Wildland Fire Management
Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats Gao ID: GAO-06-671R May 1, 2006The wildland fire problems facing our nation continue to grow. The number of acres burned by wildland fires annually from 2000 to 2005 was 70 percent greater than the average burned annually during the 1990s, while appropriations for the federal government's wildland fire management activities tripled from about $1 billion in fiscal year 1999 to nearly $3 billion in fiscal year 2005. Experts believe that catastrophic damage from wildland fire probably will continue to increase until an adequate long-term federal response, coordinated with others, is implemented and has had time to take effect. In the past 7 years, the federal government has made important progress in putting into place basic components of a framework for managing and responding to the nation's wildland fire problems. Many challenges lie ahead, however, if the federal agencies having primary responsibility for managing wildland fire issues--the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) within the Department of the Interior--are to address the problems in a timely and effective manner. Most notably, as we reported in January 2005, the agencies need to develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the available long-term options and related funding requirements for reducing excess vegetation that could fuel wildland fires and for responding to wildland fires when they occur. The agencies and the Congress need such a strategy in order to make informed decisions about an effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing problems that have been decades in the making and will take decades more to resolve. In our January 2005 report, recognizing that the development of a cohesive strategy that includes long-term options and funding was itself a long-term effort, we recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior provide the Congress with a joint tactical plan outlining the critical steps the agencies planned to take, together with related time frames, to complete such a cohesive strategy. In responding to that report, officials from Agriculture and Interior said they would produce an initial tactical plan by August 2005. Our prior work also identified several tasks, each with its own challenges, that the agencies must complete prior to implementing such a strategy, including finishing data systems needed to identify the extent, severity, and location of wildland fire threats to the nation's communities and ecosystems; updating local fire management plans to better specify the actions needed to effectively address these threats; and assessing the cost-effectiveness and affordability of options for reducing fuels. In this context, Congress asked us to provide information on (1) the progress that the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have made over the past year in developing a tactical plan outlining the steps and time frames needed to complete a cohesive strategy for addressing wildland fire threats, as we recommended; and (2) the agencies' efforts to address the challenges GAO believes they are likely to face as they develop this cohesive strategy.
The agencies have not prepared a tactical plan outlining the critical steps and associated time frames for completing a cohesive wildland fire management strategy, as we recommended. And while the agencies completed a February 2006 interagency document entitled "Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy," this document does not identify long-term options and related funding needed for reducing fuels and responding to wildland fires when they occur, as we called for. Agency officials initially told us that they would not be able to produce such a strategy because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not allow them to publish long-term cost estimates--thus rendering a tactical plan unnecessary. In responding to a draft of this report, the agencies commented that OMB does not believe that the agencies will be able to produce credible long-term funding estimates until two key data systems to help identify wildland fire threats and allocate fire management resources are more fully operational. OMB officials stated that they will allow the agencies to publish such estimates, but only when the agencies have sufficiently reliable data on which to base them. The agencies have made progress on the three primary tasks we identified as important to developing a wildland fire management strategy, although challenges remain. LANDFIRE, a geospatial data and modeling system, will assist the agencies in identifying the extent, severity, and location of wildland fire threats to the nation's communities and ecosystems. LANDFIRE data are nearly complete for most of the western United States, with data for the remainder of the country scheduled to be completed in 2009. The agencies will need to ensure that LANDFIRE data are kept current in order to reflect landscape-altering events such as large fires and hurricanes. About 95 percent of the agencies' individual land management units have completed fire management plans in accordance with agency requirements promulgated in 2001. However, the agencies do not require regular plan updates to ensure that new data (from LANDFIRE, for example) are incorporated into the plans. The Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system is a computer-based model designed to assist the agencies in cost-effectively allocating the resources necessary to address wildland fires. The first of FPA's two phases is nearly complete, with the second phase expected to be completed in 2008. However, gaps in the data collected for FPA may reduce its usefulness in allocating resources. Given the importance of a cohesive strategy for wildland fire management that includes long-term options and associated funding requirements, and the need to understand how and when the agencies will produce such a strategy, the Congress may want to consider requiring the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop a tactical plan outlining the key steps and time frames required to complete this cohesive strategy. Further, if the Congress believes it will need information on options and related funding before 2009--the scheduled completion date for LANDFIRE, which the agencies say they will need in order to produce credible funding estimates--it may wish to look to an independent source to provide interim information, perhaps by requiring the secretaries to contract with a third party to do so.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-671R, Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-671R
entitled 'Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to
Develop a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats' which was
released on May 2, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 1, 2006:
The Honorable Charles H. Taylor:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to
Develop a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats:
The wildland fire problems facing our nation continue to grow. The
number of acres burned by wildland fires annually from 2000 to 2005 was
70 percent greater than the average burned annually during the 1990s,
while appropriations for the federal government's wildland fire
management activities tripled from about $1 billion in fiscal year 1999
to nearly $3 billion in fiscal year 2005. Experts believe that
catastrophic damage from wildland fire probably will continue to
increase until an adequate long-term federal response, coordinated with
others, is implemented and has had time to take effect.
In the past 7 years, the federal government has made important progress
in putting into place basic components of a framework for managing and
responding to the nation's wildland fire problems. Many challenges lie
ahead, however, if the federal agencies having primary responsibility
for managing wildland fire issues--the Forest Service within the
Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
National Park Service (NPS) within the Department of the Interior--are
to address the problems in a timely and effective manner. Most notably,
as we reported in January 2005,[Footnote 1] the agencies need to
develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the available long-term
options and related funding requirements for reducing excess vegetation
that could fuel wildland fires and for responding to wildland fires
when they occur. The agencies and the Congress need such a strategy in
order to make informed decisions about an effective and affordable long-
term approach for addressing problems that have been decades in the
making and will take decades more to resolve.
In our January 2005 report, recognizing that the development of a
cohesive strategy that includes long-term options and funding was
itself a long-term effort, we recommended that the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior provide the Congress with a joint tactical
plan outlining the critical steps the agencies planned to take,
together with related time frames, to complete such a cohesive
strategy. In responding to that report, officials from Agriculture and
Interior said they would produce an initial tactical plan by August
2005.
Our prior work also identified several tasks, each with its own
challenges, that the agencies must complete prior to implementing such
a strategy, including:
* finishing data systems needed to identify the extent, severity, and
location of wildland fire threats to the nation's communities and
ecosystems;
* updating local fire management plans to better specify the actions
needed to effectively address these threats; and:
* assessing the cost-effectiveness and affordability of options for
reducing fuels.
In this context, you asked us to provide information on (1) the
progress that the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have made
over the past year in developing a tactical plan outlining the steps
and time frames needed to complete a cohesive strategy for addressing
wildland fire threats, as we recommended; and (2) the agencies' efforts
to address the challenges GAO believes they are likely to face as they
develop this cohesive strategy. To obtain this information, we reviewed
agency documents regarding wildland fire management activities and
interviewed federal and nonfederal officials knowledgeable about the
agencies' wildland fire management efforts. We conducted our work in
March and April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The agencies have not prepared a tactical plan outlining the critical
steps and associated time frames for completing a cohesive wildland
fire management strategy, as we recommended. And while the agencies
completed a February 2006 interagency document entitled "Protecting
People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy,"
this document does not identify long-term options and related funding
needed for reducing fuels and responding to wildland fires when they
occur, as we called for. Agency officials initially told us that they
would not be able to produce such a strategy because the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) does not allow them to publish long-term
cost estimates--thus rendering a tactical plan unnecessary. In
responding to a draft of this report, the agencies commented that OMB
does not believe that the agencies will be able to produce credible
long-term funding estimates until two key data systems to help identify
wildland fire threats and allocate fire management resources are more
fully operational. OMB officials stated that they will allow the
agencies to publish such estimates, but only when the agencies have
sufficiently reliable data on which to base them.
The agencies have made progress on the three primary tasks we
identified as important to developing a wildland fire management
strategy, although challenges remain.
* LANDFIRE, a geospatial data and modeling system, will assist the
agencies in identifying the extent, severity, and location of wildland
fire threats to the nation's communities and ecosystems. LANDFIRE data
are nearly complete for most of the western United States, with data
for the remainder of the country scheduled to be completed in 2009. The
agencies will need to ensure that LANDFIRE data are kept current in
order to reflect landscape-altering events such as large fires and
hurricanes.
* About 95 percent of the agencies' individual land management units
have completed fire management plans in accordance with agency
requirements promulgated in 2001. However, the agencies do not require
regular plan updates to ensure that new data (from LANDFIRE, for
example) are incorporated into the plans.
* The Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system is a computer-based model
designed to assist the agencies in cost-effectively allocating the
resources necessary to address wildland fires. The first of FPA's two
phases is nearly complete, with the second phase expected to be
completed in 2008. However, gaps in the data collected for FPA may
reduce its usefulness in allocating resources.
Given the importance of a cohesive strategy for wildland fire
management that includes long-term options and associated funding
requirements, and the need to understand how and when the agencies will
produce such a strategy, the Congress may want to consider requiring
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop a tactical
plan outlining the key steps and time frames required to complete this
cohesive strategy. Further, if the Congress believes it will need
information on options and related funding before 2009--the scheduled
completion date for LANDFIRE, which the agencies say they will need in
order to produce credible funding estimates--it may wish to look to an
independent source to provide interim information, perhaps by requiring
the secretaries to contract with a third party to do so.
In responding to a draft of this report, the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior generally agreed with our findings, and with
the need for a cohesive strategy and an associated tactical plan.
However, given the agencies' additional comments about OMB's specific
objections to their publishing long-term funding estimates critical to
a cohesive strategy, and OMB's confirmation that it will allow the
agencies to produce such estimates provided they have sufficiently
reliable data on which to base the estimates, we revised the matters
for congressional consideration contained in our draft report. See the
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section, as well as enclosures I and
II, for the agencies' comments and our responses.
Background:
Wildland fire triggered by lightning is a normal, inevitable, and
necessary ecological process that periodically removes excess
undergrowth, small trees, and vegetation to renew ecosystem
productivity. However, various human land use and management practices,
including several decades of fire suppression activities, have reduced
the normal frequency of wildland fires in many forest and rangeland
ecosystems and have resulted in abnormally dense and continuous
accumulations of vegetation that can fuel uncharacteristically large
and intense wildland fires. Such large intense fires increasingly
threaten catastrophic ecosystem damage and also increasingly threaten
human lives, health, property, and infrastructure in the wildland-urban
interface. Federal researchers estimate that vegetative conditions that
can fuel such fires exist on 90 million to 200 million acres of federal
lands in the contiguous United States, and that these conditions also
exist on many nonfederal lands.
Our reviews over the last 7 years identified several weaknesses in the
federal government's management response to wildland fire issues,
including:
* the lack of a national strategy that addressed the likely high costs
of needed fuel reduction efforts and the need to prioritize these
efforts;
* shortcomings in federal planning and implementation at the local
level;
* the lack of basic data, such as the amount and location of lands
needing fuel reduction;
* ineffective coordination among federal agencies and collaboration
between these agencies and nonfederal entities; and:
* insufficient accountability for federal expenditures and performance
in wildland fire management.
Because of these weaknesses, and because of the likelihood that
wildland fire problems will take decades to resolve, we concluded that
the agencies needed a cohesive, long-term federal wildland fire
management strategy focusing on identifying options for reducing fuels
over the long term in order to decrease future wildland fire risks. We
also said that the strategy should identify the needed funding
associated with those different fuel reduction options over time, so
that the agencies and the Congress could make cost-effective, strategic
funding decisions.
The agencies have several wildland fire management activities under way
that will be important to the development of a long-term cohesive
strategy. In 2003, Agriculture and Interior approved funding for
development of a geospatial data and modeling system, called LANDFIRE,
designed to generate comprehensive maps of vegetation, fire, and fuel
characteristics nationally and to enable comparisons of conditions
between different field locations nationwide. When operational,
LANDFIRE data and enhanced models of likely fire behavior thus will
help identify the nature and magnitude of the wildland fire risks
confronting numerous community and ecosystem resources, such as
residential and commercial structures, species habitat, air and water
quality, and soils. The agencies plan to use this information to better
support their strategic decisions on preparedness, suppression, the
location and design of fuel reduction projects, and other land
management activities.
Another element of the agencies' wildland fire management strategy is
the preparation of fire management plans, which are local plans
prepared by individual agency management units (such as wildlife
refuges or national forests) to define each unit's program to prepare
for and manage fires. Fire management plans are important for
identifying the fuel reduction, preparedness, suppression, and
rehabilitation actions needed at the local level to effectively address
wildland fire threats.
Finally, the agencies are implementing FPA, an interagency system
intended to provide a single mechanism for planning and budgeting
agency activities to prepare for, and respond to, wildland
fire.[Footnote 2] FPA, which will use LANDFIRE data when available, is
designed to identify the most cost-effective allocations of annual
preparedness funding for implementing agency field units' local fire
management plans, taking into account fire risk, resources to be
protected, available firefighting assets, and other information.
Neither a Tactical Plan Nor a Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy That
Includes Long-Term Options and Needed Funding Have Been Completed:
Officials at Agriculture and Interior told us the agencies have not
developed the tactical plan we called for, outlining the critical steps
the agencies will take, together with related time frames, to complete
a cohesive strategy for wildland fire management--despite their
commitment to do so in their response to our January 2005 report. And
while the agencies completed a February 2006 interagency document
entitled "Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels
Treatment Strategy," this document does not identify long-term options
and related funding needed for reducing fuels and responding to
wildland fires when they occur.
Agency officials initially told us that they would be unable to ever
produce such a strategy because OMB will not allow them to publish long-
term cost estimates--making a tactical plan unnecessary. In responding
to a draft of this report, the agencies commented that OMB does not
believe the agencies can produce credible long-term funding estimates
until LANDFIRE and FPA are more fully operational. OMB officials stated
that they will allow the agencies to publish long-term cost estimates,
but only when they have sufficiently reliable data to develop credible
estimates, and that LANDFIRE and FPA will be critical to doing so.
Given OMB's concerns, it appears unlikely that a cohesive strategy that
includes long-term options and needed funding will be developed before
2009, the scheduled completion date for LANDFIRE.
Agency officials told us that, although their recently published
cohesive strategy does not contain long-term options and needed
funding, the agencies are taking steps to increase the effectiveness of
their wildland fire management. The Wildland Fire Leadership Council is
developing a comprehensive framework to monitor hazardous fuels
reduction projects,[Footnote 3] and is conducting a review of the 10-
Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan.[Footnote 4] The
comprehensive monitoring framework will, among other activities,
evaluate the effect of fuels treatments intended to reduce the risk of
wildland fire and the extent of collaboration among federal, state, and
local entities. Similarly, the review of the implementation plan, which
an Interior official told us will be completed by midsummer 2006, will
incorporate performance measures to evaluate whether fuels treatment
activities are meeting their intended objectives. However, both of
these efforts focus on the effects of fuels treatment activities,
rather than providing options and needed funding for potential future
wildland fire management activities.
Progress Has Been Made on LANDFIRE, Fire Management Plans, and FPA, but
Challenges Remain:
The agencies have made progress in implementing three ongoing efforts
that are critical to developing and implementing a cohesive wildland
fire management strategy: LANDFIRE, fire management plans, and FPA.
However, given the evolving nature of these efforts--particularly
LANDFIRE and FPA--it will be important for the agencies to remain
vigilant in ensuring that these efforts incorporate up-to-date and
comprehensive data, in order to deliver on their promise.
LANDFIRE:
According to agency officials, LANDFIRE data have been collected for
most of the western United States and are currently being validated, a
process that should be completed by the end of fiscal year 2006. Data
validation includes an internal data quality assurance and quality
control process, according to these officials, as well as extensive
work with local agency fire managers to ensure that the information
produced by LANDFIRE accurately represents on-the-ground conditions.
Data for the remaining contiguous states are scheduled to be completed
by the end of fiscal year 2008, and for Alaska and Hawaii by the end of
fiscal year 2009. In May 2006, LANDFIRE's Executive Oversight
Committee, an interagency group of managers responsible for overseeing
the project, will be conducting a review to evaluate the project's
objectives, schedule, budget, data development, and data use.
As of March 2006, according to agency officials, almost $18 million of
LANDFIRE's total expected cost of about $39 million has been spent.
However, these officials also told us that, as of the same date,
LANDFIRE was about 6 months behind the original production schedule,
and agencies still face challenges regarding completion and
implementation. The primary challenge facing LANDFIRE, according to
agency officials, is keeping the data current in the face of landscape-
altering events such as hurricanes and fires. Without up-to-date data,
agency managers will have difficulty using LANDFIRE to identify
existing vegetation and other landscape characteristics--information
that is essential to developing an appropriate wildland fire management
strategy. And while it is possible to acquire new data for particular
areas that have undergone change, according to agency officials,
integrating new data into the existing LANDFIRE data set can be
problematic.
Fire Management Plans:
Nearly all of the agencies' land management units have completed fire
management plans as called for in 2001 federal wildland fire management
policy, according to agency officials and documents. Many, though not
all, of these plans have been prepared within a common interagency
template, which the agencies adopted to ensure greater consistency in
their contents. Table 1 below shows the status of each agency's fire
management plans.
Table 1: Completion Status of Agency Fire Management Plans Compliant
with 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy:
Agency: Forest Service;
Number of plans needed: 115;
Number of plans completed: 115;
Percentage of needed plans completed: 100;
Percentage of plans using template: 100.
Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Number of plans needed: 353;
Number of plans completed: 350;
Percentage of needed plans completed: 99;
Percentage of plans using template: [a].
Agency: Bureau of Land Management;
Number of plans needed: 72;
Number of plans completed: 72;
Percentage of needed plans completed: 100;
Percentage of plans using template: 100.
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Number of plans needed: 641;
Number of plans completed: 617;
Percentage of needed plans completed: 96;
Percentage of plans using template: [a].
Agency: National Park Service;
Number of plans needed: 279;
Number of plans completed: 238;
Percentage of needed plans completed: 85;
Percentage of plans using template: 100.
Total:
Number of plans needed: 1,460;
Number of plans completed: 1,392;
Percentage of needed plans completed: 95;
Percentage of plans using template: [a].
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
[A] BIA and FWS officials told us that a portion of their agencies'
plans use the template, although they did not estimate the percentage
of completed plans doing so.
[End of table]
If these plans are to be the principal managing instruments for
identifying, budgeting for, and implementing the various actions needed
at the local level to effectively address wildland fire threats, the
agencies will need to ensure that the plans are kept current. This will
involve updating the plans to incorporate available LANDFIRE data as
well as available research on addressing wildland fire threats (such as
research on the extent to which conducting fuel reduction treatments in
certain geometric patterns improves the treatments' effectiveness in
reducing the spread rate and intensity of wildland fires). However,
agency guidance does not require regular plan updates, instead leaving
it up to land management units to determine the frequency of needed
updates. January 2006 guidance covering the Forest Service, BLM, FWS,
and NPS calls for these agencies to review plans annually and update
them as needed; similarly, a BIA official told us that BIA guidance
calls for plans to be updated when "significant changes" occur, such as
large fires or changes in a particular unit's land use plan. Further,
the agencies may not always find it easy to update these plans; a
Forest Service official told us that, if the introduction of new data
into a fire management plan results in the development of new fire
management objectives, the agency might need to conduct a new National
Environmental Policy Act analysis for that plan,[Footnote 5] requiring
additional time and resources. If fire management plans are not updated
to reflect the most current information on the extent and distribution
of fire risks and the most promising methods for dealing with them, the
plans will be of limited use in the agencies' attempts to manage
wildland fire problems.
FPA:
FPA is being implemented in two phases, the first of which is nearly
complete. Phase I is intended to provide information for use in two
primary areas: (1) allocating resources for the initial responses to
fires and (2) developing estimates for the agencies' fiscal year 2008
budgets. Agency officials told us that, of the 138 interagency "fire
planning units" established to submit data for FPA, 134 have submitted
Phase I data. The agencies will validate the data during the spring and
summer of 2006, and expect to use the data in formulating their fiscal
year 2008 budgets. Phase II focuses on additional activities, including
fuel reduction, postfire rehabilitation, and others; data for this
phase are expected to be submitted by June 2008, followed by agency
analysis and validation of the data.
Agency officials told us that, as part of FPA's implementation, about
600 staff within the agencies, including staff in each of the 138 fire
planning units, have received training on FPA. Agency officials also
are conducting a "midcourse review" of FPA to assess progress to date
and determine what changes may be necessary as the agencies continue to
implement FPA. Officials told us that they expect a final report on the
results of the review in the spring or summer of 2006. According to
agency officials, as of March 2006, about $21 million of the expected
overall cost of $48 million had been spent on FPA. This is about $6
million more than the 2004 estimate of $42 million; a Forest Service
official told us that the increase is primarily due to an additional
year of Phase II development, as well as additional operations and
maintenance costs expected in 2009 and 2010.
While progress continues to be made, gaps exist in the data collected
for FPA. In order to cost-effectively allocate federal resources, FPA
was designed to incorporate data on both federal and nonfederal
firefighting assets (such as personnel and equipment) because both
federal and nonfederal assets might be used to fight an individual
fire, regardless of whether the fire occurs on federal or nonfederal
land. Nevertheless, nonfederal assets have not been consistently
included in FPA because, according to officials and FPA documents, many
states and other nonfederal entities have been reluctant or unwilling
to provide data for FPA. Some states are concerned about the time and
resources required to compile and submit data for FPA, particularly
given that many states do not envision using FPA to develop their
wildland fire budgets and thus cannot justify the additional workload
required to participate. In other cases, nonfederal officials may be
worried that federal assets will be reduced in areas where nonfederal
assets already exist because the nonfederal assets may be deemed
sufficient to provide the initial response to a fire--which could
potentially increase the nonfederal entities' workload in the event of
a fire.
Without comprehensive data on all federal and nonfederal assets
available to fight wildland fires, it is unclear how effectively
federal resources will be allocated using FPA because federal resources
may be directed to areas where sufficient nonfederal assets already
exist--or, conversely, federal resources may be directed away from
areas despite those areas' lack of available nonfederal assets.
However, federal agency officials stated that the absence of nonfederal
data is unlikely to significantly hamper the agencies' ability to use
FPA to make resource allocation and budget decisions, although they
have not yet fully assessed the effect of not having complete
nonfederal data. These officials also reported that they are developing
a strategy for obtaining nonfederal data.
Conclusions:
The federal government is expending substantial effort and billions of
dollars in attempting to address our nation's wildland fire problems.
If the agencies and the Congress are to make informed decisions about
an effective and affordable long-term approach to the issue, they
should have a cohesive strategy that identifies long-term options and
needed funding for addressing these wildland fire problems. Because it
likely will be at least 2009 before the agencies develop such a
strategy that would meet standards required by OMB, we continue to
believe it is essential that, in the interim, the agencies create a
tactical plan for developing this strategy, so that the Congress
understands the steps and time frames involved with its completion.
However, despite our previous recommendation that the agencies develop
this tactical plan, and the agencies' commitment to do so, they have
not produced such a plan.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Given the importance of a cohesive strategy for wildland fire
management that identifies long-term options and needed funding, as
well as the need to understand how and when the agencies will develop
such a strategy, the Congress may wish to consider requiring that the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior develop a tactical plan
that lays out the specific steps and time frames needed to complete a
cohesive strategy.
In the interim, while the agencies are developing a tactical plan and
cohesive strategy, the Congress will continue to lack information
regarding long-term options and needed funding for responding to
wildland fire problems. If the Congress believes such information is
necessary to make informed decisions in the near term, it may wish to
consider seeking an independent source to provide interim information
until the agencies are able to complete the cohesive strategy we
previously recommended. This could be accomplished by, among other
approaches, requiring the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
to contract with a third party. Regardless of the approach chosen,
given both the complexity and the urgency of the wildland fire issue,
the Congress may wish to specify certain time frames and deliverables-
-including long-term options and needed funding based upon the best
available information--in order to ensure that it is provided with
timely and comprehensive information.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior for review and comment. The agencies generally agreed
with our findings, and with the need for a cohesive strategy and an
associated tactical plan. They provided additional comments that we
have incorporated into the report, as appropriate. Their comments,
along with our responses, are reprinted in enclosures I and II,
respectively.
Our draft report contained a matter for congressional consideration
suggesting that the Congress require the agencies to develop a cohesive
strategy including long-term options and needed funding, given the
agencies' initial statements that OMB would not permit them to produce
long-term cost estimates. In responding to a draft of our report, the
agencies provided additional comments about OMB's specific objections
to their publishing long-term funding estimates critical to a cohesive
strategy. OMB confirmed that it will allow the agencies to produce such
estimates provided they have sufficiently reliable data on which to
base them. Accordingly, we revised the matters for congressional
consideration.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior and the Chief of the Forest Service. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or at nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report were
David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Steve Gaty; Richard Johnson;
Chester Joy; and Matthew Reinhart.
Signed By:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosures:
Enclosure I:
Comments from the Forest Service:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250:
File Code: 1420/1310/1930:
Date: APR 21 2006:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office (GAO) correspondence, GAO-06-671 R,
"Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop
a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats." The Forest
Service generally agrees with the findings in the correspondence and
believes that GAO accurately portrayed the progress the agency has made
in implementing LANDFIRE and FPA.
There is a point that the Forest Service would like to see clarified:
* Under the "Results in Brief" and the "Neither a Tactical Plan nor a
Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy That Includes Long-Term Options and
Needed Funding Have been Completed" sections, GAO states department
officials said they cannot produce such a strategy because OMB will not
allow them to publish long-term cost estimates. While this is factually
correct, it needs to be put in the proper context. OMB does not believe
that the agency can produce credible long-term funding estimates until
LANDFIRE and FPA are more fully operational and are concerned about the
Administration providing numbers to Congress that are unreliable.
The correspondence contains a Matter for Congressional Consideration
that tells Congress they may wish to consider requiring the Secretaries
of Agriculture and Interior to produce a cohesive strategy that
includes long-term options and the needed funding associated with each
option and, as an interim step, to produce a tactical plan laying out
the steps and timeframes required to produce a cohesive strategy. As
the Forest stated in its response to the original report "Wildland Fire
Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to
Completing a Cohesive Strategy", in January 2005 the agency generally
agrees with the premise of the idea but believes accurate and credible
numbers in any cohesive strategy will require LANDFIRE and FPA becoming
more fully operational. However, at this time, it may be possible to
produce a tactical plan that lays out steps and timeframes for
completing LANDFIRE and FPA, as well as other current efforts.
Again, we thank GAO for the opportunity to comment on this
correspondence. If you have any questions, please contact Sandy
Cantler, Fire and Aviation Management, at (202) 205-1438 or Sandy
Coleman, Assistant Director, Agency Audit Liaison Staff, at (703) 605-
4940.
Signed By:
Dale N. Bosworth:
Chief:
cc: Sandra Cantler:
Jesse L King:
Sandy T Coleman:
Clarice Wesley:
The following are GAO's comments on the Forest Service's letter dated
April 21, 2006.
GAO Comments:
1. We have modified our draft to include the agency's statement that
OMB does not believe that the departments can produce credible long-
term funding estimates until LANDFIRE and FPA are more fully
operational.
2. We have modified our matters for congressional consideration based
on statements from the agencies and OMB regarding the the agencies'
ability to produce a cohesive strategy.
[End of section]
Enclosure II:
Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
APR 21 2006:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office (GAO) correspondence, GAO-06-671R,
"Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop
a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats." The Department
of the Interior generally agrees with the findings in the
correspondence and believes that GAO accurately portrayed the progress
the Department has made on the three primary activities GAO considers
necessary to preparation of a long-term cohesive strategy: LANDFIRE,
fire management plans, and the Fire Program Analysis (FPA) tool.
The Department is concerned, however, that by restating conclusions
from previous studies in the Background section without acknowledging
that progress has been made in addressing the concerns they portray,
the reader may draw an incorrect inference regarding progress. For
example, contrary to the page five bullet point "ineffective
coordination among federal agencies and collaboration between these
agencies and nonfederal entities," DOI bureaus actively engage in
collaborative project identification and prioritization efforts with
state, tribal, and local partners throughout the country including
development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans.
The Department would like to clarify a point regarding preparation of
the kind of cohesive strategy called for by GAO:
* Under the "Results in Brief' and the "Neither a Tactical Plan nor a
Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy That Includes Long-Term Options and
Needed Funding Have been Completed" sections, GAO states department
officials said they cannot produce such a strategy because OMB will not
allow them to publish long-term cost estimates. While this is factually
correct, it needs to be put in the proper context. OMB does not believe
that the agencies can produce credible long-term funding estimates
until LANDFIRE and FPA are more fully operational and are concerned
about the Administration providing numbers to Congress that may be
unreliable. We strongly urge GAO to correct its statement.
The correspondence contains a Matter for Congressional Consideration
that tells Congress they may wish to consider requiring the Secretaries
of Agriculture and Interior to produce a cohesive strategy that
includes long-term options and the needed funding associated with each
option and, as an interim step, to produce a tactical plan laying out
the steps and timeframes required to produce a cohesive strategy. As
the Department noted in its December 10, 2004 response to the original
report "Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but
Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy," the agency
generally agrees with the premise of the idea but believes accurate and
credible numbers in any cohesive strategy will require LANDFIRE and FPA
becoming more fully operational. However, at this time, it may be
possible to produce a tactical plan that lays out steps and timeframes
for completing LANDFIRE and FPA, as well as other current efforts.
Again, we thank GAO for the opportunity to comment on this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
Signed By:
R. Thomas Weimer:
Assistant Secretary:
Policy, Management and Budget:
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated April 21, 2006.
GAO Comments:
1. In identifying the weaknesses that we found in our previous work, we
do not intend to imply that the agencies have made no progress in
addressing these issues. Instead, we are simply providing context for
our ongoing efforts to assess the agencies' wildland fire management
activities.
2. We have modified our draft to include the department's statement
that OMB does not believe that the agencies can produce credible long-
term funding estimates until LANDFIRE and FPA are more fully
operational.
3. We have modified our matters for congressional consideration based
on statements from the agencies and OMB regarding the agencies' ability
to produce a cohesive strategy.
(360686):
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made,
but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy, GAO-05-147
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005).
[2] FPA is being implemented in response to a congressional committee
direction to improve budget allocation tools. See GAO, Wildland Fire
Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better Identify Fire-
Fighting Preparedness Needs, GAO-02-158 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29,
2002).
[3] The Wildland Fire Leadership Council was established in April 2002
to support the implementation and coordination of federal wildland fire
management activities. The council includes membership from Agriculture
and Interior as well as the agencies with wildland fire management
responsibilities.
[4] The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, published in 2001 by the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and the Western Governors
Association, and the associated implementation plan detail goals,
timelines, and responsibilities for various actions related to wildland
fire management.
[5] For major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of
the human environment, the National Environmental Policy Act requires
all federal agencies to analyze the environmental impact of the
proposed action. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
