Wildland Fire Management
Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy Gao ID: GAO-05-147 January 14, 2005Over the past two decades, the number of acres burned by wildland fires has surged, often threatening human lives, property, and ecosystems. Past management practices, including a concerted federal policy in the 20th century of suppressing fires to protect communities and ecosystem resources, unintentionally resulted in steady accumulation of dense vegetation that fuels large, intense, wildland fires. While such fires are normal in some ecosystems, in others they can cause catastrophic damage to resources as well as to communities near wildlands known as the wildland-urban interface. In 1999, GAO recommended that the Forest Service develop a cohesive strategy for responding to wildland fire threats. As a follow-up, 5 years later, GAO was asked to identify the (1) progress the federal government has made in responding to wildland fire threats and (2) challenges it will need to address within the next 5 years.
Over the last 5 years, the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and land management agencies in the Department of the Interior, working with the Congress, have made important progress in responding to wildland fires. The agencies have adopted various national strategy documents addressing the need to reduce wildland fire risks; established a priority for protecting communities in the wildland-urban interface; and increased efforts and amounts of funding committed to addressing wildland fire problems, including preparedness, suppression, and fuel reduction on federal lands. In addition, the agencies have begun improving their data and research on wildland fire problems, made progress in developing long-needed fire management plans that identify actions for effectively addressing wildland fire threats at the local level, and improved federal interagency coordination and collaboration with nonfederal partners. The agencies also have strengthened overall accountability for their investments in wildland fire activities by establishing improved performance measures and a framework for monitoring results. While the agencies have adopted various strategy documents to address the nation's wildland fire problems, none of these documents constitutes a cohesive strategy that explicitly identifies the long-term options and related funding needed to reduce fuels in national forests and rangelands and to respond to wildland fire threats. Both the agencies and the Congress need a comprehensive assessment of the fuel reduction options and related funding needs to determine the most effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland fire problems. Completing a cohesive strategy that identifies long-term options and needed funding will require finishing several efforts now under way, each with its own challenges. The agencies will need to finish planned improvements in a key data and modeling system--LANDFIRE--to more precisely identify the extent and location of wildland fire threats and to better target fuel reduction efforts. In implementing LANDFIRE, the agencies will need more consistent approaches to assessing wildland fire risks, more integrated information systems, and better understanding of the role of climate in wildland fire. In addition, local fire management plans will need to be updated with data from LANDFIRE and from emerging agency research on more cost-effective approaches to reducing fuels. Completing a new system designed to identify the most cost-effective means for allocating fire management budget resources--Fire Program Analysis--may help to better identify long-term options and related funding needs. Without completing these tasks, the agencies will have difficulty determining the extent and location of wildland fire threats, targeting and coordinating their efforts and resources, and resolving wildland fire problems in the most timely and cost-effective manner over the long term.
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-05-147, Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-147
entitled 'Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made,
but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy' which was
released on February 14, 2005.
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.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources, House of Representatives:
January 2005:
Wildland Fire Management:
Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a
Cohesive Strategy:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-147]
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-147, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Over the past two decades, the number of acres burned by wildland fires
has surged, often threatening human lives, property, and ecosystems.
Past management practices, including a concerted federal policy in the
20th century of suppressing fires to protect communities and ecosystem
resources, unintentionally resulted in steady accumulation of dense
vegetation that fuels large, intense, wildland fires. While such fires
are normal in some ecosystems, in others they can cause catastrophic
damage to resources as well as to communities near wildlands known as
the wildland-urban interface.
In 1999, GAO recommended that the Forest Service develop a cohesive
strategy for responding to wildland fire threats. As a follow-up, 5
years later, GAO was asked to identify the (1) progress the federal
government has made in responding to wildland fire threats and (2)
challenges it will need to address within the next 5 years.
What GAO Found:
Over the last 5 years, the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture and land management agencies in the Department of the
Interior, working with the Congress, have made important progress in
responding to wildland fires. The agencies have adopted various
national strategy documents addressing the need to reduce wildland fire
risks; established a priority for protecting communities in the
wildland-urban interface; and increased efforts and amounts of funding
committed to addressing wildland fire problems, including preparedness,
suppression, and fuel reduction on federal lands. In addition, the
agencies have begun improving their data and research on wildland fire
problems, made progress in developing long-needed fire management plans
that identify actions for effectively addressing wildland fire threats
at the local level, and improved federal interagency coordination and
collaboration with nonfederal partners. The agencies also have
strengthened overall accountability for their investments in wildland
fire activities by establishing improved performance measures and a
framework for monitoring results.
While the agencies have adopted various strategy documents to address
the nation‘s wildland fire problems, none of these documents
constitutes a cohesive strategy that explicitly identifies the long-
term options and related funding needed to reduce fuels in national
forests and rangelands and to respond to wildland fire threats. Both
the agencies and the Congress need a comprehensive assessment of the
fuel reduction options and related funding needs to determine the most
effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland
fire problems. Completing a cohesive strategy that identifies long-term
options and needed funding will require finishing several efforts now
under way, each with its own challenges. The agencies will need to
finish planned improvements in a key data and modeling system”LANDFIRE”
to more precisely identify the extent and location of wildland fire
threats and to better target fuel reduction efforts. In implementing
LANDFIRE, the agencies will need more consistent approaches to
assessing wildland fire risks, more integrated information systems, and
better understanding of the role of climate in wildland fire. In
addition, local fire management plans will need to be updated with data
from LANDFIRE and from emerging agency research on more cost-effective
approaches to reducing fuels. Completing a new system designed to
identify the most cost-effective means for allocating fire management
budget resources”Fire Program Analysis¾may help to better identify
long-term options and related funding needs. Without completing these
tasks, the agencies will have difficulty determining the extent and
location of wildland fire threats, targeting and coordinating their
efforts and resources, and resolving wildland fire problems in the most
timely and cost-effective manner over the long term.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
provide the Congress with a plan outlining the critical steps and time
frames for completing a cohesive strategy that identifies the options
and funding needed to address wildland fire problems.
Commenting on the draft report, the Forest Service and Interior
generally agreed with GAO‘s findings and recommendation.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-147.
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]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Important Progress Has Been Made in Addressing Federal Wildland Fire
Management Problems over the Last 5 Years:
Agencies Face Several Challenges to Completing a Long-Needed Cohesive
Strategy for Reducing Fuels and Responding to Wildland Fire Problems:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: GAO Products Related to Federal Wildland Fire Management:
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
GAO Comments:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Appropriations to Wildland Fire Management Accounts, Fiscal
Years 1999 through 2005:
Figure:
Figure 1: Average Number of Acres Burned Annually by Wildland Fire in
Each Decade Since 1970:
Abbreviations:
FPA: Fire Program Analysis:
Letter January 14, 2005:
The Honorable Greg Walden:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The national trend in recent years of increasing wildland fire threats
to communities and ecosystems has been continuing. The average number
of acres burned by wildland fires annually from 2000 through 2003 was
56 percent greater than the average amount burned annually during the
1990s. While an increase in wildland fires may often be necessary to
restore ecosystems, some fires also can cause catastrophic damages to
communities and ecosystems. Experts believe that catastrophic damages
from wildland fires likely will continue to increase until an adequate
long-term federal response, coordinated with others, is implemented and
has had time to take effect. In this context, you asked us to report on
the progress that the federal government has made over the last 5 years
and the key challenges it faces in developing and implementing a
response to wildland fire problems.
This report is primarily based on over 25 reviews dealing with federal
wildland fire issues that we have conducted in recent years. (App. I
lists our reports and testimonies on these reviews.) These reviews
focused largely on the activities of the Forest Service in the
Department of Agriculture and the land management agencies in the
Department of the Interior,which together manage over 95 percent of all
federal lands.[Footnote 1] We also interviewed officials and obtained
data from the Forest Service, Interior, Congressional Research Service,
Brookings Institution, and National Academy of Public Administration.
Appendix II contains a more complete description of our methodology. We
conducted our work between May and November 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In the past 5 years, the federal government has made important progress
in putting into place the basic components of a framework for managing
and responding to the nation's wildland fire problems, including:
* establishing a priority to protect communities near wildlands--the
wildland-urban interface;
* increasing the amount of effort and funds available for addressing
wildland fire issues, such as fuel reduction on federal lands;
* improving data and research on wildland fire, local fire management
plans, interagency coordination, and collaboration with nonfederal
partners; and:
* refining its performance measures and results monitoring for wildland
fire management.
While the federal government has made important progress to date, many
challenges lie ahead for addressing the wildland fire problem in a
timely and effective manner. Most notably, the land management agencies
need to complete and refine a cohesive strategy that identifies the
long-term options and related funding needed to reduce fuels and
respond to the nation's wildland fire problems. The agencies and the
Congress need such a strategy to help make 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.
However, to complete and begin implementing such a strategy, the
agencies must complete several tasks, each with its own challenges,
including:
* finishing data systems needed to identify the extent, severity, and
location of wildland fire threats to our national forests and
rangelands;
* updating local fire management plans to better specify the actions
needed to effectively address these threats; and:
* identifying long-term implementation options and related funding
needed to respond to the wildland fire problems.
Recently, the land management agencies initiated a new wildland fire
strategic planning effort that might provide a useful framework for
developing a cohesive strategy that includes long-term options and
related funding needed to reduce and maintain fuels at acceptable
levels and respond to the nation's wildland fire problems.
We are recommending that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior provide the Congress, in time for its consideration of the
agencies' fiscal year 2006 wildland fire management budgets, with a
joint tactical plan outlining the critical steps the agencies will
take, together with related time frames, to complete a cohesive
strategy that identifies long-term options and needed funding for
reducing and maintaining fuels at acceptable levels and responding to
the nation's wildland fire problems. In responding to a draft of this
report, the Forest Service, commenting on behalf of Agriculture, and
Interior generally agreed with our findings and recommendation.
However, both departments expressed concern about their ability to
provide the recommended joint tactical plan in time for the Congress's
consideration of their fiscal year 2006 budget requests. The Forest
Service's and Interior's comment letters are included in appendixes III
and IV, respectively.
Background:
Wildland fire triggered by lightning is a natural, inevitable, and
necessary ecological process. Such fires periodically consume excess
vegetation and renew the productivity of our nation's ecosystems.
However, in ecosystems that are adapted to frequent small, low-
intensity fires, uncharacteristically large and intense wildland fires
increasingly threaten catastrophic damage to such ecosystems. Large
intense fires in these and other ecosystems also increasingly threaten
human lives, health, property, and infrastructure in the wildland-urban
interface.
Uncharacteristically large, intense fires often are fueled by
abnormally dense accumulations of vegetation in many forest and
rangeland ecosystems. This excess vegetation is the result of several
human land use and management practices, including several decades of
effective fire suppression activities that have reduced the normal
frequency of wildland fires that nature had periodically used to clear
undergrowth and small trees. This vegetation, in turn, provides
abnormally large amounts of fuel for fires, causing some to spread more
rapidly, burn larger areas, and burn more intensely than normal. Such
uncharacteristic fires are more common in warmer, drier climates such
as the interior western United States and during periods of drought.
Federal researchers estimate that these vegetative conditions exist on
approximately 190 million acres (or more than 40 percent) of federal
lands in the contiguous United States, but could vary from 90 million
to 200 million acres, and that these conditions also exist on many
nonfederal lands.
Wildland Fire Has Continued to Increase in Recent Years:
The acreage burned by wildland fire--after having declined nationally
throughout most of the 20th century due to land management practices,
including fire suppression--increased in the latter decades of the
century. This increase was the result of more large fires, most of
which were located in the inland western United States, where many of
the forests historically had frequent, smaller, and less intense fires.
The trend toward increased acreage burned by wildland fire has
continued into the 21st century as illustrated in figure 1. For 2000
through 2003, the average number of acres burned annually on all lands
nationally was 56 percent greater than the average acres burned
annually during the 1990s.
Figure 1: Average Number of Acres Burned Annually by Wildland Fire in
Each Decade Since 1970:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Increases in Wildland Fire Exposed Weaknesses in the Federal Response:
Our reviews over the last 5 years identified several weaknesses in the
federal government's management response to wildland fire.
Specifically, we found that the land management agencies lacked an
effective national strategy to respond to wildland fire, had
shortcomings in addressing wildland fire issues at the local level, and
had an ineffective system for accounting for wildland fire management
efforts and monitoring results.
We noted in a 1999 report that the federal government lacked a national
strategy for reducing excessive national forest fuel levels and
associated catastrophic wildland fires.[Footnote 2] Such a strategy was
needed by the agencies to address numerous policy, programmatic, and
budgetary factors that presented significant barriers to accomplishing
fuel reduction goals. Among these barriers were program incentives that
tended to focus on areas that may not present the greatest wildland
fire hazards and very high costs for removing hazardous fuels. We also
reported in 2003 that the Forest Service and Interior had issued
national guidance on fuel reduction, but it was not specific enough for
prioritizing fuels reduction projects.[Footnote 3] Lacking such
guidance, agencies could not ensure that local land management units
were implementing the highest-priority fuels reduction projects
nationwide.
Our reviews also found shortcomings in the federal government's
implementation at the local level of various wildland fire management
activities, such as preparedness, suppression, and
rehabilitation.[Footnote 4] Over half of all local federal land
management units had no fire management plans that met the requirements
of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. This national
policy, jointly adopted by Agriculture and Interior and updated in
2001, established a goal to restore fire's natural role in ecosystems
consistent with human health and safety. The fire management plans are
intended to help ensure the effective integration of local wildland
fire management activities with planned uses of agencies' lands so that
unwanted wildland fire does not impair accomplishment of desired future
conditions on these lands. The Forest Service and Interior also lacked
basic data, such as the amount and location of lands needing fuel
reduction, and research on the effectiveness of different fuel
reduction methods on which to base their fire management plans and
specific project decisions. Furthermore, coordination among federal
agencies and collaboration of these agencies with nonfederal entities
were ineffective. Such coordination and collaboration are needed
because wildland fire is a shared problem that transcends land
ownership and administrative boundaries, requiring cooperation among
all parties.[Footnote 5]
Finally, we found that better accountability in federal wildland fire
management efforts was needed. Although the agencies had begun
developing results-oriented performance measures to assess the
effectiveness of treatments in reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildland fires, they had no baseline from which to assess program
performance. They also could not establish any meaningful performance
measure and goal for reducing fuels because they lacked sufficient data
on the location of lands at high risk of catastrophic fires as well as
data on the cost-effectiveness of fuel reduction methods and their
effects on other ecosystem resources. In particular, the agencies
needed to develop performance measures that would focus their actions
on reducing priority hazards and to better monitor the results of those
actions.[Footnote 6]
Important Progress Has Been Made in Addressing Federal Wildland Fire
Management Problems over the Last 5 Years:
The federal government has made important progress over the last 5
years in improving its management of wildland fire. Nationally, it has
worked to formulate a comprehensive strategy, established a priority to
protect communities in the wildland-urban interface, and increased
funding for wildland fire management activities, including fuels
reduction and suppression. At the local level, it enhanced its data and
research on wildland fire problems, made significant progress in
developing local fire management plans, and improved coordination among
federal agencies and collaboration with nonfederal partners. In
addition, it strengthened its overall accountability for investments in
wildland fire activities by establishing more meaningful goals and
performance measures.
Progress in National Strategy: Priorities Have Been Clarified and
Funding Has Been Increased for Identified Needs:
Over the last 5 years, the federal government has been formulating a
strategy known as the National Fire Plan, clarifying its priorities and
increasing funding for wildland fire management activities. The
National Fire Plan is not a single document. Rather, it is composed of
several strategic documents that set forth a priority to reduce
wildland fire risks to communities.[Footnote 7] To address this
priority, the agencies, working with the states, identified a list of
communities nationwide that are considered most at risk of wildland
fire damage. While the recently enacted Healthy Forests Restoration Act
of 2003 addresses risks to both communities and ecosystems, it
emphasizes a priority for protecting wildland-urban interface
communities by directing that at least 50 percent of funding for fuel
reduction projects authorized under the act be allocated to wildland-
urban interface areas.[Footnote 8] Although we have raised concerns
about how the agencies have defined these interface areas, the accuracy
and process they used in designating these communities and wildland-
urban interface areas, and the specificity of their prioritization
guidance, the act's clarification of the priority for protecting
communities provides a starting point for identifying and prioritizing
funding needs.[Footnote 9]
Forest Service and Interior appropriations for fuel reductions, as well
as for other wildland fire management activities such as preparedness
and suppression, have increased substantially over the past 5 years. In
1999, the Forest Service had not requested increased funding to meet
the growing fuel reduction needs it had identified.[Footnote 10] As
shown in table 1, overall appropriations for wildland fire management
activities for both the Forest Service and Interior have nearly tripled
in the past 5 years, from about $1 billion in fiscal year 1999 to over
$2.7 billion in fiscal year 2004. While these increases include
significant amounts for unanticipated suppression costs and
preparedness funding, fuel reduction funding has quadrupled since 1999.
Table 1: Appropriations to Wildland Fire Management Accounts, Fiscal
Years 1999 through 2005 (million of dollars):
Fuel reduction;
Fiscal year 1999: $98.8;
Fiscal year 2000: $117.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $400.1;
Fiscal year 2002: $395.2;
Fiscal year 2003: $422.3;
Fiscal year 2004 (enacted): $442.2;
Fiscal year 2005 (requested): $475.5.
Preparedness;
Fiscal year 1999: $522.7;
Fiscal year 2000: $561.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $887.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $875.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $867.2;
Fiscal year 2004 (enacted): $925.8;
Fiscal year 2005 (requested): $920.9.
Suppression;
Fiscal year 1999: $276.8;
Fiscal year 2000: $297.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $472.4;
Fiscal year 2002: $382.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $577.3;
Fiscal year 2004 (enacted): $790;
Fiscal year 2005 (requested): $906.9.
Emergency funds;
Fiscal year 1999: $152.0;
Fiscal year 2000: $590.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $624.6;
Fiscal year 2002: $320.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $1114.0;
Fiscal year 2004 (enacted): $397.6;
Fiscal year 2005 (requested): $0.0.
Site rehabilitation;
Fiscal year 1999: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2000: $20.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $246.6;
Fiscal year 2002: $82.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $26.9;
Fiscal year 2004 (enacted): $31.1;
Fiscal year 2005 (requested): $27.3.
Nonfederal land protection;
Fiscal year 1999: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2000: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $118.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $87.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $89.3;
Fiscal year 2004 (enacted): $69.1;
Fiscal year 2005 (requested): $47.2.
Other fire management appropriations[A];
Fiscal year 1999: $9.0;
Fiscal year 2000: $13.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $109.8;
Fiscal year 2002: $95.4;
Fiscal year 2003: $68.1;
Fiscal year 2004 (enacted): $74.7;
Fiscal year 2005 (requested): $60.4.
Total[B];
Fiscal year 1999: $1,059.3;
Fiscal year 2000: $1,598.9;
Fiscal year 2001: $2,859.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $2,238.8;
Fiscal year 2003: $3,165.1;
Fiscal year 2004 (enacted): $2,730.6;
Fiscal year 2005 (requested): $2,438.2.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
[A] Includes appropriations for research, fire facilities, and forest
health.
[B] Figures may not add because of rounding.
[End of table]
Additionally, through the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, the
Congress authorized $760 million per year to be appropriated for
hazardous fuels reduction activities, including projects for reducing
fuels on up to 20 million acres of land.
Progress in Local Implementation: Data and Research, Fire Management
Planning, and Coordination and Collaboration Have Been Strengthened:
The federal government also has improved the implementation of its
wildland fire management activities at the local level. In particular,
significant improvements in federal data and research on wildland fires
have been made during the past 5 years. In 1999, the federal government
lacked adequate data on the location and extent of hazardous fuels to
use in selecting and designing fuel reduction projects.[Footnote 11]
Since then, the agencies have jointly completed a mapping of fuels
nationwide that classifies lands by differing fuel hazard levels.
Although this mapping is not done at a small enough geographic scale to
support decisions on the location and design of individual fuel
reduction projects, it nevertheless represents a significant
improvement over the information that was available in the past.
In 2003, Agriculture and Interior approved funding for development of a
geospatial data and modeling system, called LANDFIRE, to identify
wildland fire hazards with more precision and uniformity than the
existing hazardous fuels mapping 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. Initial results from LANDFIRE have been
promising. For example, a Forest Service official, who had used
LANDFIRE to choose an approach for suppressing a fire in an area of
Montana where the prototype system was developed, said he found it much
better at identifying suppression options and their consequences than
any other currently available data. LANDFIRE--estimated to cost $40
million--is scheduled for nationwide implementation in 2009.
Local fire management planning also has been strengthened. As we
reported in 2002, over half of the agencies' land management units had
not completed local fire management plans in accordance with the 1995
federal wildland fire management policy.[Footnote 12] They subsequently
adopted an expedited schedule to complete all of these plans in 2004,
and agency officials told us that they believed they would meet this
schedule. The agencies also adopted a common interagency template for
preparing these plans to ensure greater consistency in their contents.
Other critical improvements have been made in coordination among
federal agencies responsible for wildland fire management and in
collaboration with nonfederal partners.[Footnote 13] In 2001, as a
result of congressional direction to the agencies to involve the states
as full partners in their efforts, Agriculture and Interior jointly
adopted a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy with the Western Governors
Association.[Footnote 14] This strategy, and an implementation plan
adopted in 2002, detail goals, time lines, and responsibilities of the
different parties for various actions related to a wide range of
activities, including collaboration at the local level to identify fuel
reduction priorities in different areas. Also, in 2002, the agencies
established an interagency organizational body, the Wildland Fire
Leadership Council, to improve coordination of their activities with
each other and with nonfederal parties. The council is composed of
senior Agriculture and Interior officials and nonfederal
representatives. The council meets regularly to provide policy
direction on a wide range of issues and decisions to foster necessary
coordination and consistency among federal approaches, activities, and
funding of various efforts.
Progress in Accountability: Better Performance Measures and a Results
Monitoring Framework Have Been Developed:
The federal government also made progress in accounting for the results
it achieves from its investments in wildland fire management
activities. In 1999, the Forest Service's performance measure for fuel
reductions, which measured only the total acres of fuel reductions
accomplished, created an incentive to treat less costly acres rather
than the acres that presented the greatest hazards.[Footnote 15] To
rectify this shortcoming, the agencies adopted a performance measure
that identifies the amount of acres moved from high-hazard to low-
hazard fuel conditions. This measure will allow them to better
determine the extent to which their fuel reduction efforts accomplish
the key goal of reducing risks to communities and ecosystems.
The agencies also made progress in developing a system to monitor the
effects of wildland fires. Without such information, they cannot
determine the nature of threats or the likely effectiveness of
different actions taken to address threats. In May 2004, the Wildland
Fire Leadership Council approved a nationwide monitoring framework for
wildland fire data, including data on fire severity that may help
address this problem. While we also have said that an implementation
plan for this monitoring framework is needed, the adoption of the
framework nonetheless represents a critical step toward enhancing
wildland fire management accountability for results.[Footnote 16]
Agencies Face Several Challenges to Completing a Long-Needed Cohesive
Strategy for Reducing Fuels and Responding to Wildland Fire Problems:
While federal land management agencies have made important progress
over the past 5 years in addressing wildland fire management issues,
they continue to face a number of challenges that will need to be met
if they are to complete development of a cohesive strategy that
explicitly identifies available long-term options and funding needed to
reduce fuels on national forests and rangelands and respond to the
nation's wildland fire threats. The nation's wildland fire problems
have been decades in the making and will take decades more to resolve.
Without a cohesive strategy and better data, agencies will have
difficulty determining the extent and severity of the wildland fire
problem, targeting and coordinating their efforts and resources, and
resolving the problem in a timely and cost-effective manner. Moreover,
without such a strategy and better data, the Congress will not have
reliable information on when, how, and at what cost wildland fire
problems can be brought under control.
The federal government's strategy documents adopted thus far, such as
those associated with the National Fire Plan, establish a good
framework for addressing our nation's wildland fire problems, but these
documents still need to identify the long-term options and funding
needed to reduce and maintain fuels at acceptable levels. A clear
understanding of the options and funding needs are essential to both
the agencies and the Congress for determining the most effective and
affordable approach. However, the agencies are not currently in a
position to develop these options and identify related funding needs
with any precision or reliability because they need to complete several
steps, each with its own challenges. These steps include (1) completing
and implementing the LANDFIRE data and modeling system so that the
extent and location of wildland fire threats are more precisely known,
(2) updating local fire management plans with more precise LANDFIRE
information and the latest research so that the most promising wildland
fire management practices are included to effectively address wildland
fire threats, and (3) based on these plans, identifying the various
national options and related funding needed to reduce fuels and respond
to wildland fire threats. Recently, the agencies began an assessment of
wildland fire threats that may provide a useful framework for
completing a long-needed cohesive wildland fire management strategy.
Completing and Implementing the LANDFIRE System Is Essential to
Identifying and Addressing Wildland Fire Threats:
LANDFIRE is critical to identifying and addressing wildland fire
threats to communities and ecosystems, but the agencies face several
challenges completing and implementing LANDFIRE. The agencies need
LANDFIRE to more precisely identify the extent and location of wildland
fire threats and better target fuel reduction efforts. LANDFIRE is also
needed to better reconcile the effects of fuel reduction activities
with the agencies' other stewardship responsibilities for protecting
ecosystem resources, such as air, water, soils, and species habitat.
Fuel reduction activities, such as controlled burning or mechanical
treatments (using chainsaws and heavy equipment), can adversely affect
these ecosystem resources if not done at the proper time and place. For
example, mechanically removing fuels with heavy equipment can adversely
affect wildlife habitat and water quality in many areas and controlled
burning can cause air quality problems. The agencies also need LANDFIRE
to help them better measure and assess their performance. For example,
such data will enable the agencies to better identify the relative
importance of reducing fuels on the highest-hazard lands versus
maintaining conditions on low-hazard lands. As we have noted, a
separate performance measure for maintaining conditions on these low-
hazard lands is important so that their conditions do not deteriorate
to more hazardous conditions while funding is being focused on lands
with high-hazard conditions.[Footnote 17]
The agencies, however, face several challenges in implementing
LANDFIRE. As we recently reported, the agencies lack a consistent
approach to assessing the risks of wildland fires to ecosystem
resources[Footnote 18] and an integrated, strategic, and unified
approach to managing and using information systems and data, including
those such as LANDFIRE, in wildland fire decision making. Currently,
software, data standards, equipment, and training vary among the
agencies and field units in ways that hamper needed sharing and
consistent application of the data.[Footnote 19] Although the Wildland
Fire Leadership Council has recently chartered a National Wildfire
Enterprise Architecture Steering Group to implement an action plan for
more effectively sharing and using these data, these system and
implementation problems are not yet resolved.
Moreover, the agencies may have to re-examine the LANDFIRE data and
models before implementing them. Recent research suggests that the
effects of climate change on wildland fire might more adversely affect
the nature, extent, and geographical distribution of hazards identified
in LANDFIRE, as well as the costs for addressing them, than previously
understood. In August 2004, a panel--appointed by the Wildland Fire
Leadership Council to investigate escalating suppression costs--
reported that recent agency research suggested that climate change
could have significant implications for the occurrence of wildland fire
and the costs required to contain it.[Footnote 20] The research
suggests that part of the recent increase in wildland fire has been
caused by a shift in climate patterns, and that this new pattern may
likely continue for decades, resulting in further increases in the
amount of accumulated vegetation consumed nationally by wildland fire.
Fire Management Plans Will Need to Be Updated with Latest Data and
Research on Wildland Fire:
Incorporating LANDFIRE data and recent research on addressing wildland
fire threats into local fire management plans will be central to
completing a cohesive long-term fuels reduction strategy. The fire
management plans are important for identifying the fuel reduction,
preparedness, suppression, and rehabilitation actions needed at the
local level to more effectively address wildland fire threats. While
these plans now are all scheduled for completion in December 2004, they
will be based on outdated data once LANDFIRE is available. To improve
the accuracy and usefulness of these plans, the agencies will need to
update them when more detailed, nationally consistent LANDFIRE data
become available within 5 years. The Forest Service indicated that this
updating could occur during the agency's annual review of fire
management plans to determine whether any changes to plans may be
needed.
The agencies also will need to update their local fire management plans
with recent agency research on the best approaches for more effectively
addressing wildland fire threats. For example, a 2002 interagency
analysis found that protecting wildland-urban interface communities
more effectively--as well as more cost-effectively--might require
locating a higher proportion of fuel reduction projects outside of the
wildland-urban interface than currently envisioned, so that fires
originating in the wildlands do not become too large to suppress by the
time they arrive at the interface.[Footnote 21] Additionally, other
agency research being field-tested in California and elsewhere suggests
that placing fuel reduction treatments in specific geometric patterns
can more effectively reduce the spread rate and intensity of wildland
fires. As a result, agency officials believe the approach could provide
more protection across the landscape than other approaches to locating
and designing treatments, such as placing fuel breaks around
communities and ecosystems resources. Moreover, these geometric fuel
reduction patterns, because they are more efficient, reportedly may
provide protection for up to three times as many community and
ecosystem resources as other approaches do for the same cost.[Footnote
22]
Identifying Long-Term Fuel Reduction Options and Needed Funding Is Key
to Completing a Cohesive Strategy:
As LANDFIRE is developed and fire management plans are updated, the
agencies should become better positioned to formulate and communicate
to the Congress a cohesive, long-term federal strategy that identifies
various options and the related funding needed to reduce fuels and
respond to our nation's wildland fire problems. The agencies have
several efforts under way that should help them identify these options
and funding needs.
In 2002, a team of Forest Service and Interior experts produced an
estimate of the funds needed to implement eight different fuel
reduction options for protecting communities and ecosystems across the
nation over the next century. Their analysis also considered the
impacts of fuels reduction activities on likely future costs for other
principal wildland fire management activities, such as preparedness,
suppression and rehabilitation, if fuels were not reduced.[Footnote 23]
The team concluded that reducing the risks to communities and
ecosystems across the nation could require an approximate tripling of
current fuel reduction funding to about $1.4 billion for an initial
period of a few years. These initially higher costs would decline after
fuels had been reduced enough to use less expensive controlled burning
methods in many areas and more fires could be suppressed at lower cost,
with total wildland fire management costs, as well as risks, being
reduced after 15 years. Alternatively, the team said that not making a
substantial short-term investment using a landscape focus could
increase costs, as well as risks to communities and ecosystems, in the
long term. More recently, however, Interior has said that the costs and
time required to reverse current increasing risks may be less when
other vegetation management activities are considered that were not
included in the interagency team's original assessment but also can
influence wildland fire. The interagency experts said their estimates
of long-term costs could only be considered an approximation because
the data used for their national-level analysis were not sufficiently
detailed. They said a more accurate estimate of the long-term federal
costs and consequences of different options nationwide would require
applying this national analysis framework in smaller geographic areas
using more detailed data, such as that produced by LANDFIRE, and then
aggregating these smaller-scale results.
Agency officials told us that another management system under
development--Fire Program Analysis (FPA)--also could be used to help
identify long-term fuel reduction options and related funding needs.
FPA, which is being developed in response to a congressional committee
direction to improve budget allocation tools,[Footnote 24] is designed
to identify the most cost-effective allocations of annual preparedness
funding for implementing agency field units' local fire management
plans. Eventually, FPA will use LANDFIRE data and provide a smaller
geographical scale for analyses of fuel reduction options. Thus, like
LANDFIRE, FPA will be critical for updating fire management plans.
Officials said that the FPA preparedness budget allocation systemæwhen
integrated with an additional component that is now being considered
for allocating annual fuel reduction funding--could be instrumental in
identifying the most cost-effective long-term levels, mixes, and
scheduling of these two wildland fire management activities. The
agencies began training employees in October 2004 for initial
implementation of the preparedness budget component in February 2005.
However, completely developing FPA, including the fuel reduction
funding component, is expected to cost about $40 million and take until
at least 2007 and perhaps as long as 2009.
Finally, in May 2004, Agriculture and Interior began the initial phase
of a wildland fire strategic planning effort that also might contribute
to identifying long-term options and needed funding for reducing fuels
and responding to the nation's wildland fire problems. This effortæthe
Quadrennial Fire and Fuels Reviewæis intended to result in an overall
federal interagency strategic planning document for wildland fire
management and risk reduction and to provide a blueprint for developing
affordable and integrated fire preparedness, fuels reduction, and fire
suppression programs. Because of this effort's consideration of
affordability, it may provide a useful framework for developing a
cohesive strategy that includes identifying long-term options and
related funding needs. The preliminary planning and analysis phases of
this effort are scheduled to be completed in December 2004, followed by
an initial report expected in March 2005.
Conclusions:
In our initial reporting on the wildland fire problem 5 years ago, we
concluded that it would take many years for the federal government to
successfully address all of the complex management challenges that
wildland fire presents. Accordingly, as expected, much important work
remains to be done. Nevertheless, federal agencies over the last 5
years have laid a sound foundation for success, including initial data
development and planning and establishing a constructive, collaborative
dialogue with the states and others. This foundation will be important
for meeting the key challenges the agencies face in completing a
cohesive strategy for addressing the nation's wildland fire problems.
If the agencies' progress to date toward developing a cohesive strategy
is to be of enduring value, the agencies will need to complete ongoing
efforts such as LANDFIRE, research, and local fire management plans.
The agencies need the results of these ongoing efforts so that they can
develop a sufficiently detailed blueprint of the various available and
realistic long-term options and related funding needed for addressing
our nation's wildland fire problems. Without such a blueprint, wildland
fire will likely pose increasing risks to not only the nation's
communities and ecosystems, but also to tens of billions of dollars of
federal budgetary resources that will be spent to respond to wildland
fire over the coming decades. If these budgetary resources are not
cost-effectively applied, then the risks to communities and ecosystems
will not be reduced as much as intended or in ways that are needed and
desired. Critical to determining cost-effectiveness will be
understanding the optimal timing of appropriation investments over the
long term. Thus, a focus on long-term options and their costs provides
necessary realism about available choices for protecting communities
and ecosystems and required cohesiveness among the actions needed to
implement them. Conversely, without such a long-term focus, agencies
cannot ensure that the numerous collaborative efforts they undertake
locally each year will add up to a cost-effective, affordable, long-
term national solution.
To date there have been no clear actions or a commitment by the
agencies to explicitly identify and communicate to the Congress long-
term options and the funding needed to pursue them. In order for the
Congress to make informed decisions about effective and affordable
long-term approaches for addressing our nation's wildland fire
problems, it should have, as soon as possible, a broad range of long-
term options and related funding needed to reduce and maintain wildland
fuels at acceptable levels and respond to wildland fire threats.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
provide the Congress, in time for its consideration of the agencies'
fiscal year 2006 wildland fire management budgets, with a joint
tactical plan outlining the critical steps the agencies will take,
together with related time frames, to complete a cohesive strategy that
identifies long-term options and needed funding for reducing and
maintaining fuels at acceptable levels and responding to the nation's
wildland fire problems.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Forest
Service on behalf of Agriculture and from Interior. Both departments
generally concurred with our findings and recommendation, but expressed
concern about the time frame within which we recommended they provide
the Congress with a joint tactical plan for completing a cohesive
strategy to respond to wildland fire problems. We did not change our
recommendation because we believe that the departments misunderstood
this time frame and what we recommended that they provide within this
period. The departments also provided technical comments that we have
incorporated into the report, as appropriate. The Forest Service's and
Interior's letters are included in appendixes III and IV, respectively,
together with our evaluation of them.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to other interested congressional committees. We also will
send copies to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and the
Chief of the Forest Service. We will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge
on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or at nazzaror@gao.gov or David Bixler at (202)
512-7201 or bixlerd@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed
in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: GAO Products Related to Federal Wildland Fire Management:
Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a
Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-705]
Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004.
Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on Community Involvement
Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-652]
Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2004.
Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and
Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management Disruptions.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-612]
Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2004.
Biscuit Fire: Analysis of Fire Response, Resource Availability, and
Personnel Certification Standards.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-426]
Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2004.
Forest Service: Information on Appeals and Litigation Involving Fuel
Reduction Activities.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-52]
Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2003.
Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise for Wildland Fire
Management, but Challenges Remain.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1047]
Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2003.
Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better
Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-805]
Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2003.
Wildland Fires: Forest Service's Removal of Timber Burned by Wildland
Fires.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-808R]
Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2003.
Wildland Fires: Better Information Needed on Effectiveness of Emergency
Stabilization and Rehabilitation Treatments.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-430]
Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2003.
Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in
Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and Wildland
Fire Management.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-321]
Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002.
Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires
Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-843T]
Washington, D.C: June 13, 2002.
Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better
Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-158]
Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002.
Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce
Risks to Communities and Resources.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-259]
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.
The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not Organized to
Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-1022T]
Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001.
Forest Service Roadless Areas: Potential Impact of Proposed Regulations
on Ecological Sustainability.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-47]
Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2000.
Reducing Wildfire Threats: Funds Should be Targeted to the Highest Risk
Areas.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-00-296]
Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2000.
Fire Management: Lessons Learned from the Cerro Grande (Los Alamos)
Fire and Actions Needed to Reduce Fire Risks.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-00-273]
Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2000.
Fire Management: Lessons Learned from the Cerro Grande (Los Alamos)
Fire.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-00-257]
Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2000.
Forest Service: Actions Needed for the Agency to Become More
Accountable for Its Performance.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-00-236]
Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.
Park Service: Agency Is Not Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety
Responsibilities.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-00-154]
Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000.
Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2]
Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1999.
Federal Wildfire Activities: Issues Needing Future Attention.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-99-282]
Washington, D.C.: September 14, 1999.
Federal Wildfire Activities: Current Strategy and Issues Needing
Attention.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-233]
Washington, D.C.: August 13, 1999.
Western National Forests: Status of Forest Service's Efforts to Reduce
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-99-241]
Washington, D.C.: June 29, 1999.
Forest Service Priorities: Evolving Mission Favors Resource Protection
over Production.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-166]
Washington, D.C.: June 17, 1999.
Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-65]
Washington, D.C.: April 2, 1999.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
To identify the progress that federal land management agencies have
made in addressing the threat posed by wildland fires over the past 5
years and the challenges that remain over the next 5 years, we reviewed
past GAO, Congressional Research Service, and National Academy of
Public Administration reports on wildland fires. We interviewed
officials from the Forest Service and Department of the Interior
agencies that are responsible for wildland fire management and obtained
data on acres burned from the National Interagency Fire Center in
Boise, Idaho. We also interviewed and obtained data from Forest Service
and Interior officials responsible for developing long-term fuel
treatment options and costs, LANDFIRE, the Fire Program Analysis
system, climate change estimates, fire management plans, performance
measures, and the Quadrennial Fire and Fuels Review. In addition, we
interviewed officials and obtained data from the National Academy of
Public Administration and the Brookings Institution. We conducted our
work between May 2004 and November 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
14tH & Independence SW:
P.O. Box 96090:
Washington, DC 20090-6090:
File Code: 1310/1930:
Date: December 10, 2004:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report, GAO-05-147, "Wildland
Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges
Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy." Overall, the report
correctly recognizes that important progress has been made in
addressing wildland fire management issues. However, it should be noted
that the progress has occurred during the last four years, not five as
the report indicates. While the cohesive strategy was completed in
1999, significant progress was only possible with the passage of the
2001 appropriations.
Notably, GAO acknowledges that priorities have been clarified and
funding increased for identified needs; coordination and collaboration
strengthened; and better performance measures and results monitoring
framework have been developed. The report also identifies three
components that GAO considers key to long term success for wildland
fire management: completing and implementing LANDFIRE; updating Fire
Management Plans with latest data and research; and identifying long
term fuel reduction options and needed funding as part of a cohesive
strategy.
The report makes several specific points that the Forest Service would
like to see clarified.
Under the heading "Increases in Wildland Fire Exposed Weaknesses in the
Federal Response," the GAO comments that the Forest Service and
Interior had issued no specific national level guidance on the
prioritization of treatments, based upon a 2003 GAO report. However,
the Chief of the Forest Service and the DOI Assistant Secretary for
Policy Management and Budget issued national direction in January 2003,
to establish a collaborative process for prioritization and selection
of fuel treatment projects for 2004.
The section "Progress in Local Implementation: Data and Research, Fire
Management Planning and Coordination and Collaboration Have Been
Strengthened' includes a statement that requires clarification of
several points. The report states that LANDFIRE "will help identify
numerous community and ecosystem resources at risk from wildland fire
such as residential and commercial structures, species habitat, air and
water quality, and soils and enhanced models of likely fire behavior to
better identify the nature of these risks." However, because LANDFIRE
will produce data at a 30-meter resolution, the data is better suited
to inform strategic decisions about fire, fuels and other land
management activities.
Under the section "Fire Management Plans Will Need to Be Undated with
Latest Data and Research on Wildland Fire," the report states that
"agencies have yet to establish a schedule or procedures for updating
fire management plans to incorporate the LANDFIRE data and models."
However, all Fire Management Plans are reviewed on a yearly basis to
determine whether any changes may be needed. Therefore, it will be
unnecessary to develop a separate schedule or procedure to update the
Fire Management Plans with LANDFIRE data and models.
Finally, the report recommends that the Secretaries provide Congress a
joint tactical plan that identifies long term options and needed
funding for reducing and maintaining fuels at acceptable levels in time
for the FY 2006 budget considerations. While the Forest Service concurs
with the premise of the recommendation, there is simply insufficient
time to develop a tactical plan as described in the report. Two of the
essential elements for such a plan, LANDFIRE and Fire Program Analysis
(FPA), are still under development. Ground verification and
collaborative interagency involvement at the field level to ensure
accuracy and usefulness, are just beginning. A better alternative is to
let the LANDFIRE and FPA processes become more fully operational.
Assuming there are no major problems encountered with implementation of
the two elements, producing a plan such as GAO suggests may be possible
in time for the 2007 budget.
Again, we thank GAO for the fair and balanced review of the progress
made to date in Federal wildland fire management. If you have any
questions, please contact Sandy Coleman, Agency Audit Liaison, at (703)
605-4940:
Sincerely,
Signed by:
DALE N. BOSWORTH Chief:
cc: Jesse L. King, Sandra Cantler, Sandy T. Coleman and Christine Roye:
The following are GAO's comments on the USDA Forest Service's letter
dated December 10, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. We did not change our characterization of the period over which
progress was made because efforts made earlier than 4 years ago
provided an important basis for subsequent progress, including (1) the
September 8, 2000, report to the President from the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior that was used to inform the 2001
appropriation request and (2) the Forest Service's formulation of its
own fuel reduction strategy that was initiated in 1999.
2. We clarified the language of our report to make clearer our meaning
that, although national guidance was issued, this guidance--as we have
previously reported--was not specific enough for prioritizing fuels
reduction projects.
3. We clarified the language in our report to make clearer our meaning
that, by identifying landscape fuel hazards, LANDFIRE will help
identify the risks to those resources.
4. We have included this observation in our report. However, we note
that the agencies will need to ensure this is done because of (1) the
likely impacts that the LANDFIRE and FPA systems will have on the fire
management plans, (2) the importance of the plans for identifying
aggregate national fuel reduction options and costs, and (3) agencies'
past failures to keep these plans up-to-date, as our report notes.
5. We did not recommend that the long-term options and associated costs
be identified in the joint tactical plan. Rather, we said that this
joint tactical plan should specify the steps and related time frames
that the agencies will take in completing a cohesive strategy
containing options and costs. In addition, we did not recommend that
the joint tactical plan be provided concurrently with the agencies'
fiscal year 2006 budget submissions, but only that it be provided in
time for the Congress's deliberation of the agencies' appropriations
for fiscal year 2006. Should the agencies subsequently identify
adjustments that need to be made to the tactical plan because of
evolving LANDFIRE and FPA processes, they can so inform the Congress of
those adjustments and the reasons for them. Because this is a long-term
effort in which each year's progress can have significant long-term
fiscal, resource, and human safety consequences, we believe it is
important from this point forward that the agencies more transparently
identify for the Congress the specific steps they will undertake, and
their associated time frames, for identifying long-term options and
costs. Accordingly, we made no change to our recommendation.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET:
Washington, DC 20240:
DEC 10 2004:
Barry T. Hill, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the draft report,
Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but
Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy (GAO-05-147). This
report provides much needed and appreciated broad overview of the
strides taken to improve community protection from catastrophic
wildfire under the National Fire Plan, as well as reinforcing our view
of how to improve wildland fire management in the coming 5 years. GAO
is to be commended for cutting through a multitude of issues and facts
to see and describe the big picture accurately.
Overall the report is straightforward and conforms to a large extent
with our view of where progress has been made and some specific actions
that need to be taken. This Department and our major Federal partner,
the U.S. Forest Service, have indeed clarified our program priorities
and increased the funding for them. Fire management collaboration,
cooperation, and planning are better than ever and continuing to
improve. Program accountability has improved as well, as better
performance measures have been established and results documented.
The sole recommendation for executive action, that the Secretaries
provide Congress with a joint tactical plan outlining the critical
steps, long-term options, and necessary funding "for reducing and
maintaining fuels at acceptable levels and responding to the Nation's
wildfire problems" in time for consideration in the 2006 budget does
present some serious challenges. There is not sufficient time to
prepare a joint detailed plan in time to be included in the 2006 budget
request, and it would be premature to develop a detailed plan. Two of
the essential elements for defining and weighing the most critical
problems and determining long-term options to deal with them most
effectively, LANDFIRE and Fire Program Analysis (FPA), are under
development. The report correctly recognizes the central importance of
LANDFIRE and FPA to the future of wildland fire management planning.
Ground verification and collaborative interagency involvement at the
field level to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of LANDFIRE and FPA
are just beginning. A better alternative the processes become more
fully operational. If the transitions for these key integrative
programs are successful, producing a plan such as GAO suggests may be
possible in the 2007 budget, the first that FPA will influence
significantly across the Nation, not just within prototype areas.
In addition to those recommendations, the report includes several
specific comments to which we would like to add further clarifications.
A Under the heading "Increases in Wildland Fire Exposed Weaknesses in
the Federal Response," the report states that as of 2003 the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior had not issued specific
national level guidance on the prioritization of treatments. In fact,
in January 2003, the Chief of the Forest Service and the DOI Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget issued national direction
establishing a collaborative process to prioritize and select fuel
treatment projects for 2004.
In the next section, "Progress in National Strategy: Priorities Have
Been Clarified and Funding Has Been Increased for Identified Needs,"
the report points out that the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(HFRA) directed that at least 50 percent of the project funding be used
in the wildland urban interface. In this regard HFRA reinforces a goal
that DOI has significantly exceeded every year since 2001. Under both
the National Fire Plan and the HFRA, this Department has directed 60-65
percent of our fuels reduction project funding to the wildland urban
interface.
In the section, "Progress in Local Implementation: Data and Research
Fire Management Planning and Coordination and Collaboration Have Been
Strengthened," there is a statement that is not entirely accurate. The
report states that LANDFIRE will locate "...numerous community and
ecosystem resources, such as residential and commercial structures..."
Since LANDFIRE has 30-meter resolution, only very large buildings could
be identified as structures. It is more likely that LANDFIRE would
distinguish between urban and suburban areas, such as housing
developments, and surrounding forests or other areas covered by
vegetation. The main value of LANDFIRE will be the ability to
characterize the vegetation in many ways useful to land managers.
Under the heading, "Completing and Implementing the LANDFIRE System Is
Essential to Identifying and Addressing Wildland Fire Threats," there
is a discussion of the large-fire cost panel and their finding that
climate change could have significant implications on wildland fire and
suppression costs in the future. To this discussion we would like to
add the point that forest thinning has the effect of increasing forest
resilience to drought stress and tolerance to climatic variability.
This should reduce the potential for outbreaks of insects and disease
and extreme wildfires.
In the section, "Identifying Long-Term Fuel Reduction Options and
Needed Funding s Key to Completing a Cohesive Strategy," there is a
discussion of a 2002 interagency group's cost estimate for needed fuel
reduction. It is important to note that this team did not include any
non-National Fire Plan management of vegetation. After HFRA was passed,
the Departments found that over 1 million acres benefited from
treatments performed outside the National Fire Plan fuels reduction
program. These additional acres would have substantially changed the
outcome reported in 2002 because the total cost and time before
condition trends reversed would both have been reduced. The accuracy of
the analysis was also significantly limited by the spatial resolution
of satellite-derived vegetation conditions. Completion of LANDFIRE
will permit this type of analysis to be performed with significantly
greater accuracy, leading to much greater confidence in the outcomes.
In conclusion, we would like to say that the Department of the Interior
is gratified that GAO has strides made since the beginning of the
National Fire Plan and the President's Healthy Forests Initiative. We
would have been proud if the improvements in fuels reduction, fire
response capability, and cooperative partnerships had taken 5 full
years to accomplish as noted in the report. However, it is only fair to
point out that all that progress has taken only 4 years. We are now
entering the fifth year of the National Fire Plan.
Once again, we thank the GAO for a balanced and insightful overview of
Federal wildland fire management.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Assistant Secretary:
Policy, Management and Budget:
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated December 10, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. We did not recommend that the long-term options and associated costs
be identified in the joint tactical plan. Rather, we said that this
joint tactical plan should specify the steps and related time frames
that the agencies will take in completing a cohesive strategy
containing options and costs. In addition, we did not recommend that
the joint tactical plan be provided concurrently with the agencies'
fiscal year 2006 budget submissions, but only that it be provided in
time for the Congress's deliberation of the agencies' appropriations
for fiscal year 2006. Should the agencies subsequently identify
adjustments that need to be made to the tactical plan because of
evolving LANDFIRE and FPA processes, they can so inform the Congress of
those adjustments and the reasons for them. Because this is a long-term
effort in which each year's progress can have significant long-term
fiscal, resource, and human safety consequences, we believe it is
important from this point forward that the agencies more transparently
identify for the Congress the specific steps they will undertake, and
their associated time frames, for identifying long-term options and
costs. Accordingly, we made no change to our recommendation.
2. We clarified the language of our report to make clearer our meaning
that, although national guidance was issued, as we have previously
reported, this guidance was not specific enough for prioritizing fuels
reduction projects.
3. In reporting on the progress that has been made in clarifying
priorities, we are merely noting that the act provided a good starting
point for undertaking analysis to identify and prioritize funding
needs. We neither are criticizing the emphasis that the agencies
previously placed on protecting wildland urban interface areas nor are
making an assessment of the act's priorities, since our report notes
that further analysis is needed to determine the most cost-effective
allocation among priorities.
4. We clarified the language in our report to make clearer our meaning
that, by identifying landscape fuel hazards, LANDFIRE will help
identify the risks to those resources.
5. We agree these factors should be among those raised by climate
change research that our report says should be considered in
identifying long-term options and associated costs.
6. We have modified our draft to include the observation that Interior
believes inclusion of this additional acreage would have substantially
changed the outcome the team reported. Our report already noted the
interagency team's view that the accuracy of the assessment's outcomes
will be improved by use of more detailed data such as from LANDFIRE.
However, we are encouraged by the departments' commitment, expressed in
both of their comments on our draft report, to use this type of
analysis to identify and communicate to the Congress long-term fuel
reduction options and costs, reversing a June 2002 decision by the
Wildland Fire Leadership Council not to do so. We believe that the
fulfillment of this commitment is needed to provide the Congress with a
sufficiently informed understanding of the long-term consequences of
different appropriation choices that it will need to make over the
coming years and decades to adequately and cost-effectively address
wildland fire management issues.
7. We did not change our characterization of the period over which
progress was made because efforts made earlier than 4 years ago
provided an important basis for subsequent progress, including (1) the
September 8, 2000, report to the President from the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior that was used to inform the 2001
appropriation request and (2) the Forest Service's formulation of its
own fuel reduction strategy that was initiated in 1999.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841:
David P. Bixler, (202) 512-7201:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Jonathan Altshul, Barry T. Hill,
Richard Johnson, Chester Joy, and Jonathan McMurray made key
contributions to this report.
(360466):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Interior land management agencies are the Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. Also,
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs participates in federal wildland
fire management activities.
[2] GAO, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats, GAO/RCED-99-65 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 2, 1999).
[3] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to
Better Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction, GAO-03-
805 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2003).
[4] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies
Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs, GAO-02-158
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2002).
[5] GAO, National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not Organized to
Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan, GAO-01-1022T
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001).
[6] GAO/RCED-99-65; GAO-03-805; and GAO, Wildland Fires: Better
Information Needed on Effectiveness of Emergency Stabilization and
Rehabilitation Treatments, GAO-03-430 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2003).
[7] The various documents that make up the National Fire Plan include
(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. For a description of
these strategy documents, including the National Fire Plan, and their
contents, goals, and relationships to one another, see GAO, Severe
Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce Risks to
Communities and Resources, GAO-02-259 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31,
2002).
[8] Pub. L. No. 108-148, 117 Stat. 1887 (2003).
[9] GAO-02-259 and GAO-03-805.
[10] GAO/RCED-99-65.
[11] GAO/RCED-99-65.
[12] GAO-02-158.
[13] GAO-02-259; and Managing Wildland Fire: Enhancing Capacity to
Implement the Federal Interagency Policy, a report by the National
Academy of Public Administration for the Department of the Interior,
December 2001.
[14] Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and the Western
Governors Association, A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year Comprehensive
Strategy (Washington, D.C., August 2001).
[15] GAO/RCED-99-65.
[16] GAO, Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better
Information and a Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of
Environmental Effects, GAO-04-705 (Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004).
[17] GAO-03-805.
[18] GAO-04-705.
[19] GAO, Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise for
Wildland Fire Management, but Challenges Remain, GAO-03-1047
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2003).
[20] "Large Fire Suppression Costs: Strategies for Cost Management," a
report of the Strategic Issues Panel on Large Fire Suppression Costs,
Wildland Fire Leadership Council, August 26, 2004.
[21] Hann, Wendell et al., A Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People
and Sustaining Natural Resources: Predicting Outcomes for Program
Options (a paper presented at the Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological
Restoration Conference, a meeting of national wildland fire experts
convened by the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort
Collins, Colorado, April 2002).
[22] Mark A. Finney, "Design of Regular Landscape Fuel Treatment
Patterns for Modifying Fire Growth and Behavior," Forest Science, vol.
47, no. 2 (May 2001).
[23] Hann et al., A Cohesive Strategy.
[24] GAO-02-158.
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:
