Wildland Fire Management
A Cohesive Strategy and Clear Cost-Containment Goals Are Needed for Federal Agencies to Manage Wildland Fire Activities Effectively Gao ID: GAO-07-1017T June 19, 2007Increasing wildland fire threats to communities and ecosystems, combined with rising costs of addressing those threats--trends that GAO and others have reported on for many years--have not abated. On average, the acreage burned annually by wildland fires from 2000 to 2005 was 70 percent greater than the acreage burned annually during the 1990s. Annual appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires have also increased substantially over the past decade, totaling about $3 billion in recent years. The Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior (Interior) are responsible for responding to wildland fires on federal lands. This testimony summarizes several key actions that federal agencies need to complete or take to strengthen their management of the wildland fire program, including the need to (1) develop a long-term, cohesive strategy to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems and (2) improve the management of their efforts to contain the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires. The testimony is based on several previous GAO reports and testimonies addressing wildland fire issues.
The Forest Service and Interior agencies need to complete several actions to strengthen their overall management of the wildland fire program. First, because a substantial investment and decades of work will be required to address wildland fire problems that have been decades in the making, the agencies need a cohesive strategy that addresses the full range of wildland fire management activities. Such a strategy should identify the available long-term options and associated funding for reducing excess vegetation and responding to wildland fires if the agencies and the Congress are to make informed decisions about an effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland fire problems. GAO first recommended in 1999 that such a strategy be developed to address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to increase the severity of wildland fires and cost of suppression efforts. By 2005, the agencies had yet to develop such a strategy, and GAO reiterated the need for a cohesive strategy and broadened the recommendation's focus to better address the interrelated nature of fuel reduction efforts and wildland fire response. Further, because the agencies said they would be unable to develop a cohesive strategy until they have completed certain key tasks, GAO recommended that the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining these tasks and the time frames needed for completing each task and a cohesive strategy. Although the agencies concurred with GAO's recommendations, as of April 2007, they had yet to develop a tactical plan. Second, as GAO testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in January 2007, the steps the Forest Service and Interior agencies have taken to date to contain wildland fire costs lack several key elements fundamental to sound program management, such as clearly defining cost-containment goals, developing a strategy for achieving those goals, and measuring progress toward achieving them. For cost-containment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland fire program--such as protecting life, resources, and property--and to recognize that trade-offs will be needed to meet desired goals within the context of fiscal constraints. Further, because cost-containment goals need to be considered in relation to other wildland fire program goals, it is important that the agencies integrate cost-containment goals within an overall cohesive strategy. GAO's forthcoming report on federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland fire costs includes more-detailed findings and recommendations to the agencies to improve the management of their cost-containment efforts; this report is expected to be released at a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing scheduled for June 26, 2007.
GAO-07-1017T, Wildland Fire Management: A Cohesive Strategy and Clear Cost-Containment Goals Are Needed for Federal Agencies to Manage Wildland Fire Activities Effectively
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1017T
entitled 'Wildland Fire Management: A Cohesive Strategy and Clear Cost-
Containment Goals Are Needed for Federal Agencies to Manage Wildland
Fire Activities Effectively' which was released on June 19, 2007.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands,
Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, June 19, 2007:
Wildland Fire Management:
A Cohesive Strategy and Clear Cost-Containment Goals Are Needed for
Federal Agencies to Manage Wildland Fire Activities Effectively:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-07-1017T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1017T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Committee on Natural
Resources, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Increasing wildland fire threats to communities and ecosystems,
combined with rising costs of addressing those threats”trends that GAO
and others have reported on for many years”have not abated. On average,
the acreage burned annually by wildland fires from 2000 to 2005 was 70
percent greater than the acreage burned annually during the 1990s.
Annual appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires have
also increased substantially over the past decade, totaling about $3
billion in recent years. The Forest Service within the Department of
Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior
(Interior) are responsible for responding to wildland fires on federal
lands.
This testimony summarizes several key actions that federal agencies
need to complete or take to strengthen their management of the wildland
fire program, including the need to (1) develop a long-term, cohesive
strategy to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems and (2)
improve the management of their efforts to contain the costs of
preparing for and responding to wildland fires. The testimony is based
on several previous GAO reports and testimonies addressing wildland
fire issues.
What GAO Found:
The Forest Service and Interior agencies need to complete several
actions to strengthen their overall management of the wildland fire
program. First, because a substantial investment and decades of work
will be required to address wildland fire problems that have been
decades in the making, the agencies need a cohesive strategy that
addresses the full range of wildland fire management activities. Such a
strategy should identify the available long-term options and associated
funding for reducing excess vegetation and responding to wildland fires
if the agencies and the Congress are to make informed decisions about
an effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland
fire problems. GAO first recommended in 1999 that such a strategy be
developed to address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to
increase the severity of wildland fires and cost of suppression
efforts. By 2005, the agencies had yet to develop such a strategy, and
GAO reiterated the need for a cohesive strategy and broadened the
recommendation‘s focus to better address the interrelated nature of
fuel reduction efforts and wildland fire response. Further, because the
agencies said they would be unable to develop a cohesive strategy until
they have completed certain key tasks, GAO recommended that the
agencies develop a tactical plan outlining these tasks and the time
frames needed for completing each task and a cohesive strategy.
Although the agencies concurred with GAO‘s recommendations, as of April
2007, they had yet to develop a tactical plan.
Second, as GAO testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources in January 2007, the steps the Forest Service and
Interior agencies have taken to date to contain wildland fire costs
lack several key elements fundamental to sound program management, such
as clearly defining cost-containment goals, developing a strategy for
achieving those goals, and measuring progress toward achieving them.
For cost-containment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to
integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland
fire program”such as protecting life, resources, and property”and to
recognize that trade-offs will be needed to meet desired goals within
the context of fiscal constraints. Further, because cost-containment
goals need to be considered in relation to other wildland fire program
goals, it is important that the agencies integrate cost-containment
goals within an overall cohesive strategy. GAO‘s forthcoming report on
federal agencies‘ efforts to contain wildland fire costs includes more-
detailed findings and recommendations to the agencies to improve the
management of their cost-containment efforts; this report is expected
to be released at a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
hearing scheduled for June 26, 2007.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1017T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the key steps that we believe
federal wildland fire agencies--the Forest Service within the
Department of Agriculture and four agencies[Footnote 1] within the
Department of the Interior (Interior)--need to complete to manage their
efforts to prepare for and respond to wildland fires effectively.
Increasing wildland fire threats to communities and ecosystems,
combined with rising costs of addressing those threats--trends that we
and others have reported on for many years--have not abated. On
average, the acreage burned annually by wildland fires from 2000 to
2005 was 70 percent greater than the acreage burned annually during the
1990s. Appropriations to federal agencies to prepare for and respond to
wildland fires, including appropriations for reducing fuels, have also
increased substantially, from an average of $1.1 billion annually from
fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to an average of more than $2.9 billion
annually from fiscal years 2001 through 2005 (adjusted for inflation,
these appropriations increased from $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion). A
number of factors have contributed to more-severe fires and
corresponding increases in expenditures for wildland fire management
activities. These factors include an accumulation of fuels due to past
fire suppression policies; severe weather and drought in some areas of
the country; and growing numbers of homes built in or near wildlands,
an area known as the wildland-urban interface. In light of the federal
deficit and the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation,
attention has increasingly focused on ways to contain these growing
expenditures and to ensure that federal agencies' wildland fire
activities are appropriate and carried out in a cost-effective and
efficient manner.
My testimony today is based on several of our previous reports and
testimonies, which together discuss key issues we have identified over
the last 7 years in federal agencies' management of wildland fire and
critical actions the agencies need to complete if they are to
effectively manage their efforts to prepare for and respond to wildland
fires.[Footnote 2] Specifically, my testimony focuses on the Forest
Service and Interior agencies' (1) efforts to develop a long-term,
cohesive strategy to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems
and (2) management of their efforts to contain the costs of preparing
for and responding to wildland fires.
Summary:
In summary, the Forest Service and Interior agencies need to complete
several actions to strengthen their overall management of the wildland
fire program. Because a substantial investment and decades of work will
be required to address wildland fire problems that have been decades in
the making, the agencies need to develop a cohesive strategy that
addresses the full range of wildland fire management activities. Such a
strategy should identify the available long-term options and associated
funding for reducing excess vegetation and responding to wildland fires
if the agencies and the Congress are to make informed decisions about
an effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing problems
that have been decades in the making. We first recommended in 1999 that
such a strategy be developed to address the problem of excess fuels and
their potential to increase the severity of wildland fires and cost of
suppression efforts.[Footnote 3] By 2005, the agencies had yet to
develop such a strategy, and we reiterated the need for a cohesive
strategy and broadened our recommendation's focus to better address the
interrelated nature of fuel reduction efforts and wildland fire
response. Further, because the agencies said they would be unable to
develop a cohesive strategy until they have completed certain key
tasks, we recommended that the agencies develop a tactical plan
outlining these tasks and the time frames needed for completing each
task and a cohesive strategy.[Footnote 4] Although the agencies
concurred with our recommendations, as of April 2007, a tactical plan
had yet to be developed.
Second, as we testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources in January 2007, the steps the Forest Service and
Interior agencies have taken to date to contain wildland fire costs
lack several key elements fundamental to sound program management, such
as clearly defining cost-containment goals, developing a strategy for
achieving those goals, and measuring progress toward achieving them.
For cost-containment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to
integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland
fire program--such as protecting life, resources, and property--and to
recognize that trade-offs will be needed to meet desired goals within
the context of fiscal constraints. Further, because cost-containment
goals need to be considered in relation to other wildland fire program
goals, it is important that the agencies integrate cost-containment
goals within an overall cohesive strategy. Our forthcoming report on
federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland fire costs includes more-
detailed findings and recommendations to the agencies to improve the
management of their cost-containment efforts; this report is expected
to be released at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources scheduled for June 26, 2007.
Background:
Over the past decade, the number of acres burned annually by wildland
fires in the United States has substantially increased. Federal
appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including
appropriations for fuel treatments, have almost tripled. Increases in
the size and severity of wildland fires, and in the cost of preparing
for and responding to them, have led federal agencies to fundamentally
reexamine their approach to wildland fire management. For decades,
federal agencies aggressively suppressed wildland fires and were
generally successful in decreasing the number of acres burned. In some
parts of the country, however, rather than eliminating severe wildland
fires, decades of suppression contributed to the disruption of
ecological cycles and began to change the structure and composition of
forests and rangelands, thereby making lands more susceptible to fire.
Increasingly, federal agencies have recognized the role that fire plays
in many ecosystems and the role that it could play in the agencies'
management of forests and watersheds. The agencies worked together to
develop a federal wildland fire management policy in 1995, which for
the first time formally recognized the essential role of fire in
sustaining natural systems; this policy was subsequently reaffirmed and
updated in 2001. The agencies, in conjunction with Congress, also began
developing the National Fire Plan in 2000.[Footnote 5] To align their
policies and to ensure a consistent and coordinated effort to implement
the federal wildland fire policy and National Fire Plan, Agriculture
and Interior established the Wildland Fire Leadership Council in
2002.[Footnote 6] In addition to noting the negative effects of past
successes in suppressing wildland fires, the policy and plan also
recognized that continued development in the wildland-urban interface
has placed more structures at risk from wildland fire at the same time
that it has increased the complexity and cost of wildland fire
suppression. Forest Service and university researchers estimated in
2005 that about 44 million homes in the lower 48 states are located in
the wildland-urban interface.
To help address these trends, current federal policy directs agencies
to consider land management objectives--identified in land and fire
management plans developed by each local unit, such as a national
forest or a Bureau of Land Management district--and the structures and
resources at risk when determining whether or how to suppress a
wildland fire. When a fire starts, the land manager at the affected
local unit is responsible for determining the strategy that will be
used to respond to the fire. A wide spectrum of strategies is
available, some of which can be significantly more costly than others.
For example, the agencies may fight fires ignited close to communities
or other high-value areas more aggressively than fires on remote lands
or at sites where fire may provide ecological or fuel-reduction
benefits. In some cases, the agencies may simply monitor a fire, or
take only limited suppression actions, to ensure that the fire
continues to pose little threat to important resources, a practice
known as "wildland fire use."
Agencies Need a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Problems:
Federal firefighting agencies need a cohesive strategy for reducing
fuels and addressing wildland fire issues. Such a strategy should
identify the available long-term options and associated funding for
reducing excess vegetation and responding to wildland fires if the
agencies and the Congress are to make informed decisions about an
effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing problems
that have been decades in the making. We first recommended in 1999 such
a strategy be developed to address the problem of excess fuels and
their potential to increase the severity of wildland fires and cost of
suppression efforts.[Footnote 7] By 2005, the agencies had yet to
develop such a strategy, and we reiterated the need for a cohesive
strategy and broadened our recommendation's focus to better address the
interrelated nature of fuel reduction efforts and wildland fire
response. The agencies said they would be unable to develop a cohesive
strategy until they have completed certain key tasks. We therefore
recommended that the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining these
tasks and the time frames needed for completing each task and a
cohesive strategy. These tasks include (1) finishing data systems that
are needed to identify the extent, severity, and location of wildland
fire threats in our national forests and rangelands; (2) updating local
fire management plans to better specify the actions needed to
effectively address these threats; and (3) assessing the cost-
effectiveness and affordability of options for reducing fuels and
responding to wildland fire problems.
First, federal firefighting agencies have made progress in developing a
system to help them better identify and set priorities for lands
needing treatment to reduce accumulated fuels. Many past studies have
identified fuel reduction as important for containing wildland fire
costs because accumulated fuels can contribute to more-severe and more
costly fires. The agencies are developing a geospatial data and
modeling system, called LANDFIRE, intended to produce consistent and
comprehensive maps and data describing vegetation, wildland fuels, and
fire regimes across the United States.[Footnote 8] The agencies will be
able to use this information to help identify fuel accumulations and
fire hazards across the nation, help set nationwide priorities for fuel-
reduction projects, and assist in determining an appropriate response
when wildland fires do occur. LANDFIRE data are nearly complete for
most of the western United States, with data for the remainder of the
country scheduled to be completed in 2009. The agencies, however, have
not yet finalized their plan for ensuring that collected data are
routinely updated to reflect changes to fuels, including those from
landscape-altering events, such as hurricanes, disease, or wildland
fires themselves. The agencies expect to submit a plan to the Wildland
Fire Leadership Council for approval later this month.
Second, we reported in 2006 that 95 percent of the agencies' individual
land management units had completed fire management plans in accordance
with agency direction issued in 2001.[Footnote 9] As of January 2007,
however, the agencies did not require regular updates to ensure that
new data (from LANDFIRE, for example) were incorporated into the plans.
In addition, in the wake of two court decisions--each holding that the
Forest Service was required to prepare an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)[Footnote 10] to accompany the relevant fire management plan-
-the Forest Service decided to withdraw the two plans instead of
completing them. It is unclear whether the agency would withdraw other
fire management plans successfully challenged under NEPA; nor is it
clear whether or to what extent such agency decisions could undermine
the interagency policy directing that every burnable acre have a fire
management plan. Without such plans, however, current agency policy
does not allow use of the entire range of wildland fire response
strategies, including less aggressive, and potentially less costly,
strategies. Moreover, in examining 17 fire management plans, a May 2007
review of large wildland fires managed by the Forest Service in 2006
identified several shortcomings, including that most of the plans
examined did not contain current information on fuel conditions, many
did not provide sufficient guidance on selecting firefighting
strategies, and only 1 discussed issues related to suppression
costs.[Footnote 11]
Third, over the past several years, the agencies have been developing a
Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, which was proposed and funded to
help the agencies:
* determine national budget needs by analyzing budget alternatives at
the local level--using a common, interagency process for fire
management planning and budgeting--and aggregating the results;
* determine the relative costs and benefits for the full scope of fire
management activities, including potential trade-offs among investments
in fuel reduction, fire preparedness, and fire suppression activities;
and:
* identify, for a given budget level, the most cost-effective mix of
personnel and equipment to carry out these activities.
We have said for several years--and the agencies have concurred--that
FPA is critical to helping the agencies contain wildland fire costs and
plan and budget effectively. Recent design modifications to the system,
however, raise questions about the agencies' ability to fully achieve
key FPA goals. A midcourse review of the developing system resulted in
the Wildland Fire Leadership Council's approving in December 2006
modifications to the system's design. FPA and senior Forest Service and
Interior officials told us they believed the modifications would allow
the agencies to meet the key goals. The officials said they expected to
have a prototype developed for the council's review in June 2007 and to
substantially complete the system by June 2008. We have yet to
systematically review the modifications, but after reviewing agency
reports on the modifications and interviewing knowledgeable officials,
we have concerns that the modifications may not allow the agencies to
meet FPA's key goals. For example, under the redesigned system, local
land managers will use a different method to analyze and select various
budget alternatives, and it is unclear whether this method will
identify the most cost-effective allocation of resources. In addition,
it is unclear how the budget alternatives for local units will be
meaningfully aggregated on a nationwide basis, a key FPA goal.
Although the agencies have made progress on these three primary tasks,
as of April 2007, they had yet to complete a joint tactical plan
outlining the critical steps, together with related time frames, that
the agencies would take to complete a cohesive strategy, as we
recommended in our 2005 report. We continue to believe that, until a
cohesive strategy can be developed, it is essential that the agencies
create a tactical plan for developing this strategy, so Congress
understands the steps and time frames involved in completing the
strategy.
Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to
Contain Wildland Fire Costs:
As we testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources in January 2007, the steps the Forest Service and Interior
agencies have taken to date to contain wildland fire costs lack several
key elements fundamental to sound program management, such as clearly
defining cost-containment goals, developing a strategy for achieving
those goals, and measuring progress toward achieving them. First, the
agencies have not clearly articulated the goals of their cost-
containment efforts. For cost-containment efforts to be effective, the
agencies need to integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals
of the wildland fire program--such as protecting life, property, and
resources. For example, the agencies have established the goal of
suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost, considering firefighter and
public safety and values being protected, but they have not defined
criteria by which these often-competing objectives are to be weighed.
Second, although the agencies are undertaking a variety of steps
designed to help contain wildland fire costs, the agencies have not
developed a clear plan for how these efforts fit together or the extent
to which they will assist in containing costs. Finally, the agencies
are developing a statistical model of fire suppression costs that they
plan to use to identify when the cost for an individual fire may have
been excessive. The model compares a fire's cost to the costs of
suppressing previous fires with similar characteristics. However, such
comparisons with previous fires' costs may not fully consider the
potential for managers to select less aggressive--and potentially less
costly--suppression strategies. In addition, the model is still under
development and may take a number of years to fully refine. Without
clear program goals and objectives, and corresponding performance
measures to evaluate progress, the agencies lack the tools to be able
to determine the effectiveness of their cost-containment efforts. Our
forthcoming report on federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland
fire costs includes more-detailed findings and recommendations to the
agencies to improve the management of their cost-containment efforts;
this report is expected to be released at a hearing before the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources scheduled for June 26, 2007.
Conclusions:
Complex conditions have contributed to increasing wildland fire
severity. These conditions have been decades in the making, and will
take decades to resolve. The agencies must develop an effective and
affordable strategy for addressing these conditions in light of the
large federal deficit and the long-term fiscal challenges facing our
nation. To make informed decisions about an effective and affordable
long-term approach to addressing wildland fire problems, the agencies
need to develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the available long-
term options and associated funding for reducing excess vegetation and
responding to wildland fires. Because the agencies cannot develop such
a strategy until they complete certain key tasks, we continue to
believe that in the interim the agencies must create a tactical plan
for developing this strategy so that Congress can monitor the agencies'
progress. While the agencies continue to work toward developing a
cohesive strategy, they have initiated a number of efforts intended to
contain wildland fire costs, but the agencies cannot demonstrate the
effectiveness of these cost containment efforts, in part because the
agencies have no clearly defined cost-containment goals and objectives.
Without clear goals, the agencies cannot develop consistent standards
by which to measure their performance. Further, without these goals and
objectives, federal land and fire managers in the field are more likely
to select strategies and tactics that favor suppressing fires quickly
over those that seek to balance the benefits of protecting the
resources at risk and the costs of protecting them. Perhaps most
important, without a clear vision of what they are trying to achieve
and a systematic approach for achieving it, the agencies--and Congress
and the American people--have little assurance that their cost-
containment efforts will lead to substantial improvement. Moreover,
because cost-containment goals should be considered in relation to
other wildland fire program goals--such as protecting life, resources,
and property--the agencies must integrate cost-containment goals within
the overall cohesive strategy for responding to wildland fires that we
have consistently recommended.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Ellen W.
Chu; Jonathan Dent; Janet Frisch; Chester Joy; and Richard Johnson made
key contributions to this statement.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The four agencies are the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.
[2] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders
Agencies' Cost-Containment Efforts, GAO-07-427T (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
30 2007); Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to
Develop a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats, GAO-06-
671R (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2006); and 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).
[3] GAO, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats, GAO/RCED-99-65 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 2, 1999).
[4] GAO-05-147.
[5] The National Fire Plan is a joint interagency effort to respond to
wildland fires. Its core comprises several strategic documents,
including (1) a September 2000 report from the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior to the President in response to the
wildland fires of 2000, (2) congressional direction accompanying
substantial new appropriations in fiscal year 2001, and (3) several
approved and draft strategies to implement all or parts of the plan.
[6] The Wildland Fire Leadership Council is composed of senior
Agriculture and Interior officials, including the Agriculture
Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment; the Interior
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget; the Interior
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Business Management and Wildland Fire;
and the heads of the five federal firefighting agencies. Other members
include representatives of the Intertribal Timber Council, the National
Association of State Foresters, and the Western Governors' Association.
[7] GAO/RCED-99-65.
[8] A fire regime generally classifies the role that wildland fire
plays in a particular ecosystem on the basis of certain
characteristics, such as the average number of years between fires and
the typical severity of fire under historic conditions.
[9] Fire management plans are local plans prepared by individual agency
management units (such as national forests or wildlife refuges) to
define each unit's program to prepare for and manage fires; such plans
are important for identifying the fuel reduction, preparedness,
suppression, and rehabilitation actions needed at the local level to
effectively address wildland fire threats.
[10] 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).
[11] Independent Large Wildfire Cost Panel, chartered by the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture, Towards a Collaborative Cost Management
Strategy: 2006 U.S. Forest Service Large Wildfire Cost Review
Recommendations (Washington, D.C., May 15, 2007).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
