    Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to
    Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources (31-JAN-02,
    GAO-02-259).

    Dangerous accumulations of brush, small trees, and other
    vegetation on federal lands, particularly in the western United
    States, have helped fuel devastating wildfires in recent years.
    Although a single focal point is critical for directing
    firefighting efforts by federal, state, and local governments,
    GAO found a lack of clearly defined leadership at the federal
    level. Authority and responsibility remain fragmented among the
    Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the states.
    Implementation of a performance accountability network also
    remains fragmented. As a result, GAO could not determine if the
    $796 million earmarked for hazardous fuels reduction in 2001 and
    2002 has been targeted to communities and areas at highest risk.
    The five federal land management agencies--the National Park
    Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
    Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Forest
    Service--have yet to begin the research needed to identify and
    prioritize vulnerable communities near high-risk federal lands.
    Moreover, the agencies are not collecting the data needed to
    determine if changes are needed to expedite the project-planning
    process. They also are not collecting data needed to measure the
    effectiveness of efforts to dispose of the large amount of brush
    and other vegetation on federal lands.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-259
        ACCNO:   A02719
      TITLE:     Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability
    Needed to Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources
         DATE:   01/31/2002
      SUBJECT:   Appropriated funds
    	     Data collection
    	     Emergency preparedness
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Funds management
    	     Land management
    	     Performance measures
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
    	     National Fire Plan

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-02-259

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

    January 2002

    SEVERE WILDLAND FIRES

    Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce Risks to Communities and
    Resources

    GAO-02-259

    Contents

    Letter

    Results In Brief
    Background
    The Federal Effort to Reduce Hazardous Fuels Lacks Clearly

    Defined and Effective Leadership

    Little Progress Made In Implementing a Sound Performance Accountability
    Framework to Spend Funds Appropriated to Reduce Hazardous Fuels Effectively

    Data Are Not Available to Make Informed Decisions and to

    Measure Progress Conclusions Matters for Congressional Consideration
    Recommendation for Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation Scope
    and Methodology

                                         1

                                        3 5

                                         6

    11

    21 24 25 25 26 28

    Appendix I Comments From the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture

    Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 41

    GAO Contacts 41 Acknowledgments 41

    Tables

    Table 1: Funds Appropriated to Reduce Hazardous Fuels on Federal Lands,
    Fiscal Years 1998-2002 6

    Figures

    Figure 1: Entities Established by Interior and Agriculture to Coordinate
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Other Key Elements of the National Fire Plan 8

    Figure 2: Proposed National Wildland Fire Policy Implementation
    Council 10

    Figure 3: Location of Major Wildland Fires During the 2000
    Wildland Fire Season 16

    Figure 4: Number of Communities by State Identified by Interior as
    Being at Highest Risk from Wildland Fire 16

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    January 31, 2002

    Congressional Requesters

    Human activities-especially the federal government's decades-old,
    well-intended policy of suppressing all wildland fires, including naturally
    occurring ones-have resulted in dangerous accumulations of brush, small
    trees, and other hazardous vegetation on federal lands, especially in the
    dry, lower-elevation, fire-adapted regions of the interior western United
    States. This vegetation has increasingly provided fuel for large, intense
    (severe) wildland fires.

    The 2000 wildland fire season was one of the worst in 50 years. The scale
    and intensity of the fires capped a decade that was characterized by
    dramatic increases not only in the number of severe wildland fires, but also
    in the costs associated with suppressing them. These fires have also posed
    increasing risks to communities in the wildland-urban interface- areas where
    human development meets or intermingles with undeveloped wildland-as well as
    to municipal watersheds and individual resources, such as threatened and
    endangered species, clean water, and clean air.

    To respond to the wildland fires in 2000, then-President Clinton requested,
    and the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture submitted, a September
    8, 2000, report on managing the impact of wildland fires on communities and
    the environment.1 This report together with the accompanying budget request;
    Congressional direction accompanying substantial new appropriations for
    wildland fire management for fiscal year 2001; and resulting strategies,
    plans, projects, and other activities have become known as the National Fire
    Plan. In addition, the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy,2
    updated in 2001,3 provides the philosophical and

    1 Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment, A
    Report to the President In Response to the Wildfires of 2000, Secretaries of
    the Interior and Agriculture (Sept. 8, 2000).

    2 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review, Report to the
    Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture by the Federal Wildland Fire
    Management Policy and Program Review Steering Group (Dec. 18, 1995).

    3 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy,
    Report to the Secretaries of the Interior, of Agriculture, of Energy, of
    Defense, and of Commerce; the Administrator, Environmental Protection
    Agency; and the Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, by an
    Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group (Jan. 2001).

    policy foundation for hazardous fuels reduction as well as for other federal
    interagency wildland fire management activities conducted under the National
    Fire Plan.

    The National Fire Plan advocates a new approach to wildland fires. This
    approach shifts emphasis from reactive to proactive-from attempting to
    suppress wildland fires to reducing the buildup of hazardous vegetation that
    fuels severe fires. The Plan recognizes that, unless hazardous fuels are
    reduced, the number of severe wildland fires and the costs associated with
    suppressing them will continue to increase.

    Reducing the buildup of hazardous vegetation that fuels severe fires
    requires primarily vegetation management, including fires set by federal
    land managers (prescribed fires), mechanical thinning, and timber
    harvesting. On federal lands, these activities are conducted primarily by
    five agencies-the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the
    Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service within the Department of
    Agriculture.

    Prior to fiscal year 1998, the administration did not request, and the
    Congress did not appropriate, funds specifically for hazardous fuels
    reduction. For fiscal years 1998 through 2000, funds requested and
    appropriated specifically for these activities totaled less than $93 million
    a year. For fiscal year 2001, the Clinton administration requested a
    substantial increase, and the Congress appropriated $401 million to reduce
    hazardous fuels. For fiscal year 2002, the Congress appropriated another
    $395 million for hazardous fuels reduction. Congressional committees have
    also recognized the need to sustain increased funding for hazardous fuels
    reduction in future fiscal years.

    Because the Congress is prepared to fund an aggressive, multi-year campaign
    to reduce hazardous fuels, it is imperative that the five federal land
    management agencies receiving these funds act quickly to develop the
    leadership and performance accountability framework to spend the funds in an
    efficient, effective, and timely manner.4 In this report we discuss (1) the
    need for clearly defined and effective leadership to reduce the buildup of
    hazardous vegetation that fuels severe wildland fires, (2)

    4 See Reducing Wildfire Threats: Funds Should Be Targeted to the Highest
    Risk Areas (GAO/T-RCED-00-296, Sept. 13, 2000).

    Results In Brief

    the progress that the five federal land management agencies have made in
    implementing a sound performance accountability framework to spend
    effectively the funds appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction, and (3)
    the availability of data on which to make informed decisions and to measure
    progress.

    Our work has shown that a single focal point is critical for efforts-such as
    reducing severe wildland fires and the vegetation that fuels them-that
    involve many federal agencies as well as state and local governments, the
    private sector, and private individuals. However, over a year after the
    Congress substantially increased funds to reduce hazardous fuels, the
    federal effort still lacks clearly defined and effective leadership. Rather
    than a single focal point, authority and responsibility remain fragmented
    among Interior, the Forest Service, and the states. In a December 2001
    report for the Department of the Interior,5 the National Academy of Public
    Administration6 recommended that, to provide the required leadership, the
    Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture should establish an
    interagency national council to implement the Federal Wildland Fire
    Management Policy as well as hazardous fuels reduction and other key
    elements of the National Fire Plan, such as fire suppression.

    A sound framework to ensure that funds appropriated to reduce hazardous
    fuels are spent in an efficient, effective, and timely manner is needed.
    Such a framework is grounded in federal wildland fire management policies,
    the National Fire Plan, and Congressional direction. This framework
    includes, among other things, (1) consistent criteria to identify and
    prioritize wildland-urban interface communities within the vicinity of
    federal lands that are at high risk from severe wildland fires; (2) clearly
    defined and outcome-oriented goals and objectives, as well as quantifiable
    long-term and annual performance measures, to assess progress in reducing
    the risks of severe wildland fires in wildland-urban interface areas as well
    as in other areas; (3) a comprehensive long-term strategy that incorporates
    the criteria, goals, objectives, and measures; and

    5 Managing Wildland Fire: Enhancing Capacity to Implement the Federal
    Interagency Policy, A Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public
    Administration for the United States Department of the Interior (Dec. 2001).

    6 The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, nonprofit
    organization chartered by the Congress in 1967 to improve governance at all
    levels-local, regional, state, national, and international.

    (4) yearly performance plans and reports. However, just as leadership for
    reducing hazardous fuels is fragmented among Interior, the Forest Service,
    and the states, so too is implementation of a performance accountability
    framework. As a result, (1) high-risk communities have not been identified
    and prioritized, (2) multiple strategies have been developed with different
    goals and objectives, (3) quantifiable indicators of performance have not
    been developed to measure progress in reducing risks, and (4) annual plans
    and reports that have been developed do not describe what will be
    accomplished with the appropriated funds. Therefore, it is not possible to
    determine if the $796 million appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction in
    fiscal years 2001 and 2002 is targeted to the communities and other areas at
    highest risk of severe wildland fires.

    Federal land management agencies do not have adequate data for making
    informed decisions and measuring the agencies' progress in reducing
    hazardous fuels. These processes require accurate, complete, and comparable
    data. The infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars of new money for
    hazardous fuels reduction activities for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and the
    expectation of sustained similar funding for these activities in future
    fiscal years accentuate the need for accurate, complete, and comparable
    data. However, the five federal land management agencies have not initiated
    the research needed to better identify and prioritize wildland-urban
    interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high
    risk from wildland fire. Moreover, the agencies are not collecting the data
    required to determine if changes are needed to expedite the project-planning
    process. They are also not collecting the data needed to measure the
    effectiveness of efforts to dispose of the large amount of brush, small
    trees, and other vegetation that must be removed to reduce the risk of
    severe wildland fire.

    We agree with the National Academy of Public Administration that an
    interagency national council is needed to provide the strategic direction,
    leadership, coordination, conflict resolution, and oversight and evaluation
    necessary to ensure that funds appropriated to implement the hazardous fuels
    reduction, as well as other elements of the National Fire Plan, are spent in
    an efficient, effective, and timely manner. However, even though the
    September 2000 National Fire Plan-prepared at the request of the President
    of the United States-directed them to establish a similar Cabinet-level
    coordinating team, the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture have
    not done so. Therefore, we suggest that the Congress consider directing the
    Secretaries to immediately establish the council. In addition, we suggest
    that the Congress consider directing the Secretaries to consolidate under
    the council the current fragmented implementation

    Background

    of a sound performance accountability framework. We also recommend that the
    Secretaries of the of the Interior and Agriculture gather the data to make
    more informed decisions and to measure the agencies' progress in reducing
    hazardous fuels. The departments of Agriculture and the Interior generally
    agreed with our recommendations. However, they were concerned that we had
    not given them enough credit for several actions taken or underway related
    to enhancing interagency leadership; establishing a framework to ensure that
    funds appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels are spent in an efficient,
    effective, and timely manner; and undertaking adequate research and data
    collection efforts. Where appropriate, we have included reference to these
    activities.

    The federal government's share of the nation's total surface area, is now
    about 29 percent. Today, four agencies-the National Park Service, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management within the
    Department of the Interior and the Forest Service within the Department of
    Agriculture-manage about 655 million acres, or 96 percent of all federal
    lands. In addition, Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs manages another 55
    million acres. Most federal lands in the 48 contiguous United States are
    located in 11 western states.

    Primarily as a result of human activities, ecological conditions on 211
    million acres-or almost one-third of all federal lands and about 10 percent
    of the nation's total surface area-continue to deteriorate. According to a
    2001 update of federal wildland fire management policy, these ecological
    conditions have increased "the probability of large, intense fires beyond
    any scale yet witnessed."7 A 1994 report on wildland fire disasters states
    that these fires "will periodically and tragically overwhelm our best
    efforts at fire prevention and suppression."8 Coupled with the explosive
    growth of people and structures in the wildland-urban interface, these fires
    have, in turn, increased the risks to communities, watersheds, ecosystems,
    and species. They have also placed in jeopardy

    7 See Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy,
    Report to the Secretaries of the Interior, of Agriculture, of Energy, of
    Defense, and of Commerce; the Administrator, Environmental Protection
    Agency; and the Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, by an
    Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group (Jan. 2001).

    8 See Report of the National Commission on Wildfire Disasters (1994). The
    National Commission on Wildfire Disasters was established on May 9, 1990, by
    the Wildfire Disaster Recovery Act of 1989 (Pub. L. No. 101-286).

    the lives of the public as well as the lives of the firefighters charged
    with controlling or suppressing them.

    For fiscal years 1998 through 2002, the administration has requested and the
    Congress has appropriated funds to the five major federal land management
    agencies specifically to reduce hazardous fuels on federal lands. (See table
    1.) Each of the agencies then allocates the funds through their individual
    organizational structures to their field units.

    Table  1: Funds  Appropriated to  Reduce Hazardous  Fuels on  Federal Lands,
    Fiscal Years 1998-2002

                                Dollars in millions

       Total $70.1
      $101.1 $107.9
     $401.0 $395.2

    The Federal
    Effort to Reduce
    Hazardous Fuels
    Lacks Clearly
    Defined and
    Effective
    Leadership

    Source: GAO
    analysis of data provided by the Forest Service and the Department of the
    Interior.

    Our work has shown that a single focal point is critical for efforts-such as
    reducing severe wildland fires and the vegetation that fuels them-that
    involve many federal agencies as well as state and local governments, the
    private sector, and private individuals. 9 However, over a year after the
    Congress substantially increased funds to reduce hazardous fuels, the
    federal effort still lacks clearly defined and effective leadership. Rather
    than a single focal point, authority and responsibility remain fragmented
    among Interior, the Forest Service, and the states.

    In a December 2001 report, a panel of the National Academy of Public
    Administration (NAPA) concluded that an interagency national council is
    needed to implement both the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy

    9 For example, we have observed that the federal government's efforts to
    combat terrorism have suffered because there is no single leader in charge
    of the many functions conducted by different federal departments and
    agencies.

    and the National Fire Plan. Therefore, NAPA recommended that the Secretaries
    of the Interior and Agriculture immediately form and empower such a council.

    Rather Than a Single Focal Point, Leadership and Management Are Fragmented

    To be accountable for reducing hazardous fuels and other key elements of the
    National Fire Plan, the plan directed the Secretaries of the Interior and of
    Agriculture to "establish a Cabinet-level coordinating team to ensure that
    the actions recommended by the Departments receive the highest priority."
    However, rather than establish one Cabinet-level coordinating entity, the
    Secretaries established two separate entities.

    In January 2001, the Secretary of the Interior established the Office of
    Wildland Fire Coordinator to coordinate and integrate the fire management
    programs of the Department's four land management agencies as well as the
    related activities of two other Interior agencies- the U.S. Geological
    Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation. That same month, the Secretary of
    Agriculture established a National Fire Plan Implementation Team headed by a
    National Fire Plan Coordinator. The coordinator and team are to work with
    stakeholders to achieve the goals of the National Fire Plan by assisting
    them in developing work plans, budgets, accomplishment reports, and
    operating principles.

    In September 2001, Interior's Office of Wildland Fire Coordinator organized
    a Wildland Fire Steering Group consisting of representatives from Interior's
    four land management agencies. A representative from the Forest Service's
    National Fire Plan Implementation Team serves as an advisory member. The
    group is to "provide leadership and oversight for the fuels management
    program" and unite Interior's agencies and programs under the common purpose
    of reducing risks to communities and improving land health.

    Figure 1 depicts the entities established by Interior and Agriculture to
    coordinate hazardous fuels reduction and other key elements of the National
    Fire Plan.

    Figure 1: Entities Established by Interior and Agriculture to Coordinate
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Other Key Elements of the National Fire Plan

    Source: Managing Wildland Fire: Enhancing Capacity to Implement the Federal
    Interagency Policy, A Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public
    Administration for the United States Department of the Interior (Dec. 2001).

    In addition to the three coordination entities established within Interior
    or Agriculture, the Western Governors' Association in September 2000
    established a fourth coordination entity.10 This entity-composed of
    stakeholders from all levels of government, tribal interests, conservation
    and commodity groups, and community-based restoration groups-has

    10 The Western Governors' Association is an independent non-partisan
    organization of governors from 18 western states as well as two territories
    and a commonwealth in the Pacific. Its mission is to identify and address
    key policy and governance issues in the West, advance the role of Western
    states in the federal system, and strengthen the social and economic fabric
    of the region.

    assumed roles and responsibilities similar to those of the other three
    coordination entities. For example, the coordination entity established by
    the Western Governors' Association has developed a 10-year strategy for
    reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment11 and is
    developing a plan to implement its strategy. However, the Secretaries of the
    Interior and of Agriculture have not delegated clear authority to any of the
    four groups to implement the National Fire Plan, including hazardous fuels
    reduction, or to unite the agencies' programs to reduce risks to communities
    and improve land health.

    The National Academy of Public Administration Has Proposed Establishing a
    Single Focal Point

    NAPA's December 200l report for the Department of the Interior observed that
    (1) the current approach to coordinate the implementation of the Federal
    Wildland Fire Management Policy and the National Fire Plan is not working
    and (2) a coordinated interagency, intergovernmental, and interdisciplinary
    approach is needed to implement the policy and the plan. The report
    evaluated a wide variety of options for establishing and locating an
    effective interagency coordination entity. These options ranged from
    establishing a typical interagency coordination committee to creating a
    wildland fire czar or combining the five federal land management agencies
    into a new Department of Natural Resources. NAPA concluded that a National
    Wildland Fire Policy Implementation Council was needed to implement both the
    policy and the plan. Therefore, NAPA recommended that the Secretaries of the
    Interior and Agriculture immediately form and empower such a council. (See
    figure 2.)

    11 A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities
    and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, (Aug. 2001).

    Figure 2: Proposed National Wildland Fire Policy Implementation Council

    Source: Managing Wildland Fire: Enhancing Capacity to Implement the Federal
    Interagency Policy, A Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public
    Administration for the United States Department of the Interior (Dec. 2001).

    According to NAPA, this council should (1) consist of the heads of the five
    federal land management agencies and the respective deputy secretary in both
    Interior and Agriculture; (2) have adequate, permanent, interdisciplinary
    staff in both departments to support the work of the council as well as
    implementation of the policy and the plan; (3) be advised by a committee
    composed of states and other nonfederal parties; and (4) seek advice and
    active participation in implementing the policy and plan from other federal
    agencies. However, according to NAPA, if the council cannot ensure effective
    implementation of the policy and plan within 3 years, "it would be
    advantageous to find ways to make the Council a more unified operation."

    Little Progress Made In Implementing a Sound Performance Accountability
    Framework to Spend Funds Appropriated to Reduce Hazardous Fuels Effectively

    A sound framework to ensure that funds appropriated to reduce hazardous
    fuels are spent in an efficient, effective, and timely manner is needed.
    Such a framework is grounded in federal wildland fire management policies,
    the National Fire Plan, and Congressional direction.12 This framework
    includes, among other things, (1) consistent criteria to identify and
    prioritize wildland-urban interface communities within the vicinity of
    federal lands that are at high risk from severe wildland fires; (2) clearly
    defined and outcome-oriented goals and objectives, as well as quantifiable
    long-term and annual performance measures, to assess progress in reducing
    the risks of severe wildland fires in wildland-urban interface areas as well
    as in other areas; (3) a comprehensive long-term strategy that incorporates
    the criteria, goals, objectives, and measures; and (4) yearly performance
    plans and reports.

    However, just as leadership for reducing hazardous fuels is fragmented among
    Interior, the Forest Service, and the states, so too is implementation of a
    performance accountability framework. As a result, (1) high-risk communities
    have not been identified and prioritized, (2) multiple strategies have been
    developed with different goals and objectives, (3) quantifiable indicators
    of performance have not been developed to measure progress in reducing
    risks, and (4) annual plans and reports that have been developed do not
    describe what will be accomplished with the funds appropriated for hazardous
    fuels reduction. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if the $796
    million appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction in fiscal years 2001 and
    2002 is targeted to the communities and other areas at highest risk of
    severe wildland fires.

    A Sound Performance The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy provides the
    philosophical

    Accountability Framework and policy foundation for hazardous fuels reduction
    as well as for other federal interagency wildland fire management activities
    conducted under the National Fire Plan. In addition, the acts making
    appropriations to Interior and the Forest Service for fiscal years 2001 and
    2002 and their legislative histories provide clear direction to the five
    federal land

    12 See Western National Forests: Catastrophic Wildfires Threaten Resources
    and Communities (GAO/T-RCED-98-273, Sept. 28, 1998), Western National
    Forests: Nearby Communities Are Increasingly Threatened by Catastrophic
    Wildfires (GAO/T-RCED-99-79, Feb. 9, 1999), Western National Forests: A
    Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats
    (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr. 2, 1999), and Western National Forests: Status of
    Forest Service's Efforts to Reduce Catastrophic Wildfire Threats
    (GAO/T-RCED-99-241, June 29, 1999).

             Wildland Fire-Specific Policy and Congressional Direction

    management agencies concerning funding priorities related to reducing
    hazardous fuels. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the
    Results Act) provides a framework that can be used to implement the Federal
    Wildland Fire Management Policy, the National Fire Plan, and the
    Congressional direction.

    Severe wildland fires and the vegetation that fuels them do not recognize
    the administrative boundaries of the individual federal land management
    agencies or the boundaries between federal and nonfederal lands. To address
    this challenge, the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy calls for
    federal agencies to develop a uniform, national federal wildland fire
    management process to enhance efficient and effective management across
    administrative boundaries on a landscape scale.13

    Toward this end, the policy urges coordination, consistency, and agreement
    not only among the five federal land management agencies but also between
    these agencies and other federal agencies as well as state, tribal, and
    private stakeholders. It stresses the need for these parties to jointly (1)
    develop clearly defined fire management goals and objectives, (2) establish
    consistent criteria for evaluating ecosystem conditions in order to
    prioritize areas for treatment, (3) monitor results, and (4) conduct a fire
    research program to improve the understanding of fire behavior and its role
    in ecosystems.

    The acts making appropriations to Interior and the Forest Service for fiscal
    years 2001 and 2002 and their legislative histories complement the Federal
    Wildland Fire Management Policy. For example, the policy identifies the need
    for a consistent national process to assess wildland-urban interface
    hazards, risks, values, and losses in order to prescribe mitigation
    measures, including hazardous fuels reduction. The fiscal year 2001
    appropriations act required the Secretaries of the Interior and of
    Agriculture, after consultation with state and local firefighting agencies,
    to publish jointly in the Federal Register a list of all wildland-urban
    interface communities, as defined by the Secretaries, within the vicinity of
    federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire, as defined by the
    Secretaries. The list was to be published by December 10, 2000.

    13 A landscape is an area composed of interacting and interconnected
    patterns of habitats (ecosystems) that are repeated because of the geology,
    landform, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area. A
    landscape is composed of watersheds and smaller ecosystems. It is the
    building block of biotic provinces and regions.

    The Results Act Provides a Framework to Implement the Federal Wildland Fire
    Management Policy and Congressional Direction

    In addition, the conference committee report accompanying the fiscal year
    2001 appropriations act directed the Secretaries of the Interior and of
    Agriculture to "engage governors in a collaborative structure to
    cooperatively develop a coordinated National 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy
    with the states as full partners in the planning, decision making, and
    implementation of the [National Fire] plan." According to the report, "key
    decisions should be made at the local levels." Moreover, in an effort to
    ensure accountability for the appropriated funds, the report directed the
    Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture to develop an action plan and
    a companion financial plan to provide operational and financial details.

    The Results Act seeks to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and
    accountability of federal programs by establishing a system for agencies to
    set goals for their programs' performance and to measure results. In an
    October 1999 report, we set forth a framework for using the Act to improve
    performance accountability within the Forest Service.14 The same framework
    can be used to effectively implement the Federal Wildland Fire Management
    Policy, the National Fire Plan, and Congressional direction. Specifically,
    to improve their efforts, the five federal land management agencies would
    need to:

    * establish consistent criteria to identify and prioritize wildland-urban
    interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high
    risk from severe wildland fires.

    * develop clearly defined and outcome-oriented goals and objectives, as well
    as quantifiable long-term and annual performance measures, to assess
    progress in reducing the risks of severe wildland fires in wildland-urban
    interface areas as well as in other areas.

    * incorporate the criteria, goals, objectives, and measures into a
    comprehensive 10-year strategy.

    * use the strategy to develop yearly action plans and as a basis for
    reporting accomplishments in future fiscal years' budget requests.

    14  See    Forest   Service:  A  Framework  for   Improving  Accountability
    (GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2, Oct. 13, 1999).

    High-Risk Communities Have Not Been Identified and Prioritized

    The fiscal year 2001 appropriations act required the Secretaries of
    Agriculture and of the Interior to jointly publish in the Federal Register
    by January 2001 a list of all "urban-wildland interface communities," as
    defined by the Secretaries, "within the vicinity of federal lands that are
    at high risk from wildfire," as defined by the Secretaries. However, as a
    result of inconsistencies in the processes that Interior and the Forest
    Service used to identify and prioritize communities for funding, it is not
    known whether the communities being funded are the ones at highest risk of
    wildland fire.

    Interior and the Forest Service did not establish well-defined criteria to
    identify wildland-urban interface communities within the vicinity of federal
    lands that are at high risk from severe wildland fire. Instead, each state
    and tribe was allowed to use different data and criteria for identifying
    communities at risk. For example, California considered communities within
    1.5 miles of federal lands to be at high risk from wildland fire. Idaho, on
    the other hand, considered communities within 20 miles of federal lands to
    be at high risk. The individual state lists were then published in the
    Federal Register in January 2001.

    The January 2001 Federal Register notice provided the federal government's
    initial definition of wildland-urban interface communities. The notice
    defined wildland-urban interface community to mean those communities "where
    humans and their development meet or intermix with wildland fuel." The
    notice identified three types of wildland-urban interface communities: (1)
    "interface community," where structures directly abut wildland fuels; (2)
    "intermix community," where structures are scattered throughout a wildland
    area; and (3) "occluded community," where structures abut an island of
    wildland fuels such as a park.

    In addition, the January 2001 Federal Register notice provided preliminary
    criteria that were to be used by the Secretaries of the Interior and of
    Agriculture to rank and prioritize communities for treatment. These criteria
    included (1) three "risk factors" for evaluating the risk to wildland-urban
    interface communities (fire behavior potential; values at risk; and
    infrastructure) and (2) two or three "situations" that contribute to risk
    for each of the three factors. For example, the two situations for values at
    risk divided communities into those in an "urban interface setting" and
    those in an "intermix or occluded setting."

    However, rather than the Secretaries ranking and prioritizing communities
    for treatment, they deferred this responsibility to the states in February
    2001 guidance. The definition of wildland-urban interface communities as

    well as the risk factors and situations in the January 2001 Federal Register
    notice were very general and were subject to broad interpretation by the
    states. Moreover, the guidance (1) did not specifically identify federal
    lands that are at high risk from wildland fire and (2) did not define what
    is meant by "within the vicinity of" federal lands.

    Without knowing which federal lands are at high risk from wildland fire or
    what is meant by "within the vicinity of" federal lands and with the risk
    factors and situations subject to broad interpretation, each state used
    criteria that it believed to be appropriate for identifying communities at
    risk. For example, some states identified communities within the vicinity of
    (1) small units of federal land, such as lighthouses and cemeteries, which
    are not at high risk from wildland fire and (2) lands managed by federal
    agencies other than the five agencies receiving the funds to reduce
    hazardous fuels. In addition, two states-California and Idaho refused to
    rank their communities published in the January 2001 Federal Register notice
    on the basis of the definition of wildland-urban interface communities as
    well as the risk factors and situations in the notice.

    By May 2001, the states had identified over 22,000 communities that they
    believed to be at high risk from wildland fire. By August 2001, Interior and
    the Forest Service had reduced this number by about half by excluding
    communities that (1) are near lands managed by other federal agencies or (2)
    they believed are not within the vicinity of lands that they manage that are
    at high risk from wildland fire. In August 2001, Interior and the Forest
    Service published the remaining 11,376 communities in the Federal Register.
    Interior and the Forest Service then used different approaches to prioritize
    these communities for funding.

    To help prioritize the 11,376 communities for funding, Interior assigned
    numeric values to each of the "situations" in the January 2001 Federal
    Register notice. However, this approach, coupled with the refusal of
    California and Idaho to rank their communities published in the January 2001
    Federal Register notice-resulted in over half of the "highest-risk"
    communities (278 of 545) being in three southeastern states-Georgia, North
    Carolina, and Tennessee-that are not prone to severe wildland fires. (See
    figures 3 and 4.)

    Figure 3: Location of Major Wildland Fires During the 2000 Wildland Fire
    Season

    Note: Occurrences in Alaska and Hawaii are not included. Source: Adapted by
    GAO from U.S. Department of the Interior data.

    Figure 4: Number of  Communities by State Identified by Interior as Being at
    Highest Risk from Wildland Fire

    Source: Adapted by GAO from U.S. Department of the Interior data.

    Interior next convened state teams consisting of state, state forestry,
    and/or local officials to select projects on federal lands within the
    wildland-urban interface that are either near the 545 communities or near
    other communities that the states proposed, including communities in Idaho
    and California. The state-by-state lists were then forwarded to Interior's
    headquarters for approval. According to Interior, for fiscal year 2002, it
    is funding projects near these communities. Thus, the projects being funded
    by Interior are not based on a consistent national prioritization of
    communities at high risk from wildfire.

    The Forest Service, on the other hand, left the prioritization of
    communities and projects primarily to the discretion of its field unit
    managers. The agency's headquarters did, however, instruct its field unit
    managers to use the August 2001 list of 11,376 communities as guidance in
    identifying projects for funding. The lists developed by the field unit
    managers were then forwarded to the Forest Service's headquarters for
    approval. Thus, the projects being funded by the Forest Service are also not
    based on a consistent national prioritization of communities at high risk
    from wildfire.

    Multiple Strategies For Reducing Hazardous Fuels Have Been Developed With
    Different Goals and Objectives

    The conference committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations act directed the Secretaries of the Interior and of
    Agriculture to "engage governors in a collaborative structure to
    cooperatively develop a coordinated National 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy
    with the states as full partners in the planning, decision making, and
    implementation of the plan." However, rather than one comprehensive
    strategy, Interior, the Forest Service, and the states have developed
    multiple strategies with different goals and objectives.

    For example, in August 2001, the Secretaries of the Interior and of
    Agriculture endorsed a 10-year strategy for reducing wildland fire risks to
    communities and the environment.15 The strategy included four goals, one of
    which is to reduce hazardous fuels. Moreover, during fiscal year 2001, three
    of the five federal land management agencies-the National Park Service, the
    Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs-developed
    agency-specific implementation strategies.

    15 A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities
    and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, (Aug. 2001).

    In September 2001, Interior and Forest Service officials informed the
    Congress that they were working together to develop a cohesive strategy to
    reduce hazardous fuels. According to these officials, the cohesive strategy
    will combine a long-term strategy finalized by the Forest Service in October
    200016 and a draft strategy developed by Interior in June 2001.17 Like the
    10-year strategy, the cohesive strategy being developed by Interior and the
    Forest Service is intended to provide a framework for reducing the risk and
    consequences of unwanted wildland fire. It is also intended to provide
    direction to, and coordinate the activities of, the five federal land
    management agencies.

    However, Interior and the Forest Service are developing their cohesive
    strategy to reduce hazardous fuels independent of, and apart from, the
    10-year strategy prepared pursuant to the conference committee report.
    Moreover, the agency-specific implementation strategies developed by the
    National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs are not linked to each other or to the 10-year strategy, the
    cohesive strategy being developed, or the Forest Service's final and
    Interior's draft long-term strategies to reduce hazardous fuels. In
    addition, the 10-year strategy has different goals and objectives than the
    Forest Service's final and Interior's draft long-term strategies on which
    the cohesive strategy is based. For instance, two priorities under the
    long-term strategies of both the Forest Service and Interior-conserving
    accessible municipal watersheds and protecting threatened and endangered
    species-do not appear as priorities under the 10-year strategy.

    According to Interior and Forest Service headquarters officials, they have
    developed, or are developing, numerous strategies that are not linked and
    that have different goals and objectives primarily because they have planned
    and managed their lands on an agency-by-agency basis for decades. Moreover,
    they observed that since Interior, the Forest Service, and the states have
    not been able to agree on one strategy or on similar goals and objectives,
    they have gone their separate ways. However, according to Interior and
    Forest Service headquarters officials, they will

    16 Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A
    Cohesive Strategy, The Forest Service Management Response to the General
    Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65 (Oct 13, 2000).

    17 Integrating Fire and Natural Resource Management - A Cohesive Strategy
    For Protecting People by Restoring Land Health, The Department of the
    Interior (June 2001).

    continue to  work with  the states in  an effort to  reach agreement  on one
    strategy and on similar goals and objectives.

    Clearly Defined, Outcome-Oriented Objectives and Quantifiable Performance
    Indicators Have Not Been Developed to Measure Progress in Reducing Risks

    To assess progress in reducing the risks of severe wildland fires in
    wildland-urban interface areas as well as in other areas requires clearly
    defined and outcome-oriented goals and objectives as well as quantifiable
    long-term and annual performance measures. However, none of the strategies
    developed to date contain clearly defined, outcome-oriented objectives or
    quantifiable performance indicators.

    For example, although one of the four broad goals under the 10-year strategy
    is to "reduce hazardous fuels," the strategy lacks clearly defined,
    outcome-oriented objectives between this broad goal and long-term and the
    annual performance measures intended to gauge the agencies' progress in
    achieving the goal. For instance, one objective of the strategy is to
    "reduce the total number of acres at risk to severe wildland fire." However,
    this objective does not distinguish between those landscapes where science
    indicates that frequent fire use to predominate and now does not and those
    landscapes that normally burn less frequently and where efforts to reduce
    fire intensity would disrupt and damage forest health.

    Another objective of the 10-year strategy is to "ensure communities most at
    risk in the wildland-urban interface receive priority for hazardous fuels
    treatment." However, the strategy does not include any clearly defined,
    outcome-oriented objectives that can be used to assess the agencies'
    progress in achieving this goal.

    In addition, the strategies developed by the Forest Service, Interior, the
    National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs do not contain consistent national performance measures and
    reporting procedures. For instance, the Forest Service proposes to measure
    and report on (1) the percent of wildland-urban interface areas with
    completed fuels treatments and (2) the percent of all acres with fuel levels
    meeting "condition class 1;" that is, where human activities have not
    significantly altered historical fire regimes or where management activities
    have successfully maintained or restored ecological integrity.18 Conversely

    18  Managing  the  Impacts on  Communities and  the Environment  Performance
    Accountability, Forest Service (May 2001).

    Interior plans to use only the number of acres treated to measure and report
    to the Congress its progress in reducing hazardous fuels. However, Interior
    cannot identify how many of these acres are within areas at high risk from
    wildland fire.

    The 10-year strategy developed by the Western Governors' Association in
    collaboration with the Departments of the Interior and of Agriculture
    recognizes the need to develop consistent national performance measures and
    reporting procedures to aid in monitoring results. The strategy proposes to
    include these measures and reporting procedures in a detailed implementation
    plan to be developed by May 1, 2002. In the interim, Interior and the Forest
    Service have initiated a study to develop "consistent performance measures
    that capture the intent and new strategic direction of the National Fire
    Plan and the policies, guidelines and actions of the 2001 Federal Wildland
    Fire Management Policy." However, as of December 2001, the agencies had not
    established a clear sequence or schedule to deliver the performance measures
    and this effort had not been integrated with the effort by the Western
    Governors' Association to develop a 10-year strategy. Thus, at a minimum,
    funds appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction for fiscal years 2001 and
    2002 have been, or will be, allocated to the five agencies' field units and
    the President's budget for fiscal year 2003 will be submitted to the
    Congress before clearly defined, outcome-oriented objectives and
    quantifiable performance indicators are developed.

    Action and Financial Plans Will Describe How Federal Funds Will Be Spent,
    Not What Will Be Accomplished With the Money

    In an effort to ensure accountability for the appropriated funds, the
    conference committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2001 appropriations
    act directed the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture to (1)
    develop an action plan and a companion financial plan to provide operational
    and financial details and (2) report on accomplishments in future fiscal
    years' budget requests. However, rather than developing one action plan and
    one financial plan, in January 2001, the Secretaries of the Interior and of
    Agriculture signed similar, but separate action plans and financial plans
    for their respective departments.

    Moreover, while Interior's and the Forest Service's action and financial
    plans describe the work they plan to accomplish and how they plan to
    allocate and spend the funds, they do not describe how the work and the
    expenditure of funds will reduce the risk of severe wildland fires to
    communities or to other areas at risk on either a local or national basis.
    For example, both the Forest Service's and Interior's plans consist largely
    of lists of projects, including their location, cost, and acreage. They do
    not, however, describe how the projects will reduce the risk of severe
    wildland

    fires to communities, watersheds, ecosystems, or species on either a local
    or national basis. As a result, while the five federal land management
    agencies will be able to provide the Congress with assurance that they spent
    the funds appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction for fiscal years 2001
    and 2002, they will not be able to report to the Congress on what they
    accomplished with the money.

    According to Interior and Forest Service headquarters officials, they have
    developed separate action plans and financial plans because they have
    planned and managed their lands on an agency-by-agency basis for decades.
    Moreover, they observed that, since Interior and the Forest Service prepare
    separate budget requests and the Congress provides separate appropriations
    each fiscal year, it seemed reasonable to develop separate action plans and
    financial plans. Future fiscal years' action plans and financial plans
    should better describe how their work and their expenditure of funds would
    reduce the risk of severe wildland fires to communities or to other areas at
    risk, according to the Interior and Forest Service officials.

    Data Are Not Available to Make Informed Decisions and to Measure Progress

    Making informed decisions and measuring the agencies' progress in reducing
    hazardous fuels require accurate, complete, and comparable data. The
    infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars of new money for hazardous fuels
    reduction activities for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and the expectation of
    sustained similar funding for these activities in future fiscal years
    accentuate this need. Despite ongoing research efforts to study the
    effectiveness of fuels treatments, however, the five federal land management
    agencies have not initiated the research needed to better identify and
    prioritize wildland-urban interface communities within the vicinity of
    federal lands that are at high risk from wildland fire. Moreover, although
    directed to do so in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations act, the agencies
    are not collecting the data required to determine the effectiveness of
    changes in the project-planning process. They are also not collecting the
    data needed to measure the effectiveness of efforts to dispose of the large
    amount of brush, small trees, and other vegetation that must be removed to
    reduce the risk of severe wildland fire.

    Data Are Not Available to Through the National Fire Plan, 24 research
    projects in support of Better Prioritize hazardous fuels reduction were
    funded at a total cost of about $10.2 Communities and Projects million in
    fiscal year 2001. These projects continue to be funded in fiscal

    year 2002. The intent of the projects is to study and collect data on,
    amongfor Funding other things, optimizing fuel reduction, wildfire risk,
    impacts of fuels

    reduction on fire behavior, and effects of fuel reduction on resources such
    as water, soil, and species.

    Although available data can help focus attention on areas at high risk from
    severe wildland fire, they are currently not adequate for prioritizing
    communities and projects for funding, according to many Interior and Forest
    Service officials to whom we spoke. According to these officials, the
    agencies need better data on (1) hazard (an area's accumulation of hazardous
    fuel and its combustibility); (2) risk (the probability of ignition); and
    (3) value (physical, social, and economic costs of potential damage).
    Although limited research efforts are underway to study these issues,
    neither Interior nor the Forest Service has funded a research program to
    gather these data on a systematic and comprehensive basis.

    For instance, the Forest Service proposed a project--referred to as
    LANDFIRE-that within 12 to 18 months could have provided better data on the
    current condition of the lands and communities at risk in the interior
    western United States. Within 4 years, LANDFIRE also could have provided
    these and other data nationwide. However, the project, which was estimated
    to cost at least $45 million, has not been funded. As a result, much of the
    data needed to prioritize communities and projects for funding might never
    be available.

    Data Are Not Available to Determine if Changes Are Needed to Expedite the
    Project-Planning Process

    Before the five federal land management agencies can implement a hazardous
    fuels reduction project, they must ensure that the project complies with the
    requirements of numerous environmental statutes addressing individual
    resources, such as endangered and threatened species, clean water, and clean
    air. They must also ensure that the project complies with the requirements
    of various planning laws, whose purpose is to ensure that important effects
    on the environment are not overlooked or understated. Securing this
    assurance and completing the required environmental analyses can take a year
    or more. The fiscal year 2001 appropriations act directed the Secretaries of
    the Interior, of Agriculture, and of Commerce as well as the Chairman of the
    Council on Environmental Quality to evaluate the need for revised or
    expedited environmental compliance procedures for hazardous fuels reduction
    projects occurring within the vicinity of wildland-urban interface
    communities in fiscal year 2001.

    To respond to Congressional directive, the Secretaries of the Interior and
    of Agriculture identified a number of efforts that they were taking to
    reduce the time and improve the efficiency of environmental compliance.
    Specifically, they cited efforts to (1) assign experienced and trained

    personnel to conduct the analyses, (2) provide consistent direction, (3)
    develop swift dispute resolution procedures, and (4) share information.
    During the course of our review, agency officials also reported that (1)
    some field units were sharing experienced and trained personnel, (2) both
    departments contributed funding to hire additional biologists for
    determining compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and (3) the Forest
    Service's Region 3 had streamlined consultation with the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service on 283 wildland-urban interface projects involving
    approximately 1.9 million acres. Also, the Forest Service reported that it
    increased training and coaching as a means of sharing best practices and
    lessons learned among its field units. While these efforts are clearly a
    step in the right direction, neither Interior nor the Forest Service is
    gathering and analyzing the data necessary to show the extent to which they
    are reducing the time and improving the efficiency of environmental
    compliance.

    Data Are Not Available to Measure the Effectiveness of Efforts to Dispose of
    the Large Amounts of Material that Must Be Removed

    An aggressive, 10-year effort to reduce hazardous fuels on federal lands
    will require the five federal land management agencies to dispose of large
    amounts of brush, small trees, and other vegetation that must be
    mechanically removed before fire can be safely reintroduced. To this end,
    the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service have prepared a
    preliminary estimate of the amount of biomass that could be utilized through
    hazardous fuels treatments, and the Forest Service together with the
    Department of Energy have studied the economics of biomass utilization.
    Various efforts are underway to identify viable disposal options, including
    some that could generate revenue to partially offset the costs of reducing
    hazardous fuels.

    For instance, the Forest Service is studying the application of
    small-diameter trees for wood composites and other wood products, the
    production of ethanol and electricity from the material, and the use of
    biomass to produce heat and hot water for office buildings and apartment
    buildings. The Bureau of Land Management is selling wood from mechanical
    thinning for personal use, such as home heating, in northern New Mexico.

    The successes encountered to date in biomass utilization, however, have been
    localized. For example, while BLM has been successful in disposing of
    biomass through the sale of firewood in New Mexico, the Forest Service has
    been largely unsuccessful with similar efforts in the Front Range west of
    Denver due largely to differences in lifestyles and burning restrictions.
    Similar to their efforts to reduce the time and improve the efficiency of
    environmental compliance, neither Interior nor the Forest Service has
    gathered and analyzed the data necessary to show on a national scale (1)

    Conclusions

    the extent to which these efforts are accomplishing their goal of disposing
    of large amounts of material, (2) how these efforts might be increased, or
    (3) what would be required to do so.

    Without clearly defined and effective leadership, the five federal land
    management agencies have made little progress in implementing a sound
    performance accountability framework. Without a sound performance
    accountability framework, it is not possible to determine if the hundreds of
    millions of dollars being appropriated each fiscal year for hazardous fuels
    reduction are being targeted to the communities and other areas at highest
    risk of severe wildland fires. By not targeting these communities and areas,
    the risks to human lives and development as well as to municipal watersheds
    and individual resources-such as threatened and endangered species, clean
    water, and clean air-are increased.

    Over a year after the Congress substantially increased funds to reduce
    hazardous fuels, the federal effort still lacks clearly defined and
    effective leadership. Rather than a single focal point, authority and
    responsibility remain fragmented among Interior, the Forest Service, and the
    states. Therefore, we agree with NAPA that an interagency national council
    is needed to provide the strategic direction, leadership, coordination,
    conflict resolution, and oversight and evaluation necessary to ensure that
    funds appropriated to implement the hazardous fuels reduction, as well as
    other elements of the National Fire Plan, are spent in an efficient,
    effective, and timely manner. However, even though the September 2000
    National Fire Planprepared at the request of the President of the United
    States-directed them to establish a similar Cabinet-level coordinating team,
    the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture have not done so.

    Implementation of a sound performance accountability framework to spend
    funds appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels effectively as well as funds
    appropriated for other elements of the National Fire Plan is also fragmented
    among Interior, the Forest Service, and the states. As a result, it is not
    possible to determine if the $796 million appropriated for hazardous fuels
    reduction in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 is targeted to the communities and
    other areas at highest risk of severe wildland fires. Our findings indicate
    that there is a need for the agencies' current fragmented performance
    accountability framework to be consolidated.

    Finally, the infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars of new money for
    hazardous fuels reduction activities for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and the
    expectation of sustained similar funding for these activities in future
    fiscal

    Matters for Congressional Consideration

    Recommendation for Executive Action

    years accentuate the need for accurate, complete, and comparable data on
    which to make informed decisions and measure the agencies' progress in
    reducing hazardous fuels. However, the five federal land management agencies
    have not initiated the research needed to better identify and prioritize
    wildland-urban interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands
    that are at high risk from wildland fire. Moreover, the agencies are not
    collecting the data required to determine if changes are needed to expedite
    the project-planning process. They are also not collecting the data needed
    to measure the effectiveness of efforts to dispose of the large amount of
    brush, small trees, and other vegetation that must be removed to reduce the
    risk of severe wildland fire.

    To provide the clearly defined and effective leadership required to ensure
    that funds appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels as well as to implement
    other key elements of the National Fire Plan, such as fire suppression, are
    spent in an efficient, effective, and timely manner, we believe that the
    Congress should consider directing the Secretaries of the Interior and of
    Agriculture to establish the interagency national council recommended by
    National Academy of Public Administration.

    Moreover, to better ensure that funds appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels
    as well as funds appropriated for other elements of the National Fire Plan
    are spent effectively, we believe that the Congress should consider
    directing the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture to consolidate
    under the council the current fragmented implementation of a sound
    performance accountability framework. Such a framework should include, among
    other things, (1) consistent criteria to identify and prioritize
    wildland-urban interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands
    that are at high risk from severe wildland fires; (2) clearly defined and
    outcome-oriented goals and objectives, as well as quantifiable long-term and
    annual performance measures, to assess progress in reducing the risks of
    severe wildland fires in wildland-urban interface areas as well as in other
    areas; (3) a comprehensive long-term strategy that incorporates the
    criteria, goals, objectives, and measures; and (4) yearly performance plans
    and reports.

    To make more informed decisions about, and to better measure progress in,
    reducing hazardous fuels, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior
    and of Agriculture jointly direct the heads of the National Park Service,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, and the Forest Service to collect the accurate,

    Agency Comments
    and Our Evaluation

    complete, and comparable data needed to (1) better identify and prioritize
    wildland-urban interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands
    that are at high risk from wildland fire, (2) determine if changes are
    needed to expedite the project-planning process, and (3) measure the
    effectiveness of efforts to dispose of the large amount of brush, small
    trees, and other vegetation that must be removed to reduce the risk of
    severe wildland fire.

    We provided a draft of this report to the departments of Agriculture and the
    Interior for review and comment. The departments provided a consolidated
    response to our report. They generally agreed with our recommendations.
    However, the departments expressed concerns that we had not given them
    enough credit for several actions taken or underway related to (1) enhancing
    interagency leadership; (2) establishing a framework to ensure that funds
    appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels are spent in an efficient, effective,
    and timely manner; and (3) undertaking adequate research and data collection
    efforts.

    First, with respect to enhancing interagency leadership, the departments
    felt that we should consider the efforts of its officials to work together
    and what has been accomplished in the short period of time since adoption of
    the National Fire Plan. For example, they noted a close working relationship
    between the National Fire Plan Coordinators and cited various efforts to
    collaborate among the federal agencies. During the course of our review we
    noted this close working relationship and efforts to collaborate. However,
    our report notes that the federal government's efforts to reduce hazardous
    fuels lack clearly defined and effective leadership because this leadership
    is fragmented among the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, the
    Department of the Interior, and the states. Thus, our discussions in the
    report pertain to the leadership structure for fuels reduction efforts, not
    to the relationships or efforts at collaboration among individual agency
    officials. More than these relationships and collaboration are necessary to
    develop and implement a framework to effectively spend funds appropriated to
    reduce hazardous fuels. Our work over the years has shown that the effective
    coordination and implementation of interagency programs requires effective
    leadership from a single focal point empowered with the authority and
    responsibility for interagency actions. For example, we have observed that
    the federal government's efforts to combat terrorism have suffered because
    there is no single leader in charge of the many functions conducted by
    different federal departments and agencies. We continue to believe that a
    single focal point is crucial to resolve discrepancies and to finalize
    decisions on

    fuel reduction issues for which stakeholders may have differing viewpoints
    and that the Congress should consider establishing the interagency national
    council recommended by the National Academy of Public Administration.

    Second, with regard to establishing a framework to ensure funds appropriated
    to reduce hazardous fuels are spent in an efficient, effective, and timely
    manner, the departments state that all agencies have such frameworks and
    they are making efforts to improve them, sometimes on a joint basis. For
    example, they note that they plan to incorporate wildland fire performance
    measures in the implementation plan for the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy.
    However, on the basis of our review of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy we
    believe it contains a series of actions that are largely unclear, not
    specific, and output-oriented rather than results-oriented and the actions
    contained in the strategy appear difficult to measure, thus making it
    difficult for the agencies and states to develop corresponding performance
    indicators. Moreover, our report notes that performance measures are only
    one part of the needed framework. The framework that we refer to in our
    report includes several components that are contemplated by the National
    Wildland Fire Management Policy, the National Fire Plan, the Government
    Performance and Results Act, and the fiscal year 2001 appropriations act for
    the Department of the Interior. These components are: (1) consistent
    criteria to identify and prioritize wildland-urban interface communities
    within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from severe
    wildland fire; (2) clearly defined and outcome-oriented goals and
    objectives; (3) quantifiable and long-term performance measures to assess
    progress in meeting these strategic objectives; (4) a comprehensive
    long-term strategy that incorporates the criteria, goals, objectives, and
    performance measures; and (5) yearly performance plans and measures.
    Additionally, the agencies need to use the same such framework, not
    separately defined ones. Because the Forest Service and the Department of
    the Interior have not collectively and adequately developed these
    components, they have not developed the framework to ensure that funds
    appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels are spent in an efficient, effective,
    and timely manner. Moreover, the agencies' current efforts at developing
    such a framework are divided into two separate strategic documents-the
    10-Year Comprehensive Strategy developed with the states and a second,
    interagency cohesive strategy currently being drafted. During our review,
    officials from both departments told us that they were unclear as to which
    strategy will be controlling.

    Finally, the departments noted that some research has been initiated and
    some data collection is underway. They mentioned several specific

    research and data collection efforts that they felt we should have

    mentioned, and we have now included several. For example, we have

    revised our report to include research and data collection efforts on

    environmental compliance, biomass utilization, and fuels reduction

    effectiveness. However, our discussion in the report centers on the fact

    that the Forest Service and Interior are collecting data that, for the most

    part, are not national in scope. For example, the Forest Service and

    Interior have been reluctant to collect the necessary data to better

    prioritize communities and projects nationwide for hazardous fuels

    treatment. On the basis of our review, LANDFIRE is the only proposed

    research project so far that appears capable of producing consistent

    national inventory data for improving the prioritization of fuel projects
    and

    communities. We first learned of the LANDFIRE project in 1998 during

    our initial work on catastrophic wildfires in western national forests.19 At

    that time, the Forest Service was testing a prototype to determine the

    feasibility of LANDFIRE. During this review, which is about 3 years after

    our initial review in 1998, the Forest Service showed us this same

    prototype. Also, during our current review, we observed that the

    enthusiasm for moving forward with LANDFIRE waned due to disputes

    over content and funding considerations. As a result, we believe

    LANDFIRE or some similar project for producing consistent national

    inventory data for improving the prioritization of fuels projects and

    communities is no closer to being funded today than it was in 1998. Thus,

    agency promises with regard to research and data collection efforts--as

    with enhancing interagency leadership and ensuring funds are spent in an

    efficient, effective, and timely manner--are not new. The departments

    have been pledging to jointly undertake improvements in all of these areas

    since at least the adoption of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management

    Policy.

    Where appropriate, we have included additional references to the activities
    mentioned in the department's comments. The departments' comments appear in
    appendix I.

    In reviewing the efforts of the Forest Service and the Department of the
    Interior to reduce hazardous fuels, we considered available literature,
    reviewed pertinent legislation and policies, examined agency documents

    Scope and

                                     Methodology

    19  Western  National  Forests: A  Cohesive  Strategy is  Needed to  Address
    Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr. 2, 1999).

    and budget data, conducted interviews, and visited agency field units.
    Specifically, we reviewed prior GAO reports, the report by the National
    Academy of Public Administration, reports by conservation groups and trade
    organizations, the agencies' cohesive strategies for fuels reduction, the
    10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, and other agency documentation. We also
    analyzed requirements germane to hazardous fuels in the Government
    Performance and Results Act, the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management
    Policy, and the acts making appropriations to the Department of the Interior
    and the Forest Service for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. We interviewed Forest
    Service, Department of Interior, and state officials on efforts to reduce
    hazardous fuels, issues that transcend the administrative boundaries of the
    lands they manage, their organizational structures, efforts to prioritize
    communities and projects for treatment, research activities, information
    systems, environmental compliance, and disposal of biomass. In addition, we
    toured federal lands that agency personnel treated for hazardous fuels in
    Colorado, New Mexico, and California

    We conducted our work from November 2000 through December 2001 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards. For a more detailed
    discussion of our scope and methodology, see appendix II.

    We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Public
    Lands and Forests, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; the
    Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Resources; the Ranking Minority
    Member, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, House Committee on
    Resources; the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations; the Ranking Minority Member,
    Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry,
    House Committee on Agriculture; and interested congressional committees. We
    are also sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Interior
    and of Agriculture; the Chief, Forest Service; the Director, Bureau of Land
    Management; and the Director, National Park Service. The report is also
    available on GAO's home page at http://www.gao.gov.

    If you have any questions about this report, please call Chester F. Janik or
    me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in Appendix

    III.

    Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    List of Requesters

    The Honorable Larry Craig
    Ranking Minority Member
    Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    United States Senate

    The Honorable James Hansen
    Chairman, Committee on Resources
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Scott McInnis
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
    Committee on Resources
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Joe Skeen
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
    Committee on Appropriations
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Bob Goodlatte
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Department Operations,
    Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry
    Committee on Agriculture
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Mark Udall
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Don Young
    House of Representatives

                      Page 32 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

                      Page 33 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

                      Page 34 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

                      Page 35 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

                      Page 36 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

                      Page 37 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    In this report we discuss (1) the need for clearly defined and effective
    leadership to reduce the buildup of hazardous vegetation that fuels severe
    wildland fires, (2) the progress that the five federal land management
    agencies have made in implementing a sound framework to spend effectively
    the funds appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction, and (3) the
    availability of data on which to make informed decisions and to measure
    progress.

    To identify the need for clearly defined and effective leadership, we
    reviewed prior GAO and other reports and studies addressing issues that
    transcend the administrative boundaries of the individual federal agencies
    and/or the boundaries between federal and nonfederal lands. We then
    identified efforts to date by Interior, Agriculture, and the states to
    establish such an entity that could address interagency issues.

    To identify the progress that the five federal land management agencies have
    made in implementing a sound framework to spend effectively the funds
    appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction, we reviewed the requirements of
    the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act) and an
    October 1999 GAO report that portrayed the process of implementing the Act
    within the Forest Service as a number of interrelated steps.1 As noted in
    the report, a discussion of what the agency has done to implement each step
    provides a benchmark for measuring its future progress. We also reviewed the
    1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy,2 updated in 2001,3 which
    provides the philosophical and policy foundation for hazardous fuels
    reduction as well as for other federal interagency wildland fire management
    activities conducted under the National Fire Plan. In addition, we reviewed
    the acts making appropriations to Interior and the Forest Service for fiscal
    years 2001 and 2002 as well as their legislative histories. We then reviewed
    the 10-year strategy for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the
    environment, signed by the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture in
    August 2001.4 We also reviewed

    1 See Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability
    (GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2, Oct. 13, 1999).

    2 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review, Report to the
    Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture by an Interagency Federal
    Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group (Dec. 18, 1995).

    3 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy,
    Report to the Secretaries of the Interior, of Agriculture, of Energy, of
    Defense, and of Commerce; the Administrator, Environmental Protection
    Agency; and the Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, by an
    Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group (Jan. 2001).

    4 A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities
    and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, (Aug. 2001).

    Page 38 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    the long-term strategy to reduce hazardous fuels finalized by the Forest
    Service in October 20005 and a similar draft strategy developed by Interior
    in June 2001.6 In addition, we reviewed the agency-specific implementation
    strategies developed during fiscal year 2001 by the National Park Service,
    the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We also
    reviewed the February 2001 guidance issued by Interior and the Forest
    Service to the states that defined wildland-urban interface, identified
    three criteria for evaluating the risk to wildland-urban interface
    communities, and fire behavior potential that provided some general
    information on identifying fire risk. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed
    the various lists of communities that Interior and the Forest Service
    believed are at high risk from severe wildland fire. We also reviewed the
    action plans and financial plans signed by the Secretaries of the Interior
    and of Agriculture in January 2001. These plans were intended to provide the
    operational and financial details necessary to ensure accountability for
    appropriated funds.

    To identify the availability of data on which to make informed decisions and
    to measure progress, we reviewed reports and studies on, and interviewed
    Interior and Forest Service officials about, data available and needed to
    address challenges that could significantly affect their ability to spend
    funds appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels in and efficient, effective,
    and timely manner.

    During the course of our review, we interviewed and gathered documentation
    from Interior and Forest Service officials in their Washington, D.C.
    headquarters as well as in various field units. These field units included
    the Forest Service's regional offices in Denver, Colorado (Region 2);
    Albuquerque, New Mexico (Region 3); and Vallejo, California (Region 5) as
    well as the Arapaho-Roosevelt and Pike-San Isabel National Forests in
    Colorado, the El Dorado National Forest in California, and the Santa Fe
    National Forest in New Mexico. We also visited the Bureau of Land
    Management's state offices in Colorado and Idaho and field offices in
    Colorado and New Mexico; the regional offices of the National Park Service
    and the Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver, Colorado; and Yosemite National
    Park in California. In addition, we interviewed and gathered documentation
    from the State Foresters of California, Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico as
    well as from representatives of the Western Governor's Association, the
    Society of American Foresters, the National Interagency Fire Center, the
    Wilderness Society, and the Pinchot Institute. We also reviewed

    5 Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A
    Cohesive Strategy, The Forest Service Management Response to the General
    Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65 (Oct 13, 2000).

    6 Integrating Fire and Natural Resource Management - A Cohesive Strategy For
    Protecting People by Restoring Land Health, The Department of the Interior
    (June 2001).

    Page 39 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

    Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    reports by the Congressional Research Service, the National Fire Protection
    Association, the Forest Trust, the Southwest Forest Alliance, the Defenders
    of Wildlife, and the Taxpayers for Common Sense. In addition, we attended
    conferences on wildland fire and hazardous fuels reduction in Boise, Idaho
    and Conifer, Colorado. Finally, we briefed and were briefed by the panel
    within the National Academy of Public Administration that prepared the
    October 2001 draft report on implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire
    Management Policy and the National Fire Plan.

    Page 40 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

    Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contacts Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841 Chester F. Janik (202) 512-6508

    Acknowledgments  In  addition to  those named  above, Ronald  Belak; Charles
    Cotton, Alan Dominicci;  Richard Johnson; James Jones, Jr.; Chester Joy; and
    Maria Vargas made key contributions to this report.

    (360127) Page 41 GAO-02-259 Severe Wildland Fires

    GAO's Mission

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The General Accounting 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.

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents 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 daily e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO
    Reports 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. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, D.C. 20013

    To order by phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    Visit GAO's Document GAO Building

    Distribution  Center  Room 1100,  700 4th  Street, NW  (corner of 4th  and G
    Streets, NW) Washington, D.C. 20013

    Contact:

    To Report Fraud,

    Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,Waste, and Abuse in E-mail:
    fraudnet@gao.gov, or Federal Programs 1-(800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
    (automated answering system).

    Jeff   Nelligan,  Managing   Director,   NelliganJ@gao.gov   (202)  512-4800

    Public Affairs U.S.  General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***