Detailed Information on the
Department of the Interior - Wildland Fire Management Assessment

Implement new performance measures and strengthen hazardous fuels project criteria to ensure that funds are more effectively targeted.

Prioritize the timely implementation of the preparedness and fuels reduction systems to ensure that institutional barriers are overcome.

Emphasize accountability for firefighting costs, improving management oversight, and ensuring that states are paying their fair share of such costs.

Measure: Percent of acres degraded by wildland fire with post-fire rehabilitation treatments underway, completed, or monitored

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres in fire regimes 1, 2, or 3 moved to a better condition class that were identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with the 10-year Implementation Plan - as a percent of total acres treated

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres in prior measure moved to a better condition class per million dollars of gross investment

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres treated that are in condition classes 2 or 3 in fire regimes 1 through 3 outside of wildland-urban interface, and are identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with the 10-Yr. Implementation Plan - as a percent of all acres treated

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres treated outside the wildland-urban interface per million dollars gross investment

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres burned by unplanned and unwanted wildland fires

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres treated that are in the wildland-urban interface and are identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with the 10-Year Implementation Plan - in total

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres treated that are in the wildland-urban interface and are identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with the 10-Year Implementation Plan - as X percent of all acres treated

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres treated in the wildland-urban interface per million dollars gross investment

Explanation:

Measure: Loss of life from severe, unplanned and unwanted wildland fire is eliminated

Explanation:

Measure: Damage to communities and the environment from severe, unplanned and unwanted wildland fire are reduced

Explanation:

Measure: Number of homes and significant structures lost as a result of wildland fire

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres in fire regimes 1, 2, or 3 moved to a better condition class that were identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with the 10-year Implementation Plan - in total

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres in fire regimes 1, 2, or 3 moved to a better condition class that were identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with the 10-year Implementation Plan - as a percent of total acres treated

Explanation:

Measure: Amount of time lost from firefighter injury in proportion to the number of days worked across all agencies

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of unplanned and unwanted wildland fires controlled during initial attack

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres burned by unplanned and unwanted wildland fires

Explanation:

Measure: Firefighter injuries from severe, unplanned and unwanted wildland fire are reduced

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres treated that are in condition classes 2 or 3 in fire regimes 1 through 3 outside of wildland-urban interface, and are identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with the 10-Yr. Implementation Plan- in total

Explanation:

Measure: Number of homes and significant structures lost as a result of wildland fire

Explanation:

Measure: Number of acres treated that are in the wildland-urban interface and are identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with the 10-Year Implementation Plan - in total

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Wildland Fire Management program is responsible for managing and, where appropriate, extinguishing wildland fires on DOI-managed lands. Four DOI bureaus are involved in fire management and response: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The agency has 4 specific goals for managing wildfire as defined in the joint DOI/USDA 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan: (1) Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression ;(2) Reduce Hazardous Fuels; (3) Restore Fire-Adapted Ecosystems; and (4) Promote Community Assistance. While clear, these goals are set out as co-equal and could benefit from being prioritized. Generally speaking, DOI puts reducing threats to human life and property as the highest priority and minimizing and controlling wildfire in remote, unpopulated areas lowest. Firefighting and fuels reduction resources can be directed at two different purposes: (1) protecting homes and buildings and (2) protecting natural resources. In some areas, both purposes can be met with the same resources, but in other circumstances these two purposes may compete for limited resources. Determining the appropriate balance between these purposes can be subjective and complex. As a result, funds may not be targeted in the most cost-effective manner.

Evidence: Various authorization acts cited annually in the Wildland Fire Congressional Budget Justifications. The National Fire Plan (August 2000 Report to the President and the FY 2001 Appropriation Act and Reports) 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (August 2001) and Implementation Plan (May 2002). The 1995 Federal Fire Policy and the 2001 update of that policy promote the re-establishment of fire adapted ecosystems to reduce large fires and protect communities. The President's Healthy Forests Initiative (2002) and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Wildfires are normal events in the life of a forest and other wildlands. However, they can inflict damage to lives, property, and, in some cases, natural resources when they burn out of control. The DOI wildland firefighting program is challenged with trying to balance allowing fire to function in its natural role with protecting communities, and in some cases ecosystems, from the effects of catastrophic fire when fire fuels have built up to unnatural levels. The program provides skilled firefighters, specialized equipment, and rapid response capability to respond to wildland fires in a way that many states and localities would be incapable of themselves. This capability is not matched by any other firefighting organization. Fire management on federal lands also falls within the land-management missions of the federal firefighting agencies. Without the DOI wildland fire management program, many communities would be unequipped to protect their own lands and property.

Evidence: Authorizing statutes: Reciprocal Fire Protection Agreement Act of 1955; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); Disaster Relief Act of 1974; National Indian Forest Resources Management Act of 1990; 43 USC 1469 (authorizes DOI Secretary to perform work due to emergencies). Report to the President, ""Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment"", September 2000. The 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. The President's Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: As part of its land management responsibilities, each bureau is responsible for firefighting on the lands it manages. There are no other programs designed to accomplish this mission on DOI lands. The DOI bureaus work cooperatively with the Forest Service and States to leverage funds and extend the impact of the program. These programs are complementary and not redundant. Under these arrangements, fire protection responsibilities are exchanged and scarce resources are shared. Fuels treatments are coordinated among bureaus and with other related programs. Clear definitions and responsibilities have been established for burned area rehabilitation, which is managed by this program, and restoration, which is managed by bureau resource and land management programs.

Evidence: 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Policy. National Fire Plan ("A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000, September 8, 2000"). Federal Wildland Fire Leadership Council Charter. The President's Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Joint Forest Service-DOI agreement to standardize the definitions of and budgeting for emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration of burned areas in 2003.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The current mechanism of direct federal management is consistent with each bureau's statutory responsibilities to manage the land under its control. The program is designed to take a holistic approach to managing fire risks by integrating firefighting efforts with efforts to restore areas damaged by fire and reduce fire risk through prevention and the targeted reduction of fire fuels (including the appropriate use of wildland fire to reduce future fire risks). The program's budget structure has been realigned for a direct linkage between program activities and funding sources, and activities are expected to be coordinated with other agencies (e.g., the Forest Service), State and local governments, and other program partners. There is no clear evidence that another approach would be more effective in fighting fires and reducing fire risks to communities and the environment. Whether program resources are optimally allocated among (and efficiently used within) the various components of the program is an open question, but the design of the program, with its holistic approach to managing fire risk, appears to be appropriate.

Evidence: Authorizing statutes: Reciprocal Fire Protection Agreement Act of 1955; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); Disaster Relief Act of 1974; National Indian Forest Resources Management Act of 1990; 43 USC 1469 (authorizes DOI Secretary to perform work due to emergencies). Report to the President, ""Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment"", September 2000. The 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. The President's Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. DOI/USDA Wildland Fire Management Budget Structure

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The bureaus have agreements to share both suppression and hazardous fuels reduction personnel and equipment as needed to efficiently accomplish program goals. They utilize seasonal employees, contract for aircraft, hire emergency firefighters, and utilize partnerships with state and local governments, the military, and foreign nations to provide wildland firefighting on the federal lands. Highly mobile national resources such as hotshot crews, smokejumpers, helicopters, and airtankers are used where necessary to extend local or regional firefighting capabilities. Fuels reduction projects are designed and proposed via collaboration among federal, state, tribal, and local representatives. The Rural Fire Assistance program is largely duplicative of other Forest Service and FEMA grant programs and has been proposed for elimination. However, the grants represent a small part of the overall fire budget, and DOI is working with the Forest Service and FEMA to ensure that their grant programs are effectively targeted to meet DOI needs.

Evidence: National Interagency Mobilization Guide; Interagency fire management agreements between BLM, BIA, NPS, FWS, USFS, state, local, and foreign governments. Hazardous fuels reduction program guidance. MOU between DOI, USDA, and FEMA regarding Coordination and Cooperation of Fire Department Wildland Fire Assistance Programs, January 2003. A 2005 update is in progress.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program does have a limited number of long-term performance measures. The 10-Year Implementation Plan defines program outcomes and performance measures to achieve the following four goals: (1) Improve fire prevention and suppression; (2) Reduce hazardous fuels; (3) Restore fire-adapted ecosystems; and (4) Promote community assistance. The Plan includes four long-term goals and measures (eliminate loss of life, reduce firefighter injuries, reduce community and environmental damage, and reduce loss of homes and structures.) However, they do not meet the standards for PART measures. It is unclear if DOI is measuring loss of life and injury reduction on DOI lands alone, or on any lands. If the latter, DOI has little control over events on these lands. Currently, DOI is unable to measure performance for the goal of reducing community and environmental damage in part because this goal involves two substantially different types of damage reduction. DOI needs to develop long-term goals that can be more clearly measured and linked to program actions, particularly in the hazardous fuels component of the program.

Evidence: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, 2002. Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has no targets or timeframes established for three of the four long-term measures it presents in annual budget justifications, and has not yet established a measurement methodology for one of these measures.

Evidence: Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The "yes" answer for this question is based on an acknowledgement that there are still significant improvements needed in this area and that DOI is committing to making these improvements in the near term in conjunction with the current review of the 10-Year Implementation Plan in the light of new understanding and practical experience with existing measures. This includes adopting at least one suitable measure for all program areas, and at least one efficiency measure for the suppression activity (such as $/fire) and collecting data on it. The program has many annual measures, some of which are valuable to program managers, but which are not adequate indicators of performance to meet the PART guidance. For example, measuring the number of acres burned or treated without knowing what percentage of the relevant total acreage is not a good PART measure. Similarly, counting acres burned or treated in the WUI is not a good PART measure until the WUI is defined and quantified. DOI needs to do more work on a subset of meaningful key measures covering the most important components of the program. DOI reports on 10 annual performance measures from the 10-Year Implementation Plan, including 3 measures with 2 reporting elements each (for a total of 13 measures). The program nevertheless lacks a measure of fire suppression cost effectiveness on which it collects data and informs management decisions. A major problem is that the term "wildland-urban interface" remains undefined and unquantified, and this has a significant implication for evaluating performance with the current measures. A related problem is that the program does not measure the fire fuels condition of lands in the wildland-urban interface after they have been treated.

Evidence: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, 2002. Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has set baselines and targets for its annual measures. Baselines exist in the form of actual accomplishments for the first year each measure was reported. Targets are revised annually to reflect changes in resource levels, anticipated fuels and weather conditions, and growing knowledge about wildland fire behavior. These targets focus on increasing the percentage of acres treated for hazardous fuels reduction where the risks to life and property are greatest, maintaining a high success rate in containing wildfires before they become large and damaging, increasing the percentage of fire-damaged acres that receive rehabilitation treatments, and improving the fire-related conditions in wildlands. The agency is steadily increasing both its performance and targets for the measures that are most indicative of progress toward achieving long-term outcomes. For example, while the agency does not currently report on condition class changes to WUI acres, the percentage of acres outside the WUI moved to a better condition class improved from 36% in 2003 to 38% in 2004 and is targeted at 40% of total acres treated in 2006. Targets for the fuels reduction efficiency measures have been reduced substantially from 2003 to 2006. However, this is due, at least in part, to a conscious management decision to focus on treatment of acres with the most risk reduction and ecosystem restoration value. These acres are typically more difficult and more expensive to treat, but should achieve program outcome goals better than treating easier and cheaper acres. As explained in the response to Question 2.3, the agency's challenge is to better define these specific outcomes through better performance measures and data.

Evidence: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, 2002. Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006. GAO Report 05-147 "Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy", January 2005.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Partners include state, local, and private partners responsible for fuels reduction work on adjacent private or state lands. While many partners (e.g., the National Association of State Foresters, National Association of Counties, and Western Governor's Association) demonstrate broadly a commitment to the program's goals, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan included performance measures that were to be reported on by all parties. The agencies do not report this information, so there is no way to assess the extent to which States, Tribes, and local partners are actually reporting this performance information or meeting their responsibilities under the 10-Year Plan. Much work remains to be done in actually collecting meaningful performance information for work done on state and private lands. It is also difficult to make the case that all partners are able to support program planning efforts by committing to the goals of the program because the program received a No on Question 2.1 and a qualified "Yes" on Question 2.3. DOI indicates that the agencies are working to improve reporting of performance and that the Western Governor's Association is working to develop reporting requirements and mechanisms for the States. The program does have cooperative agreements or MOU's on fuels treatment development and collaboration with many partners, including the National Association of State Foresters, the National Association of Counties, the Nature Conservancy, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Association of Conservation Districts. Many individual projects are developed and conducted with conservation organizations including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wild Turkey Federation, Mule Deer Foundation, etc. Contractors are required to report on performance (e.g., fuels reduction projects), and grants are monitored to ensure that the grantee (e.g., a local firefighting unit) uses the funds as specified.

Evidence: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, 2002. Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006. Agency fuels reduction and rehabilitation project accomplishments as reported in the National Fire Plan Operating and Reporting System (NFPORS).

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The National Fire Plan and Wildland Fire Management program have been under steady and rigorous evaluation since the Plan was implemented following the fires of 2000. A number of independent reviews are currently ongoing, but no regular process has been established. Numerous GAO and other independent evaluations have been critical of various parts of the fire program for both DOI and USDA. In January 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report that provided an overview of the entire Wildland Fire Management program instead of the typical single topic review. GAO is currently conducting three separate program reviews covering (1) biomass utilization, (2) restoration of fire-damaged areas, and (3) suppression cost containment. The DOI Office of Inspector General is auditing the hazardous fuels reduction program in 2005 as part of its regular cycle of program reviews.

Evidence: GAO reports, including: "Wildland Fire Management - Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy"", GAO 05-147, January 2005. "Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on Community Involvement Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting", GAO-04-652, June 2004. "Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects", GAO-04-705, June 2004. "Geospatial Information, Technologies Hold Promise for Wildland Fire Management, but Challenges Remain", GAO-03-1047, September 2003. "Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction", GAO 03-805, August 2003. "Wildland Fires, Better Information Needed on Effectiveness of Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation", GAO-03-430, April 2003. Interagency Reports: Blue Ribbon Panel Report, "Federal Aerial Firefighting: Assessing Safety and Effectiveness", December 2002. National Transportation Safety Board recommendations A-04-29-31, regarding the use of large fixed-wing aircraft for wildland firefighting, April 2004. National Academy of Public Administration reports, including: "Containing Wildland Fire Costs: Enhancing Hazard Mitigation Capacity" January 2004. "Containing Wildland Fire Costs: Utilizing Local Firefighting Forces", December 2003.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: DOI does not clearly explain the relationship between budget resources and performance levels, with the possible exception of the hazardous fuels reduction program component. However, even for fuels reduction, the agency can only provide a reasonable relationship to annual goals for acres treated. There remains no context within which to assess how different funding levels will impact the program's ability to meet its broad long-term goals of reducing risks to communities and the environment.

Evidence: Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006. GAO Report 05-147 "Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy", January 2005.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: DOI has taken a number of steps to improve its strategic planning, although much work remains to be done. DOI revised its strategic plan in FY 2003 and incorporated a number of measures from the 10-Year Implementation Plan. The agency has developed the National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System (NFPORS) to collect the underlying performance data for many of these measures. DOI and USDA have also been developing the Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, which should eventually provide an economically sound method of allocating resources (i.e., people and equipment) in the most cost-effective manner at any given budget level. Similarly, once it is fully operational, the joint LANDFIRE system is expected to provide over 20 spatial data layers for fire and land managers to use to target fire and resource management projects most effectively. However, there remains some cause for concern. The agency does not currently report on 8 of the 18 measures contained in the 10-Year Implementation Plan, including the only measure of fire suppression cost effectiveness. It also does not collect performance information from state and local partners for activities these partners undertake on their own lands. In addition, with so many measures and no apparent priority among the measures, it is unclear which ones managers and/or policy officials will choose to focus on or how effectively the agency will operate utilizing so many measures. The agency has recently indicated that it focuses its efforts on 4 key performance measures, but this has not been articulated in any official documents, and continuing data challenges make it unclear that these are the best measures to focus on. The agency needs to develop a smaller set of measures that meaningfully reflect the key components of the program.

Evidence: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, 2002. Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006. FY 2003-2008 DOI Strategic Plan. Development of the National Fire Plan Operating and Reporting System (NFPORS), Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, and the LANDFIRE system.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Since the last PART assessment in 2002, the agencies have launched the NFPORS reporting system. Although NFPORS has significantly improved the agency's collection of performance information, it has become clear that there still remain substantial limitations in the data collected. For example, the agency does not collect information on how WUI treatments improved the fire fuels condition of the acres treated. This is increasingly important as the program emphasizes WUI treatments over non-WUI treatments. DOI indicates that the Assistant Secretary conducts monthly meetings with the bureau directors, fire directors, and fuels program coordinators to discuss year-to-date accomplishments and projections to the end of the year, as compared to the program of work tied to the appropriation. However, these meetings appear to focus on acres accomplishments and on other factors not directly related to fire risk outcome goals (e.g., whether a treatment was conducted via mechanical means vs. prescribed fire and whether the work was completed in-house or by contract).

Evidence: Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006. National Fire Plan Operating and Reporting System (NFPORS) data collection and discussions with agency personnel.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: DOI indicates that fuels program managers' appraisals include performance measures for completing projects, but DOI has not provided evidence of how performance is incorporated into personnel reviews outside of the fuels program component. Most performance measurements do not appear to affect accountability at the program level, nor do they appear to inform budget discussions. On the firefighting side, managers are currently evaluated based on defacto performance measures of controlling fires without the loss of life or property. The agencies indicate that suppression cost-control has been elevated to a significant factor in determining if fire response was appropriate to the threats posed by fires, but it is not clear that managers have actually been held accountable for excessive costs. The agency indicates that in 2005, DOI and USDA are implementing pilots for comptroller function. DOI teams will observe and analyze strategic decisions made before fires become large to gauge the performance and cost impact of those decisions.

Evidence: N/A

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds have generally been obligated in a timely manner. End-of-year unobligated balances have declined to reasonable levels given the large number of field units with preparedness and fuels reduction budget allocations. Bureaus regularly review obligation reports and provide analysis to the Department, and during the fire season, OMB receives obligation reports weekly. The fuels program faces inherent difficulties in the use of prescribed fires due to unpredictable weather and smoke management issues. DOI appears to be effectively minimizing delays of fuels reduction projects. All other parts of the program appear to be obligating funds in a timely manner. Funds are allocated to the budget activities to which they were appropriated, and obligations are recorded and reported in those same activities and subactivities. The agency has tightened definitions for emergency stabilization and rehabilitation activities to ensure that emergency funds are used only to meet real emergency needs. The Department's implementation of an Activity-Based Costing (ABC) system will add another layer of assurance that funds are used for the appropriate projects and programs.

Evidence: Quarterly SF 133 reports on budget execution. Weekly fire obligation reports by bureau and budget line item during fire season. DOI/USDA burned area emergency stabilization and rehabilitation guidance.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: There is little evidence demonstrating that the program has such procedures in place. The agency has not yet performed systematic or formal cost comparisons for positions within this program, although the agency is assessing the feasibility of new competitive sourcing studies for 2007 and 2008. The Department continues to emphasize contracting for hazardous fuels reduction projects. However, the agency has not completed any analysis to indicate that the use of contracting is more efficient than in-house resources in achieving fuels reduction goals, and the emphasis seems to be guided more by Congressional direction to hire local contractors than in ensuring the most efficient and effective use of resources to achieve the program's objectives. Fire suppression costs have increased substantially in recent years, and the agency does not appear to have effective procedures in place to measure and achieve efficiencies in fire suppression. The agency does not report performance on the only measure of fire suppression cost effectiveness included in the 10-Year Implementation Plan. Once fully implemented, the Fire Program Analysis system should provide the means to identify organizational efficiencies and determine the most cost effective allocation of fire protection resources in Preparedness and between Preparedness and Fuels Reduction.

Evidence: FY 2005-2008 DOI Competitive Sourcing "Green Plan". Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The agencies have taken a number of steps to increase coordination and collaboration both between DOI and USDA and with state and local partners. Examples include: 1) development of the interagency NFPORS, FPA, and LANDFIRE systems; 2) development of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan; 3) creation of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council(WFLC); 4) consultation with program partners on preparation of state and local Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) under the auspices of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act; and 5) coordinated WUI fuels treatment project selection. Suppression activities are managed on an interagency basis and integrate resources from DOI bureaus, the Forest Service, Tribes, and state and local governments. Shared resources include fire crews, engines, incident command, airtankers, helicopters, and smokejumpers. However, despite the extensive ongoing collaboration between program partners, GAO has noted that without a long-term cohesive strategy, "agencies cannot ensure that the numerous collaborative efforts they undertake locally each year will add up to a cost-effective, affordable, long-term national solution."

Evidence: GAO Report 05-147: "Wildland Fire Management - Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy", January 2005. Various MOUs and agreements with State and local partners.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Fund allocation and reporting are complicated in Interior because each bureau uses a different finance system. Data in systems is not integrated, and reports are produced manually on an ad hoc basis. Over the past few years, the timely reporting of fire suppression obligations data has been a problem, with the Department usually entering a relatively substantial portion of obligations at the very end of the fiscal year as the books are being closed for the year. In an attempt to compensate for deficiencies in bureau financial systems, the Department exercises added oversight by the Office of Wildland Fire Coordination (OWFC) and the Division of Budget. The bureaus provide fund obligation reports to OWFC at least once weekly during the peak fire months from June through September, and monthly the rest of the year. An interagency budget team coordinates all allocation and reporting exercises. The bureau fire directors at the National Interagency Fire Center and the OWFC review budget allocation decisions. DOI is also instituting Activity-Based Costing (ABC) in the wildland fire management program. All bureaus now use the same work activities to code the work done to provide for consistent reporting of accomplishments and the spending tied to those accomplishments. DOI is implementing a new integrated financial system (FBMS) over three years beginning in 2006. FBMS is being designed to provide consolidation of bureau fire budget and finance activity and should improve execution and reporting.

Evidence: FireCode project code system. OWFC coordination and oversight of budget process. Weekly obligation reports provided to OMB during the peak fire season.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: As GAO has noted, the agencies have taken a number of positive steps to improve program management, but much work remains to be done. DOI established the Office of Wildland Fire Coordination in 2001 to provide for cross-bureau consistency in program policies, practices, and budgets. The budget structure was changed in 2002 and revised in 2004 to better reflect the nature of the work and improve accountability. The agencies established the Wildland Fire Leadership Council in April 2002 to further improve coordination of policies and actions between the agencies and with other program partners. The agencies also developed the NFPORS system to collect certain project performance data, and established improved training and guidance to ensure firefighters are properly qualified. A number of changes have yet to be fully implemented, including development of a new fire preparedness planning model (FPA) and a system for tracking the change in fire fuels conditions over time (LANDFIRE). The agency could also improve management by improving its strategic planning. The program currently has too many measures, many of which are not very useful because of definitional problems or the lack of ambitious targets. The agency needs to develop a smaller set of measures that meaningfully reflect the key components of the program. The agencies need to continue to work to implement past PART recommendations, including: 1) improving accountability for fire suppression costs and ensuring that states are paying their fair share of such costs, and 2) improving the targeting of hazardous fuels treatments in the WUI. The latter recommendation is reemphasized by GAO's latest report on the program in which GAO calls for the agencies to develop a cohesive strategy for fuels management. Ultimately, the agencies need to develop a strategy that integrates risk reduction principles by: 1) better defining the wildland-urban interface, 2) identifying better ways to measure performance for fuels treatments in the WUI, 3) analyzing and balancing the short-term risks of allowing increased wildland fire use with the short- and long-term benefits of reintroducing fire to fire-adapted ecosystems, and 4) linking the strategy to meaningful and achievable long-term performance goals.

Evidence: OWFC Department Manual Chapter; Wildland Fire Leadership Council Charter. Interagency Fire Program Management Qualifications Standards and Guide. 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, 2002. Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006. Development of the National Fire Plan Operating and Reporting System (NFPORS), Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system, and the LANDFIRE system. GAO Report 05-147: "Wildland Fire Management - Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy", January 2005. GAO Report 04-705: "Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects", June 2004.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program received a "No" in reference to Question 2.1. At least 4 measures that DOI includes in its annual budget justifications can reasonably be considered long-term outcome goals, but the program has no targets or timeframes established for three of the four long-term measures and has not yet established a measurement methodology for one of these measures. Moreover, the agency has not reported at all on the only measure of fire suppression cost effectiveness included in the 10-Year Implementation Plan. Regarding the more generic goal of the fire program to "reduce the risk of wildland fire to communities and the environment", only in recent years have the agencies acknowledged that the past practice of fully suppressing fires has actually made the hazardous fuels buildup problem worse. The program has taken an important step in integrating wildland fire use into many fire management plans, but the culture of the fire program does not yet appear to have significantly changed to move away from a full-suppression mentality. GAO has noted that without a long-term cohesive strategy, "agencies cannot ensure that the numerous collaborative efforts they undertake locally each year will add up to a cost-effective, affordable, long-term national solution."

Evidence: Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006. GAO Report 05-147: "Wildland Fire Management - Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy", January 2005.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Program received a qualified "Yes" in reference to Question 2.3. The general trend appears positive. Of the 13 measures that DOI has reported on, the agency met its targets for only 3 measures in 2003 (but came close to meeting several others) and 8 measures in 2004. In part, the change is a result of establishing more realistic targets once baselines were established. However, because of the underlying questions about the measures and targets and the remaining work to be done (as outlined in Section 2), the agency's overall performance in achieving its annual goals so far is not adequate.

Evidence: Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: There is no evidence to indicate that DOI has improved efficiency or cost effectiveness in the fire program on the whole. The agencies have instituted some new processes to attempt to contain suppression costs, but thus far, the agency has not demonstrated that these changes have had the desired impact on costs. For fuels reduction, the agency's efficiency measures show mixed results, with treatment costs per acre for WUI projects decreasing modestly while costs per acre for non-WUI projects are substantially increasing. This is despite the new flexibilities provided to the agencies through stewardship contracting and new authorities under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. One possibility for this apparent contradiction in the data is that it reflects the continuing problem with defining the "wildland urban interface". As the agencies increase their emphasis on WUI treatments over time, field staff and/or project proponents may simply be defining more projects as WUI projects in order to increase the likelihood of having their projects funded. Because non-WUI treatments are typically less expensive than WUI treatments, redefining non-WUI acres as WUI acres would tend to reduce the average per acre costs for WUI treatments.

Evidence: No clear evidence of improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness. Wildland Fire Management Congressional Budget Justifications, 2004-2006.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The Forest Service is the only other federal agency that accomplishes similar wildland fire management work. On the whole, DOI seems to have somewhat more control over fire suppression costs than USDA, which had a serious anti-deficiency problem in 2000. However, in other areas of the fire program, performance of both agencies appears to be similar.

Evidence: Wildland Fire Management performance tables in annual budget requests, 2004-2006. GAO Report 02-259, "Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce Risks to Communities and Resources" GAO Report 02-158, "Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs""

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Historically, independent reviews (GAO, IG etc.) have been conducted frequently in response to policy changes, significant events, appropriation changes, and normal oversight from the executive branch and Congressional oversight committees. The fire program is currently the subject of three different audits by the General Accounting Office. Recent GAO reviews have been increasingly positive about actions the agencies are taking to address program deficiencies. However, the reviews also point out that many changes have not yet been implemented and much work remains to ensuring that program is effective and achieving its long-term goals.

Evidence: See the evidence listed for question 2.6 for a comprehensive list of GAO and other program reviews and reports.