that in balancing their investments between new and  previously treated areas, they consider the relative costs of projects.  Conducting fuel reduction projects in new areas can be more expensive  than conducting maintenance projects because of the type of treatments  that need to be done, according to officials. For example, officials from  one national forest said that initial mechanical treatments may cost from  $300 to $1,500 per acre, depending on the area where the treatment is  located, while conducting prescribed burns to maintain a previously  treated area may cost from $25 to $100 per acre.

Availability of staff. Agency officials from all five agencies said that fuel  program staff may be involved in wildfire suppression efforts and  therefore may not be available to plan or perform fuel reduction projects,  leading to delays in completing such projects. Officials noted that this was  largely an unavoidable result of the agencies’ approach to suppression  operations, whereby staff from many of the agencies’ program areas,  including fuels, are mobilized through temporary emergency assignments  to respond to large wildfires across the country as they occur.

Agency officials said that they are used to working within staff availability  constraints. However, some officials expressed concern about the  potential for staff burnout. Specifically, fuel program staff may work many  overtime hours when suppressing fires and additional overtime hours  when they return to their field units to catch up with planned fuel reduction  projects that were delayed because of the emergency suppression  assignments.

Higher cost of treating WUI areas. Officials we interviewed from four of  the five agencies said that costs are a factor when determining which  projects to pursue and that it can be more expensive to conduct fuel  reduction projects close to homes and infrastructure in the WUI. For  example, officials at one national forest said that conducting prescribed  burns close to communities in the WUI typically costs almost $250 per  acre, whereas it may cost $60 per acre to reduce fuels further away from  communities.

Agency officials told us that they try to balance their work between WUI  and non-WUI areas to ensure treatment of high-risk areas. In balancing  between WUI and non-WUI areas, some Forest Service field unit officials  noted that Forest Service headquarters annually sets fuel reduction  acreage targets for each region; each region then sets targets for each of  its national forests and grasslands. Some officials said that as their  annual targets for acres of fuel reduction increase, they may feel pressure  to choose projects in locations where they can treat more acres to meet  their targets, even if those acres may not be located in the areas at  highest risk from wildfire damage. Forest Service headquarters officials  said that they do not pressure field units to meet the targets but that they  are aware that increasing the annual fuels targets, while budgets remain  relatively flat, may incentivize field units to select lower cost areas, which  may be at lower risk from wildfire. The officials added that the field units,  consistent with Forest Service guidance, should be selecting their project  locations based on their risk assessments, not cost.

Community acceptance of fuel reduction projects. Officials we  interviewed from four of the five agencies said that community concerns  about the effects of proposed fuel reduction projects have affected their  ability to conduct some projects but that they are often able to work with  communities to gain their acceptance. For example, the officials said that  community members are frequently concerned that smoke from  prescribed burns will have negative impacts on their health and quality of  life, or that mechanical thinning of vegetation near their communities will  be visually unattractive or have negative impacts on wildlife.

Agency officials said that they work to minimize these impacts. For  example, Forest Service officials schedule prescribed burns at times  when weather conditions are not expected to cause a significant volume  of smoke to drift into communities. The officials also said that they work  with community members to educate them about the benefits of reducing  fuels, steps the agencies are taking to reduce negative impacts on the  community and wildlife, and steps community members can take to help  avoid some impacts. In other instances, agencies partner with various  stakeholders to help mitigate negative effects of fuel reduction projects on  communities. For example, the Forest Service in New Mexico is part of  the Greater Santa Fe Fireshed Coalition, a group that loans air filters to  community members who are sensitive to smoke to help them avoid  negative health impacts from prescribed burns.

Limited economic value of biomass. Officials from three of the five  agencies we interviewed said that, in contrast to commercial timber  harvests in which contractors pay the agency for the material they remove, fuel reduction projects often produce small trees and other  biomass with limited economic value. As a result, fuel reduction projects  are unlikely to generate revenues that the agencies could use to help  offset the costs of completing such projects.

To help mitigate this issue, Forest Service officials said they are working  to expand their use of a practice known as stewardship contracting.  Through stewardship contracting, the agencies can trade goods—such as  timber—for fuel reduction or forest restoration services that the agencies  would otherwise pay for with appropriated dollars. Officials we  interviewed at two national forests said that the use of stewardship  contracts had facilitated their ability to conduct fuel reduction projects,  although officials at one of the forests also said they were concerned that  the relatively long length of the contracts could slow the rate at which  contractors completed the projects. The Forest Service is also  researching ways to increase demand for small trees and other  biomass—for example, by expanding their use in energy production and  building materials—which, if successful, could help to increase the  economic value of the material.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture and the  Department of the Interior for review and comment. In comments  reproduced in appendix II, the Forest Service, responding on behalf of the  Department of Agriculture, generally agreed with our findings. In addition,  the Forest Service and Interior provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and  other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on  the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Federal Agencies, Agency Units, and Nonfederal Entities Interviewed

Appendix I: Federal Agencies, Agency Units,  and Nonfederal Entities Interviewed Regional office  (geographic area covered by region)

Field unit  (state in which unit is located)

Southwestern Region   (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)

Cibola National Forest  (New Mexico)  Santa Fe National Forest  (New Mexico)

Pacific Southwest Region   (California, Hawaii)

Cleveland National Forest  (California)  Shasta-Trinity National Forest  (California)

Pacific Northwest Region   (Oregon, Washington)

Southern Region   (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky  Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,  South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and the  territory of Puerto Rico)

Francis Marion and Sumter National  Forests  (South Carolina)

Western Region   (most of Arizona, Nevada, Utah)

Southeast Region   (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,  Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,  Tennessee, and the territories of Puerto Rico and the  U.S. Virgin Islands)

Mississippi Sandhill Crane National  Wildlife Refuge  (Mississippi)

Pacific West Region   (portions of Arizona; California; Hawaii; Idaho; portions  of Montana; Nevada; Oregon; Washington; and the  territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the  Northern Mariana Islands)

Whiskeytown National Recreation Area  (California)

Appendix II: Comments for the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Jonathan Dent (Assistant  Director), David Lysy (Analyst-in-Charge), Aditi Archer, Kathryn Godfrey,  Richard Johnson, Gwen Kirby, Anne Rhodes-Kline, Dan Royer, and Kyle  Stetler made key contributions to this report.

Overgrown vegetation can fuel wildfires, which have been increasing in size and severity. Federal land management agencies reduce vegetation on high-risk public lands primarily by cutting it or intentionally burning it, often in combination.

In fiscal years 2009-2018, these agencies received more than $5 billion (over $500 million per year on average) to reduce this vegetation.

Officials cited several factors affecting their efforts. For example, there are significantly more high-risk acres—about 100 million—than the agencies can treat each year, which was about 3 million in fiscal year 2018.