This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-259 
entitled 'Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed 
to Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources' which was released on 
January 31, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the 
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact 
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. 
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility 
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States 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: 

Appendix I: Comments From the Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture: 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

Figures: 

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

Figure 2: Proposed National Wildland Fire Policy Implementation 
Council: 

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

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

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 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, 
[Footnote 2] updated in 2001,[Footnote 3] 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. 

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. 
[Footnote 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) 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. 

Results In Brief: 

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,[Footnote 5] the National Academy of Public Administration 
[Footnote 6] 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 (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 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. 

Background: 

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.”
[Footnote 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.”[Footnote 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 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 

Agency: Forest Service; 
FY 1998 Actual: $50.0 million; 
FY 1999 Actual: $67.0 million; 
FY 2000 Actual: $70.0 million; 
FY 2001 Actual: $205.6 million; 
FY 2002 Estimated: $209.0 million. 

Agency: Bureau of Land Management; 
FY 1998 Actual: $6.7 million; 
FY 1999 Actual: $10.6 million; 
FY 2000 Actual: $12.3 million; 
FY 2001 Actual: $91.7 million; 
FY 2002 Estimated: $86.3 million. 

Agency: National Park Service; 
FY 1998 Actual: $7.0 million; 
FY 1999 Actual: $9.8 million; 
FY 2000 Actual: $9.7 million; 
FY 2001 Actual: $36.1 million; 
FY 2002 Estimated: $34.6 million. 

Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; 
FY 1998 Actual: $4.1 million; 
FY 1999 Actual: $7.4 million; 
FY 2000 Actual: $7.1 million; 
FY 2001 Actual: $24.5 million; 
FY 2002 Estimated: $23.7 million. 

Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
FY 1998 Actual: $2.3 million; 
FY 1999 Actual: $6.3 million; 
FY 2000 Actual: $8.8 million; 
FY 2001 Actual: $43.1 million; 
FY 2002 Estimated: $41.5 million. 

Agency: Total; 
FY 1998 Actual: $70.1 million; 
FY 1999 Actual: $101.1 million; 
FY 2000 Actual: $107.9 million; 
FY 2001 Actual: $401.0 million; 
FY 2002 Estimated: $395.2 million. 

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

[End of table] 

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

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.[Footnote 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 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: National Fire Plan map] 

Top level: 
President and Congress. 

Second level, directed to President and Congress: 
National Fire Plan; 
* Input from Secretary of Interior; 
* Input from Secretary of Agriculture. 

Entities Under Secretary of Interior: 

* Wildland Fire Coordinator, U.S. Department of Interior: 
- Wildland Fire Steering Group (associated with National Fire Plan 
Coordinator); 
* Bureau of Indian Affairs Director; 
* Bureau of Indian Affairs Fire Programs; 
* Bureau of Land Management Director; 
* Bureau of Land Management Fire Programs; 
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director; 
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fire Programs; 
* National Park Service Director; 
* National Park Service Fire Programs; 
* Interior Department Regions and Field Units. 

Entities Under Secretary of Secretary of Agriculture: 
Chief, Forest Service; 
Overall Program Direction: Associate chief/Natural Resources and 
Deputy Chief/State and Private Forestry; 
National Fire Plan Coordinator: 
* Operations Assistant to the Coordinator: 
- Staff assistant; 
* Liaison and Planning Assistant to the Coordinator; 
- Community Assistance Designated Program Coordinator; 
- Firefighting Designated Program Coordinator; 
- Planning and Analysis Designated Program Coordinator; 
- Rehabilitation and Restoration Program Coordinator; 
- Business Operations and Office of Finance Designated Program 
Coordinator; 
- Fire Research Designated Program Coordinator; 
- Hazardous Fuel Reduction Designated Program Coordinator; 
* Fire Management Director; 
* State Liaison; 
* Legislative Liaison; 
* Regional Teams Designated Program Coordinator: 
- Geographic Area Coordinating Group; 
- Geographic Area Coordination Center. 

Interaction with all Program Coordinators: 
* National Wildfire Coordinating Group; 
* National Interagency Fire Center. 

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). 

[End of figure] 

In addition to the three coordination entities established within 
Interior or Agriculture, the Western Governors’ Association in 
September 2000 established a fourth coordination entity.[Footnote 10] 
This entity-—composed of stakeholders from all levels of government, 
tribal interests, conservation and commodity groups, and community-
based restoration groups—-has 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 environment[Footnote 11] 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.) 

Figure 2: Proposed National Wildland Fire Policy Implementation 
Council: 

[Refer to PDF for image: organizational chart] 

National Wildland Fire Policy Implementation Council: 
Heads of U.S. Department of Agriculture, FS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 
Park Service; Co-chairs: Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Interior: 
* Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior; 
* U.S. Department of Agriculture/FS: 
- Office of the National Fire Plan Coordinator; 
* U.S. Department of Interior: 
- Office of the Wildland Fire Coordinator; 
* Workgroups: formed from: 
- Office of the National Fire Plan Coordinator; 
Office of the Wildland Fire Coordinator; 

National Wildland Fire Policy Implementation Council:      
Liaison with other agencies; 
Advisory committees (for state, local, tribal and private sector 
input). 

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). 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 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 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. 

Wildland Fire-Specific Policy and 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.[Footnote 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. 

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 Provides a Framework to Implement the Federal Wildland 
Fire Management Policy and Congressional Direction: 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Note: Occurrences in Alaska and Hawaii are not included. 

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

[End of figure] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Arizona: 2; 
Colorado: 52; 
Delaware: 2; 
Florida: 15; 
Georgia: 86; 
Maine: 24; 
Maryland: 2; 
Massachusetts: 
Minnesota: 3; 
Mississippi: 4; 
Missouri: 1; 
Montana: 9; 
Nevada: 3; 
New Hampshire: 5; 
New Mexico: 3; 
New York: 1; 
North Carolina: 121; 
Oklahoma: 15; 
Oregon: 8; 
South Carolina: 7; 
South Dakota: 16; 
Tennessee: 71; 
Texas: 3; 
Utah: 38; 
Vermont: 2; 
Virginia: 16; 
Washington: 10; 
Wisconsin: 2; 
Wyoming: 19. 

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

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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 2000[Footnote 16] and a draft strategy 
developed by Interior in June 2001.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 18] 
Conversely 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 Better Prioritize Communities and Projects 
for Funding: 

Through the National Fire Plan, 24 research projects in support of 
hazardous fuels reduction were funded at a total cost of about $10.2 
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, among 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) 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. 

Conclusions: 

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 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. 

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 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. 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

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. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

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, 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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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.[Footnote 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. 

Scope and Methodology: 

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 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 [hyperlink, 
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. 

Signed by: 

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: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Comments From the Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture: 

The Department of Agriculture: 
The Department of the Interior
Washington: 

January 16, 2002: 

Barry T. Hill, Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
United States General Accounting Office: 
441 G. Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Director Hill: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft of GAO-02-259 
entitled, "Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed 
to Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources." 

In general, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture agree with 
the Recommendation for Executive Action that more can be done to 
collect accurate, complete, and comparable data for National Fire Plan 
activities. We also do not disagree with the Results In Brief -- that 
more can be done to enhance leadership, coordination, integration, 
research, data collection, and reporting on activities associated with 
the National Fire Plan. We believe, however, that much has been 
accomplished --both on-the-ground and organizationally -- in the 
relatively short time since the Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture received direction and additional funding for National 
Fire Plan activities. We are currently addressing many issues raised 
in the report and believe that the approaches that we are taking 
together will continue to have effective and positive results for 
communities and the resources. We would also note that many of the 
successes to date are built on newly strengthened intergovernmental, 
collaborative relationships with State and local governments and other 
partners on these tasks, including the Western Governors Association 
and our largest non-federal firefighting partner, the National 
Association of State Foresters. 

It is important to look at the result of the past fire season to put 
the issue of leadership and accountability in perspective. Results are 
important. This past fire season almost five million fewer acres were 
burned as compared to the acres burned in 2000. This occurred in a 
year when fuel load conditions on public lands continued to be severe 
and when several regions of the country experienced great drought. 
Because of the unpredictability of fire ignitions, we cannot claim 
full credit. But there is evidence that the additional funds and fuel 
treatments and coordination provided through the National Fire Plan 
made a difference in the suppression and containment of fires, 
including fires located in the wildland urban interface. 

In response to the first recommendation, the Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture agree in concept to the establishment of an 
interagency council. In July in testimony before the Subcommittee of 
Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, of the U.S. House of
Representatives, we stated that the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture had appointed their respective deputies to jointly lead 
the effort to integrate program activities between the two Departments 
and direct the National Fire Plan Coordinators to take action. Since 
that time, the two Departments have drafted a charter for an 
Interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Council led by the heads of the 
five land managing agencies. Many of the issues highlighted in this 
report are identical to the issues planned to be addressed by the 
Interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Council. We believe this approach 
will assure accountability at the agency-head level and assure 
positive results. 

We disagree with the assumption in the report, however, that no 
strong, interagency leadership currently exists to implement the 
activities associated with the National Fire Plan, including providing 
strategic direction, leadership, coordination, conflict resolution, 
and oversight and evaluation functions. Under the direction of the 
Deputy Secretary of the Interior and the Under Secretary of 
Agriculture, there is a close and effective working relationship 
between the two National Fire Plan Coordinators for both Departments. 
Also, all five agencies work together through various existing 
organizations, as well as the leadership command structure of each 
individual agency to provide strategic direction, leadership, 
coordination, conflict resolution, and oversight and evaluation 
functions. There is also a review underway in the Forest Service to 
improve the integration of National Fire Plan activities across the 
agency. 

The Conference Report for P.L. 106-291 directed the Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture to work closely with State and local 
communities to maximize benefits to the environment and to local 
communities; to seek the advice of the State Governors and local and 
tribal government representatives in setting priorities for fuels 
treatments, burned area rehabilitation, and public outreach and 
education. The Report also directed the Departments to work together 
to formulate complementary budget requests and to carry out the other 
tasks, including developing criteria for rehabilitation projects, 
developing a list of all communities within the vicinity of Federal 
lands at high risk from fire, and working collaboratively with the 
State Governors to develop a 10-year comprehensive strategy. 

We are continuing to work together to develop components of the 
implementation plan called for by the Comprehensive Strategy. In 
August 2001, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture and the 
Western Governors Association completed the 10-year comprehensive 
strategy and began work on an implementation plan that will be 
completed in May 2002. This includes common wildland fire management 
performance measures. In November, the Department of the Interior 
contracted with the Performance Institute to assist in the development 
of these measures through a series of internal agency and external 
public stakeholder meetings. These dialogue sessions, held in November 
and December, have included stakeholders who were involved in the 
development of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy as well as a host of 
other interested parties. The wildland fire performance measures, as 
well as the Cohesive Strategy, will be finalized in early fiscal year 
2002, and will be incorporated into the 10-Year Implementation Plan. 
All of these efforts are being done in collaboration with the Western 
Governors Association, National Association of State Foresters, 
National Association of Counties, Tribes and others. 

In terms of assuring a sound framework to ensure that funds 
appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels are spent in an efficient, 
effective, and timely manner, the Departments are well on their
way to improving coordination on all activities associated with the 
National Fire Plan. Here are a few examples of activities we have 
initiated or accomplished together since the Congress appropriated 
funds specifically for the National Fire Plan to the five firefighting 
agencies in 2001: 

* Conceptual planning for a new planning and budgeting process that 
crosses boundaries (Fire_MAP). 

* A new mapping project providing 30-meter resolution (medium scale) 
for assisting in regional priority setting and risk mapping. 

* Development of common performance measures that meet Government 
Performance and Results Act requirements and are outcome based. 
 
* Federal agency cohesive fuels strategy that establishes common fuel 
treatment priorities to ensure that funding for reducing fuels is 
distributed to high-risk areas. 

* Development of a joint data system, referred to as "data-mart" that 
is a real time information reporting system for all National Fire Plan 
accomplishments. 

* Development of an implementation plan for the 10-year comprehensive 
strategy in collaboration with the Western Governors' Association, 
National Association of State  Foresters, National Association of 
Counties, and other groups that addresses the  issues of working with 
local communities in the prioritization and support for locally-
developed hazardous fuels reduction projects. 

* New research projects that evaluate the effectiveness of an array of 
fuel treatments and allow for study of the impact of fuel treatments 
on wildland fire behavior. 

* Development of a consistent format and protocol for fire management 
planning across all landscapes. 

* Distribution by Interior agencies, under a new Interior rural fire 
assistance program, of $10 million for the first time to improve 
training, equipment purchase, and prevention/education to enhance 
safety and capabilities of rural fire departments. 

* New research projects that are refining the criteria and basis for 
treatments, increasing the science behind the work. 

* An interagency team is developing a program to supply and manage 
native plant materials for restoration and rehabilitation on Federal 
lands. 

* In 2001, we accomplished approximately 2.088 million acres of 
hazardous fuels treatment on Federal land. This is more acres than we 
have treated in recent years. 

* The Department of Interior, in response to recommendations made by 
the National Association of Public Administrators, recently decided to 
continue operation of the Office of Wildland Fire Coordination. This 
office, led by Tim Hartzell who has nearly 30 years of experience in 
public lands management, coordinates policy, mission and performance 
for Interior's four bureaus with fire responsibility. The Department 
has also increased the budget for this office by $600,000. Mr. 
Hartzell, on a daily basis, coordinates Department of Interior's 
National Fire Plan activities with the U.S. Forest Service. 

* Leading up to the summer fire season, bureau and fire directors for 
Interior's four bureaus with fire responsibility and the wildland fire 
office met as often as weekly, under the auspices of the Secretary's 
Chief of Staff, to coordinate hiring and fuels treatment work. This 
coordinated effort led to the additional hiring of approximately 1,500 
front-line firefighting personnel. 

While the recommendation in the report continues to call for Federal 
development of criteria to identify wildland-urban interface 
communities at risk in the vicinity of Federal lands, the five 
firefighting agencies worked with States, Tribes, and local 
communities to provide general guidance in establishing priorities. 
This allowed the collaborative groups at the local levels to identify 
and prioritize communities that fit the criteria for communities at 
risk from wildland fire. We felt it was critical to work with the 
States, Tribes, and local communities at risk. In 2001, the five 
firefighting agencies developed agency-specific criteria and allocated 
Federal funds for projects in order to facilitate the distribution of 
funds and the accomplishment of work on the ground. This year, the 
five firefighting agencies are working together to develop common
Federal criteria to prioritize funding related to the National Fire 
Plan near identified wildl and urban interface communities and all 
other areas. These prior criteria are presented in the Federal 
Cohesive Strategy nearing completion. 

We disagree with the assumption in the report that no framework exists 
to ensure that funds appropriated to reduce hazardous fuels are spent 
in an efficient, effective, and timely manner. In fact, all five 
agencies have frameworks in place to assure appropriated funds are 
spent appropriately. We are working diligently to develop a strong, 
interagency framework in response to Congressional direction. This 
framework is supported by land use plans that define resource 
objectives from which fire management plans establish activities and 
priorities in regard to hazardous fuel reduction and restoration of 
fire-adapted ecosystem. In the meantime, the agencies are giving 
priority focus to ensuring that hazardous fuels reduction work is 
being accomplished in an efficient and timely manner. 

In response to the third recommendation concerning research and data 
collection, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have made 
strides in these areas. Sixty-three National Fire Plan research teams 
were funded in 2001 and will be funded in FY 2002 at over $27 million 
The research momentum established with National Fire Plan funding is 
already evident in the 252 new studies initiated in 41 States, the 49 
new scientists and 131 technicians hired, the origination of 167 new 
cooperative studies and contracts with universities and other 
partners, and the more than 250 consultations with national forests, 
State governments, and communities. These teams will continue to lead 
national efforts to better predict fire and smoke behavior, assess the 
risks associated with hazardous fuels buildup, and find better ways to 
rehabilitate burned areas and minimize the spread of invasive species. 
Research will proceed on developing new alternatives for managing 
fuels and using forest undergrowth and small-diameter material, and in 
evaluating the effects of fire and fuels treatments on water, 
wildlife, recreation and other resources. Teams will also develop 
methods for assessing the economic and social impacts of fires and 
discovering new ways that communities and individuals can live safely 
in fire-adapted ecosystems. Through mapping, researchers are pursuing 
better delineation of wildland urban interface areas to enable 
agencies to better define the scope of the problem. 

In the arena of data collection, the report mentions the LANDFIRE 
project, specifically, and indicates that it has not been funded. 
LANDFIRE is one approach to identifying the current ecosystem 
conditions to measure the effectiveness of efforts and to determine 
what changes, if any, may be needed to improve the effectiveness of 
the fuels treatment program. This year we are jointly funding a 
LANDFIRE prototype to explore the feasibility and applicability of the 
methods and products prior to committing to this expensive project. In 
the meantime, individual agencies and their local units are conducting 
monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments. 

The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, are preparing a long term, interagency, renewable 
energy strategy as part of the National Energy Plan. The agencies have 
already prepared a preliminary estimate of the amount of biomass that 
could be utilized through hazardous fuel treatments. There are data 
and ongoing studies on the economics of biomass utilization. The 
utilization and data are highly localized. However efforts are being 
made to estimate national potential. 

The agencies have taken and continue to take a number of actions to 
improve efficiency and share improvements and lessons learned. These 
are being done project-by-project as well as with joint and individual 
agency efforts. For example, both Departments executed interagency 
agreements with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 
Fisheries Service to add additional biologists for Endangered Species 
Act Section 7 consultations. In addition, the Forest Service has 
increased training to improve the skill level in the field and train 
new employees by sharing successful environmental compliance 
strategies. They have also provided environmental document templates 
to facilitate document preparation. The Forest Service has provided 
experienced personnel to coach and advise teams. They share lessons 
learned on previous time-sensitive projects so efficiencies are gained 
in project management, environmental compliance, and decision-making. 
Similar actions are going on in the Interior agencies. In addition, 
all five firefighting agencies, as well as the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Advisory Council on National Historic 
Preservation, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
signed a letter of "Guidance for Screening 2001 Fuel Reduction 
Projects under Title IV — Wildland Fire Emergency Appropriations" on 
January 17, 2001. The letter contains a set of 12 screening criteria 
to expedite fuel treatment projects, including Endangered Species Act 
consultations. In the Southwest, streamlined consultation with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was accomplished on 283 wildland urban 
interface projects on approximately 1.9 million acres over a 6 — 8 
month period. All of these and other actions are being taken to 
facilitate both decision-making and environmental compliance. 
Reduction in time is a critical measure of successful decisions, 
agency credibility, and the collaboration that are paramount for 
effectively implementing the National Fire Plan. The ultimate measure 
for results continues to be decisions implemented with objectives met. 

We disagree with the assumption in the report that no research has 
been initiated and no data collection is underway to assure the 
effectiveness of the projects associated with the National Fire Plan. 
The Joint Fire Science Program has funded the Fire-Fire Surrogate 
Study to look specifically at fuel treatment effectiveness in 
representative ecosystems across the country. An additional 21 
projects have been funded by the Joint Fire Science Plan dealing with 
fuel and fuel treatment effectiveness. 

In closing, let us reiterate that much has been accomplished in the 
relatively short time since the Agencies received direction and 
additional funding for the National Fire Plan. We are currently 
addressing many issues raised in the report and believe that the 
approaches we are taking together will continue to have effective and 
positive results for communities and the resources. As with all 
successes, gains are made one step at a time. We believe that given 
adequate time and continued funding, the improvements already underway 
in leadership, interagency coordination, and improved research and 
integrated data collection will become realities. 

Signed by: 

Mark Rey: 
Under Secretary: 
Natural Resources and the Environment: 
U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Signed by: 

Lynn Scarlett: 
Assistant Secretary: 
Policy, Management and Budget
U.S. Department of the Interior: 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 20] 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,[Footnote 
21] updated in 2001,[Footnote 22] 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.[Footnote 23] We also reviewed the long-
term strategy to reduce hazardous fuels finalized by the Forest 
Service in October 2000[Footnote 24] and a similar draft strategy 
developed by Interior in June 2001.[Footnote 25] 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 
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. 

[End of section] 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

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). 

4. See Reducing Wildfire Threats: Funds Should Be Targeted to the 
Highest Risk Areas [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-RCED-00-296], Sept. 13, 2000. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

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

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

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. 

14. See Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2, Oct. 13, 
1999. 

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

16. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted 
Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy, The Forest Service Management 
Response to the General Accounting Office Report [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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). 

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

19. Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address 
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-65], Apr. 2, 1999. 

20. See Forest Service: A Framework for Improving Accountability 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-2], Oct. 13, 
1999. 

21. 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). 

22. 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). 

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

24. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted 
Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy, The Forest Service Management 
Response to the General Accounting Office Report [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-65] (Oct 13, 2000). 

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

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

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. 

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 [hyperlink, 
http://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 
[hyperlink, http://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: 
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: [hyperlink, http://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. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

[End of report]