Forest Service
Continued Work Needed to Address Persistent Management Challenges Gao ID: GAO-11-423T March 10, 2011The Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, manages over 190 million acres of national forest and grasslands. The agency is responsible for managing its lands for various purposes--including recreation, grazing, timber harvesting, and others--while ensuring that such activities do not impair the lands' long-term productivity. Numerous GAO reports examining different aspects of Forest Service programs--including a testimony before this Subcommittee in 2009--have identified persistent management challenges facing the agency. In light of the federal deficit and long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation, the Forest Service cannot ensure that it is spending its limited budget effectively and efficiently without addressing these challenges. This testimony highlights some of the management challenges facing the Forest Service today and is based on recent reports GAO has issued on a variety of the agency's activities.
In 2009, GAO highlighted management challenges that the Forest Service faced in three key areas--wildland fire management, data on program activities and costs, and financial and performance accountability. The Forest Service has made some improvements, but challenges persist in each of these three areas. In addition, recent GAO reports have identified additional challenges related to program oversight and strategic planning. Strategies are still needed to ensure effective use of wildland fire management funds. In numerous previous reports, GAO has highlighted the challenges the Forest Service faces in protecting the nation against the threat of wildland fire. The agency continues to take steps to improve its approach, but it has yet to take several key steps--including developing a cohesive wildland fire strategy that identifies potential long-term options for reducing hazardous fuels and responding to fires--that, if completed, would substantially strengthen wildland fire management. Incomplete data on program activities remain a concern. In 2009, GAO concluded that long-standing data problems plagued the Forest Service, hampering its ability to manage its programs and account for its costs. While GAO has not comprehensively reviewed the quality of all Forest Service data, shortcomings identified during several recent reviews reinforce these concerns. For example, GAO recently identified data gaps in the agency's system for tracking appeals and litigation of Forest Service projects and in the number of abandoned hardrock mines on its lands. Even with improvements, financial and performance accountability shortcomings persist. Although its financial accountability has improved, the Forest Service continues to struggle to implement adequate internal controls over its funds and to demonstrate how its expenditures relate to the goals in the agency's strategic plan. For example, in 2010 Agriculture reported that the agency needed to improve controls over its expenditures for wildland fire management and identified the wildland fire suppression program as susceptible to significant improper payments. Additional challenges related to program oversight and strategic planning have been identified. Several recent GAO reviews have identified additional challenges facing the Forest Service, which the agency must address if it is to effectively and efficiently fulfill its mission. Specifically, the agency has yet to develop a national land tenure strategy that would protect the public's interest in land exchanges and return fair value to taxpayers from such exchanges. In addition, it has yet to take recommended steps to align its workforce planning with its strategic plan, which may compromise its ability to carry out its mission; for example, it has not adequately planned for the likely retirement of firefighters, which may reduce the agency's ability to protect the safety of both people and property. Finally, the Forest Service needs a more systematic, risk-based approach to allocate its law-enforcement resources. Without such an approach it cannot be assured that it is deploying its resources effectively against illegal activities on the lands it manages. GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve the Forest Service's management of wildland fires, strengthen its collection of data, increase accountability, and improve program management. The Forest Service has taken steps to implement many of these recommendations, but additional action is needed if the agency is to make further progress in rectifying identified shortcomings.
GAO-11-423T, Forest Service: Continued Work Needed to Address Persistent Management Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-423T
entitled 'Forest Service: Continued Work Needed to Address Persistent
Management Challenges' which was released on March 10, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 1:00 p.m. EST:
Tuesday, March 1, 2011:
Forest Service:
Continued Work Needed to Address Persistent Management Challenges:
Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-11-423T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-423T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, manages over
190 million acres of national forest and grasslands. The agency is
responsible for managing its lands for various purposes”-including
recreation, grazing, timber harvesting, and others-”while ensuring
that such activities do not impair the lands‘ long-term productivity.
Numerous GAO reports examining different aspects of Forest Service
programs-”including a testimony before this Subcommittee in 2009-”have
identified persistent management challenges facing the agency. In
light of the federal deficit and long-term fiscal challenges facing
the nation, the Forest Service cannot ensure that it is spending its
limited budget effectively and efficiently without addressing these
challenges.
This testimony highlights some of the management challenges facing the
Forest Service today and is based on recent reports GAO has issued on
a variety of the agency‘s activities.
What GAO Found:
In 2009, GAO highlighted management challenges that the Forest Service
faced in three key areas”wildland fire management, data on program
activities and costs, and financial and performance accountability.
The Forest Service has made some improvements, but challenges persist
in each of these three areas. In addition, recent GAO reports have
identified additional challenges related to program oversight and
strategic planning.
Strategies are still needed to ensure effective use of wildland fire
management funds. In numerous previous reports, GAO has highlighted
the challenges the Forest Service faces in protecting the nation
against the threat of wildland fire. The agency continues to take
steps to improve its approach, but it has yet to take several key
steps”including developing a cohesive wildland fire strategy that
identifies potential long-term options for reducing hazardous fuels
and responding to fires”that, if completed, would substantially
strengthen wildland fire management.
Incomplete data on program activities remain a concern. In 2009, GAO
concluded that long-standing data problems plagued the Forest Service,
hampering its ability to manage its programs and account for its
costs. While GAO has not comprehensively reviewed the quality of all
Forest Service data, shortcomings identified during several recent
reviews reinforce these concerns. For example, GAO recently identified
data gaps in the agency‘s system for tracking appeals and litigation
of Forest Service projects and in the number of abandoned hardrock
mines on its lands.
Even with improvements, financial and performance accountability
shortcomings persist. Although its financial accountability has
improved, the Forest Service continues to struggle to implement
adequate internal controls over its funds and to demonstrate how its
expenditures relate to the goals in the agency‘s strategic plan. For
example, in 2010 Agriculture reported that the agency needed to
improve controls over its expenditures for wildland fire management
and identified the wildland fire suppression program as susceptible to
significant improper payments.
Additional challenges related to program oversight and strategic
planning have been identified. Several recent GAO reviews have
identified additional challenges facing the Forest Service, which the
agency must address if it is to effectively and efficiently fulfill
its mission. Specifically, the agency has yet to develop a national
land tenure strategy that would protect the public‘s interest in land
exchanges and return fair value to taxpayers from such exchanges. In
addition, it has yet to take recommended steps to align its workforce
planning with its strategic plan, which may compromise its ability to
carry out its mission; for example, it has not adequately planned for
the likely retirement of firefighters, which may reduce the agency‘s
ability to protect the safety of both people and property. Finally,
the Forest Service needs a more systematic, risk-based approach to
allocate its law-enforcement resources. Without such an approach it
cannot be assured that it is deploying its resources effectively
against illegal activities on the lands it manages.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve the
Forest Service‘s management of wildland fires, strengthen its
collection of data, increase accountability, and improve program
management. The Forest Service has taken steps to implement many of
these recommendations, but additional action is needed if the agency
is to make further progress in rectifying identified shortcomings.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-423T] or key
components. For more information, contact Anu K.Mittal at (202) 512-
3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss management
challenges facing the Forest Service. As the steward of more than 190
million acres of national forest and grassland, the Forest Service,
within the Department of Agriculture, is responsible for managing its
lands for various purposes--including recreation, rangeland, timber,
wilderness, and the protection of watersheds and wildlife--while
ensuring that the agency's management of the lands does not impair
their long-term productivity. In managing its lands in accordance with
these purposes, the agency provides a variety of goods and services.
Goods include timber, natural gas, oil, minerals, and range for
livestock to graze. Watersheds on Forest Service lands provide
drinking water to thousands of communities, and the national forests
and grasslands themselves offer the public recreational opportunities,
such as camping, hiking, and rafting. To carry out its
responsibilities, the Forest Service employs about 30,000 permanent
full-time employees and maintains hundreds of regional, forest, and
ranger district offices nationwide, as well as a network of research
facilities. Appropriations for the agency totaled $6.2 billion in
fiscal year 2010.
My testimony today updates our 2009 testimony before this Subcommittee
on Forest Service management challenges[Footnote 1] and is based
primarily on findings from several reports we have recently issued on
the agency's activities.[Footnote 2] Specifically, I will focus on
management challenges in three key areas we identified in our 2009
testimony--wildland fire management, data on program activities and
costs, and financial and performance accountability--as well as on
additional challenges related to program oversight and strategic
planning. As we stated in 2009, in light of the federal deficit and
long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation, it is important for the
Forest Service to address these management challenges to ensure that
its limited budget is effectively and efficiently spent.
Strategies Are Still Needed to Ensure Effective Use of Wildland Fire
Management Funds:
In our 2009 testimony, we reported that the Forest Service, working
with the Department of the Interior, had taken steps to help manage
perhaps the agency's most daunting challenge--protecting lives,
private property, and federal resources from the threat of wildland
fire--but that it continued to lack key strategies needed to use its
wildland fire funds effectively. Over the past decade, our nation's
wildland fire problem has worsened dramatically. Since 2000, wildland
fires burned more than double the acres annually, on average, than
during the 1990s, and the Forest Service's wildland fire-related
appropriations have also grown substantially, averaging approximately
$2.3 billion over the past 5 years, up from about $722 million in
fiscal year 1999. As we have previously reported, a number of factors
have contributed to worsening fire seasons and increased firefighting
expenditures, including an accumulation of flammable vegetation due to
past land management practices; drought and other stresses, in part
related to climate change; and increased human development in or near
wildlands. The Forest Service shares federal responsibility for
wildland fire management with four Interior agencies--the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and National Park Service.
In our 2009 testimony we noted four primary areas we believed the
Forest Service, in conjunction with Interior, needed to address to
better respond to the nation's wildland fire problems. The agencies
have taken steps to improve these areas, but work remains to be done
in each.[Footnote 3] As a result, we continue to believe that these
areas remain major management challenges for the Forest Service:
* Developing a cohesive strategy that identifies options and
associated funding to reduce potentially hazardous vegetation and
address wildland fire problems. In a series of reports dating to 1999,
we have recommended that the Forest Service and Interior agencies
develop a cohesive wildland fire strategy identifying potential long-
term options for reducing fuels and responding to fires, as well as
the funding requirements associated with the various options. By
laying out various potential approaches, their estimated costs, and
the accompanying trade-offs, we reported that such a strategy would
help Congress and the agencies make informed decisions about effective
and affordable long-term approaches to addressing the nation's
wildland fire problems. Congress echoed our call for a cohesive
strategy in the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement
Act of 2009, which requires the agencies to produce a cohesive
strategy consistent with our recommendations.[Footnote 4]
In response, the agencies have prepared "Phase I" of the cohesive
strategy, which, according to a Forest Service official, provides a
general description of the agencies' approach to the wildland fire
problem and establishes a framework for collecting and analyzing the
information needed to assess the problem and make decisions about how
to address it. The Phase I document has not yet been made final or
formally submitted to Congress, even though the act requires the
strategy to be submitted within 1 year of the act's 2009 passage. Once
the document has been made final, according to this official, the
agencies expect to begin drafting Phase II of the strategy, which will
involve actual collection and analysis of data and assessment of
different options.
* Establishing clear goals and a strategy to help contain wildland
fire costs. The agencies have taken steps intended to help contain
wildland fire costs, but they have not yet clearly defined their cost-
containment goals or developed a strategy for achieving those goals--
steps we first recommended in 2007.[Footnote 5] Without such
fundamental steps, we continue to believe that the agencies cannot be
assured that they are taking the most important steps first, nor can
they be certain of whether or to what extent the steps they are taking
will help contain costs. Agency officials identified several agency
documents that they stated clearly define goals and objectives and
that make up their strategy to contain costs. However, these documents
lack the clarity and specificity needed by officials in the field to
help manage and contain wildland fire costs. We therefore continue to
believe that the agencies will be challenged in managing their cost-
containment efforts and improving their ability to contain wildland
fire costs.
* Continuing to improve processes for allocating fuel reduction funds
and selecting fuel reduction projects. The Forest Service has
continued to improve its processes for allocating funds to reduce
fuels and select fuel reduction projects but has yet to fully
implement the steps we recommended in 2007.[Footnote 6] These
improvements, which we reported on in 2009 and which the agency has
continued to build upon, include (1) the use of a computer model to
assist in making allocation decisions, rather than relying primarily
on historical funding patterns and professional judgment, and (2)
taking into consideration when making allocation decisions information
on wildland fire risk and the effectiveness of fuel treatments.
[Footnote 7] Even with these improvements, we believe the Forest
Service will continue to face challenges in more effectively using its
limited fuel reduction dollars unless it takes the additional steps
that we have previously recommended. The agency, for example, still
lacks a measure of the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments and
therefore lacks information needed to ensure that fuel reduction funds
are directed to the areas where they can best minimize risk to
communities and natural and cultural resources. And while Forest
Service officials told us that they, in conjunction with Interior, had
begun a comprehensive effort to evaluate the effectiveness of
different types of fuel treatments, including the longevity of those
treatments and their effects on ecosystems and natural resources, this
endeavor is likely to be a long term effort and require considerable
research investment.
* Taking steps to improve the use of an interagency budgeting and
planning tool. Since 2008, we have been concerned about the Forest
Service's and Interior's development of a planning tool known as fire
program analysis, or FPA.[Footnote 8] FPA is designed to allow the
agencies to analyze potential combinations of firefighting assets, and
potential strategies for reducing fuels and fighting fires, to
identify the most cost-effective among them. By identifying cost-
effective combinations of assets and strategies within the agencies,
FPA was also designed to help the agencies develop their wildland fire
budget requests and allocate resources across the country. FPA's
development continues to be characterized by delays and revisions,
however, and the agencies are several years behind their initially
projected timeline for using it to help develop their budget requests.
The agencies collected nationwide data on available assets and
strategies in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, but in neither case did the
agencies have sufficient confidence in the quality of the data to use
them to help develop their budget requests. FPA program officials told
us that they are currently analyzing data collected early in fiscal
year 2011 to determine the extent to which the data can be used to
help develop the agencies' fiscal year 2013 budget requests. The
officials also told us they expect an independent external peer review
of the science underlying FPA--a step we recommended in our 2008
report--to begin in May 2011. The agencies continue to take steps to
improve FPA, but it is not clear how effective these steps will be in
correcting the problems we have identified, and therefore we believe
that the agencies will continue to face challenges in this area.
Incomplete Data on Program Activities Remain a Concern:
Our 2009 testimony noted shortcomings in the completeness and accuracy
of Forest Service data on activities and costs. Although we have not
comprehensively reviewed the quality of all Forest Service data, we
have encountered shortcomings during several recent reviews that
reinforce our concerns. For example, during our review of appeals and
litigation of Forest Service decisions related to fuel reduction
projects,[Footnote 9] we sought to use the agency's Planning, Appeals,
and Litigation System, which was designed to track planning, appeals,
and litigation information for all Forest Service decisions. During
our review, however, we determined that the system did not contain all
the information we believed was pertinent to decisions that had been
appealed or litigated and that the information the system did contain
was not always complete or accurate. As a result, we conducted our own
survey of Forest Service field unit employees. Likewise, during our
recent testimony on hardrock mining, we noted that the Forest Service
had difficulty determining the number of abandoned hardrock mines on
its land, and we were concerned about the accuracy of the data that
the agency maintained.[Footnote 10] Further, we recently reported that
the Forest Service does not track all costs associated with activities
under its land exchange program[Footnote 11]--another area of concern
in our 2009 testimony.
One area that is expected to see improvements in the future is the
completeness and accuracy of cost data, because in 2012 Agriculture is
scheduled to replace its current Foundation Financial Information
System with a new Financial Management Modernization Initiative system
that includes managerial cost-accounting capabilities. Managerial cost
accounting, rather than measuring only the cost of "inputs" such as
labor and materials, integrates financial and nonfinancial data, such
as the number of hours worked or number of acres treated, to measure
the cost of outputs and the activities that produce them. Such an
approach allows managers to routinely analyze cost information and use
it in making decisions about agency operations and supports a focus on
managing costs, rather than simply managing budgets. Such information
is crucial for the Forest Service, as for all federal agencies, to
make difficult funding decisions in this era of limited budgets and
competing program priorities. According to Agriculture's 2010
Performance and Accountability Report, the Forest Service has assessed
its managerial cost accounting needs, and the cost-accounting module
in the new system should allow the Forest Service to collect more-
relevant managerial cost-accounting information.[Footnote 12]
Even with Improvements, Some Financial and Performance Accountability
Shortcomings Persist:
In 2009, we testified that the Forest Service had made sufficient
progress resolving problems we identified with its financial
management for us to remove the agency from our high-risk list in 2005
but that concerns about financial accountability remained.[Footnote
13] While we have not reexamined these issues in detail since that
time, recent reports from Agriculture, including from the Office of
the Inspector General, continue to identify concerns in this area. For
example, in 2010 Agriculture's Office of Inspector General reported
six significant deficiencies--including poor coordination of efforts
to address financial reporting requirements and weaknesses in internal
controls for revenue-related transactions--although it did not find
any of the deficiencies to be material weaknesses.[Footnote 14]
Echoing these concerns about internal control weaknesses, Agriculture
reported in its 2010 Performance and Accountability Report that the
Forest Service needed to improve controls over its expenditures for
wildland fire management and identified the wildland fire suppression
program as susceptible to significant improper payments.[Footnote 15]
The Forest Service likewise has not fully resolved the performance
accountability concerns that we raised in our 2009 testimony. As we
noted at that time, the agency's long-standing performance
accountability problems included an inability to link planning,
budgeting, and results reporting. This concern was also raised by a
2010 Inspector General report, which stated that the major goals cited
in the agency's strategic plan did not match the categories in its
Foundation Financial Information System. In other words, the Forest
Service could not meaningfully compare its cost information with its
performance measures.[Footnote 16]
The Forest Service Faces Additional Challenges Related to Program
Oversight and Strategic Planning:
In addition to the management challenges we discussed in our 2009
testimony, several of our recent reviews have identified additional
challenges facing the Forest Service--challenges that highlight the
need for more effective program oversight and better strategic
planning. In light of potential funding constraints resulting from our
nation's long-term fiscal condition, it is essential that the Forest
Service be able to maximize the impact of its limited budget resources
by exercising effective program oversight and appropriate strategic
planning. Some recent concerns we have noted in this area include the
following:
* Oversight of the land exchange process. As part of its land
management responsibilities, the Forest Service acquires and disposes
of lands through land exchanges--trading federal lands for lands owned
by willing private entities, individuals, or state or local
governments. In the past, we and others identified problems in the
Forest Service's land exchange program and made recommendations to
correct them. However, in our 2009 report on the Forest Service's land
exchange program, we found that, although the agency had taken action
to address most of the problems we had previously identified, it
needed to take additional action to better oversee and manage the land
exchange process so as to ensure that land exchanges serve the public
interest and return fair value to taxpayers.[Footnote 17] In that
report we made recommendations for the agency to, among other things,
strengthen its oversight of the land exchange process, develop a
national land tenure strategy, track costs, make certain training
mandatory, and develop a formal system to track staff training. The
Forest Service generally agreed with our recommendations, but as of
October 2010, the agency had yet to develop a national land tenure
strategy, track land exchange costs, require specific training for
staff working on land exchanges, or fully implement a system to track
attendance at training.
* Workforce planning. In recent reports, we and Agriculture's
Inspector General have raised concerns about the Forest Service's
ability to maintain an effective workforce through strategic workforce
planning. In a 2010 report, we noted that the Forest Service (like
Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency) had fallen short
with respect to two of the six leading principles that we and others
have identified as important to effective workforce planning: (1)
aligning the agency's workforce plan with its strategic plan and (2)
monitoring and evaluating its workforce-planning efforts.[Footnote 18]
Without more clearly aligning its workforce plans with its strategic
plan, and monitoring and evaluating its progress in workforce
planning, as we recommended in that report, the Forest Service remains
at risk of not having the appropriately skilled workforce it needs to
effectively achieve its mission. In addition, we reported that the
Forest Service developed and issued annual workforce plans containing
information on emerging workforce issues and that the agency had
identified recommendations to address these issues but did not
communicate its recommendations, nor assign responsibility for
implementing recommendations. For the Forest Service to further
capitalize on its existing workforce-planning efforts, we recommended
that the agency communicate its recommendations in its annual 5-year
workforce plan, assign responsibility and establish time frames for
implementing the recommendations, and track implementation progress.
As of November 2010, the Forest Service had begun several actions to
address our recommendations, although they had not yet been fully
implemented.
Workforce planning is of particular concern in the area of wildland
firefighting. In March 2010, Agriculture's Inspector General reported
that the Forest Service lacked a workforce plan specific to
firefighters, despite the relatively high number of staff eligible to
retire among those in positions critical to firefighting and the
agency's own expectations of an increase in the size and number of
fires it will be responsible for suppressing.[Footnote 19] As the
Inspector General noted, a lack of qualified firefighters due to
retirements and inadequate planning could jeopardize the Forest
Service's ability to accomplish its wildland fire suppression mission,
resulting in the loss of more property and natural resources and
increased safety risks to fire suppression personnel.
* Strategic approaches for protecting and securing federal lands. In
2010, we issued reports examining different aspects of the Forest
Service's response to illegal activities occurring on the lands it
manages, including human and drug smuggling into the United States.
For example, we reported that the Forest Service, like other federal
land management agencies, lacks a risk-based approach to managing its
law enforcement resources and concluded that without a more systematic
method to assess risks posed by illegal activities, the Forest Service
could not be assured that it was allocating scarce resources
effectively.[Footnote 20] For federal lands along the United States
border, we reported that communication and coordination between Border
Patrol and federal land management agencies, including the Forest
Service, had not been effective in certain areas, including the
sharing of intelligence and threat information, deployment plans, and
radio communications between the agencies.[Footnote 21] In light of
these shortcomings, and to better protect resources and the public, we
recommended that the Forest Service adopt a risk-based approach to
better manage its law enforcement resources and, in conjunction with
the Department of the Interior and the Department of Homeland
Security, take steps to improve communication and coordination between
the agencies. The Forest Service concurred with our recommendations.
* Management strategies for the use of off-highway vehicles (OHV).
Over the past few decades, the use of OHVs on federal lands has become
a popular form of recreation, although questions have been raised
about the effects of OHV use on natural resources and on other
visitors. In 2009, we reported that the Forest Service's plans for OHV
management lacked key elements of strategic planning, such as results-
oriented goals, strategies to achieve the goals, time frames for
implementing strategies, and performance measures to monitor
incremental progress.[Footnote 22] We recommended that the Forest
Service take a number of steps to provide quality OHV recreational
opportunities while protecting natural and cultural resources on
federal lands, including identifying additional strategies to improve
OHV management, time frames for carrying out the strategies, and
performance measures for monitoring progress. As of June 2010, the
Forest Service had several actions under way to address our
recommendations, but none were yet complete.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony include
Steve Gaty, Assistant Director; Andrea Wamstad Brown; Ellen W. Chu;
Jonathan Dent; Griffin Glatt-Dowd; and Richard P. Johnson.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help Land
Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement Resources.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-144]. Washington, D.C.:
December 17, 2010.
Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure a
Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-177]. Washington, D.C.:
November 18, 2010.
Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should
Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-413]. Washington, D.C.:
March 31, 2010.
Forest Service: Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation
Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-337]. Washington, D.C:
March 4, 2010.
Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Have Taken Important Steps
Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action Is Needed to Capitalize on
Those Steps. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-877].
Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.
Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and the Number of
Abandoned Mine Sites and Hazards. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-854T]. Washington, D.C: July 14,
2009.
Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing
Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-509]. Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2009.
Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have Improved
Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional Actions Are
Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-611].
Washington, D.C: June 12, 2009.
Forest Service: Emerging Issues Highlight the Need to Address
Persistent Management Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-443T]. Washington, D.C: March 11,
2009.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Forest Service: Emerging Issues Highlight the Need to Address
Persistent Management Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-443T] (Washington, D.C: Mar. 11,
2009).
[2] See the list of related GAO products at the end of this statement,
which were generally conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Additional information on the scope and
methodology used for this body of work is provided in each issued
product.
[3] GAO has issued dozens of reports and recommended more than 50
actions the Forest Service and Interior agencies could take to improve
wildland fire management. For more information on the agencies'
efforts over the previous decade to improve their management of
wildland fire, see GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies
Have Taken Important Steps Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action
Is Needed to Capitalize on Those Steps, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-877] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
2009).
[4] Pub. L. No. 111-88 § 503, 123 Stat. 2971 (2009).
[5] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy
Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting
Fires, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-655]
(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2007).
[6] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic
Process Could Improve Agencies' Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction
Funds and Selecting Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1168] (Washington, D.C: Sept. 28,
2007).
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-877].
[8] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs
Further Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-68] (Washington, D.C: Nov. 24,
2008).
[9] GAO, Forest Service: Information on Appeals, Objections, and
Litigation Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006
through 2008, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-337]
(Washington, D.C: Mar. 4, 2010).
[10] GAO, Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and the
Number of Abandoned Mine Sites and Hazards, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-854T] (Washington, D.C: July 14,
2009).
[11] GAO, Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have
Improved Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional
Actions Are Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-611] (Washington, D.C: June 12,
2009).
[12] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Performance
and Accountability Report (Washington, D.C., November 2010).
[13] We included the Forest Service on our high-risk list from 1999
through 2004 because of long-standing concerns over its financial
accountability, citing "a continuing pattern of unfavorable
conclusions about the Forest Service's financial statements."
[14] Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Audit
Report: Forest Service's Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2010
and 2009, 08401-11-FM (Washington, D.C., November 2010).
[15] Department of Agriculture, 2010 Performance and Accountability
Report.
[16] 08401-11-FM.
[17] GAO, Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have
Improved Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional
Actions Are Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-611] (Washington, D.C.: June 12,
2009).
[18] GAO, Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service
Should Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and Improve
Evaluation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-413]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2010).
[19] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General,
Forest Service's Firefighting Succession Planning Process, Audit
Report 08601-54-SF (Washington, D.C., March 2010).
[20] GAO, Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could
Help Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement
Resources, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-144]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2010).
[21] GAO, Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure
a Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-177] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 18, 2010).
[22] GAO, Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in
Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-509] (Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2009). This report also examined OHV management at two Interior
agencies, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
