Wildland Fire Management
Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders Agencies' Cost-Containment Efforts Gao ID: GAO-07-427T January 30, 2007Over the past two decades, the number of acres burned by wildland fires has increased, often threatening human lives, property, and ecosystems. The cost of responding to wildland fires has also grown, especially as more homes are built in or near wildlands, an area called the wildland-urban interface. Past management practices, including a concerted federal policy in the 20th century of suppressing fires to protect communities and ecosystems, unintentionally resulted in steady accumulation of dense vegetation that can fuel large, intense, and often costly wildland fires. GAO was asked to identify actions that federal wildland fire agencies need to take to help contain federal wildland fire expenditures. GAO has identified these actions in three of its reports addressing fuel reduction and cost-sharing efforts and as part of an ongoing review of federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland fire preparedness and suppression costs for this committee. Specifically, GAO focused on examining agencies' efforts to (1) reduce accumulated fuels and address wildland fire problems, (2) share with nonfederal entities the costs of responding to multijurisdictional fires, and (3) contain the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires.
Over the past 7 years, GAO has recommended a number of actions federal wildland fire agencies should take to improve their management of wildland fire activities, actions that could also help contain the rising federal expenditures for responding to wildland fires. These agencies--the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and land management agencies within the Department of the Interior--concurred with GAO's recommendations but have not completed, or in some cases have not yet begun, needed actions. GAO's ongoing review of federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland fire preparedness and suppression costs has also identified other actions that may be needed. Specifically, the agencies need to: (1) Develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the options and associated funding to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems. In 1999, to address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to increase the severity of wildland fires and the cost of suppression efforts, GAO recommended that a cohesive strategy be developed that identified the available long-term options and associated funding for reducing these fuels. In 2005 and 2006, because the agencies had not yet developed one, GAO reiterated the need for such a strategy but broadened its focus to better address the interrelated nature of fuel reduction efforts and wildland fire response. GAO also recommended that, as an interim step, the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining the steps and time frames needed for completing a cohesive strategy. As of January 2007, the agencies had not developed either a cohesive strategy or a tactical plan. (2) Clarify their guidance for sharing wildland fire suppression costs with nonfederal entities. In 2006, to address the rising costs of responding to fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources, GAO recommended that the federal agencies provide more specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should be used. The cost-sharing method used can have significant financial consequences for the entities involved--potentially amounting to millions of dollars. As of January 2007, the agencies were updating their guidance on possible cost-sharing methods and when each typically would be used, but it is unclear how the agencies will ensure that the guidance is followed. (3) Establish clear goals, strategies, and performance measures to help contain wildland fire costs. Preliminary findings from GAO's ongoing work indicate that the effectiveness of agencies' efforts to contain costs may be limited because the agencies have not clearly defined their cost-containment goals, developed a strategy for achieving those goals, or developed related performance measures. For these efforts to be effective, the agencies need to integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland fire program--such as protecting life and property--and to recognize that trade-offs will be needed to meet desired goals within the context of fiscal constraints.
GAO-07-427T, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders Agencies' Cost-Containment Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-427T
entitled 'Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders
Agencies' Cost-Containment Efforts' which was released on January 30,
2007.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Tuesday, January 30, 2007:
Wildland Fire Management:
Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders Agencies' Cost-Containment Efforts:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-07-427T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-427T, a testimony before the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Over the past two decades, the number of acres burned by wildland fires
has increased, often threatening human lives, property, and ecosystems.
The cost of responding to wildland fires has also grown, especially as
more homes are built in or near wildlands, an area called the wildland-
urban interface. Past management practices, including a concerted
federal policy in the 20th century of suppressing fires to protect
communities and ecosystems, unintentionally resulted in steady
accumulation of dense vegetation that can fuel large, intense, and
often costly wildland fires.
GAO was asked to identify actions that federal wildland fire agencies
need to take to help contain federal wildland fire expenditures. GAO
has identified these actions in three of its reports addressing fuel
reduction and cost-sharing efforts and as part of an ongoing review of
federal agencies‘ efforts to contain wildland fire preparedness and
suppression costs for this committee. Specifically, GAO focused on
examining agencies‘ efforts to (1) reduce accumulated fuels and address
wildland fire problems, (2) share with nonfederal entities the costs of
responding to multijurisdictional fires, and (3) contain the costs of
preparing for and responding to wildland fires.
What GAO Found:
Over the past 7 years, GAO has recommended a number of actions federal
wildland fire agencies should take to improve their management of
wildland fire activities, actions that could also help contain the
rising federal expenditures for responding to wildland fires. These
agencies”the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and
land management agencies within the Department of the
Interior”concurred with GAO‘s recommendations but have not completed,
or in some cases have not yet begun, needed actions. GAO‘s ongoing
review of federal agencies‘ efforts to contain wildland fire
preparedness and suppression costs has also identified other actions
that may be needed. Specifically, the agencies need to:
* Develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the options and
associated funding to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems.
In 1999, to address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to
increase the severity of wildland fires and the cost of suppression
efforts, GAO recommended that a cohesive strategy be developed that
identified the available long-term options and associated funding for
reducing these fuels. In 2005 and 2006, because the agencies had not
yet developed one, GAO reiterated the need for such a strategy but
broadened its focus to better address the interrelated nature of fuel
reduction efforts and wildland fire response. GAO also recommended
that, as an interim step, the agencies develop a tactical plan
outlining the steps and time frames needed for completing a cohesive
strategy. As of January 2007, the agencies had not developed either a
cohesive strategy or a tactical plan.
* Clarify their guidance for sharing wildland fire suppression costs
with nonfederal entities. In 2006, to address the rising costs of
responding to fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and
resources, GAO recommended that the federal agencies provide more
specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should be
used. The cost-sharing method used can have significant financial
consequences for the entities involved”potentially amounting to
millions of dollars. As of January 2007, the agencies were updating
their guidance on possible cost-sharing methods and when each typically
would be used, but it is unclear how the agencies will ensure that the
guidance is followed.
* Establish clear goals, strategies, and performance measures to help
contain wildland fire costs. Preliminary findings from GAO‘s ongoing
work indicate that the effectiveness of agencies‘ efforts to contain
costs may be limited because the agencies have not clearly defined
their cost-containment goals, developed a strategy for achieving those
goals, or developed related performance measures. For these efforts to
be effective, the agencies need to integrate cost-containment goals
with the other goals of the wildland fire program”such as protecting
life and property”and to recognize that trade-offs will be needed to
meet desired goals within the context of fiscal constraints.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-427T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the key actions that we
believe federal wildland fire management agencies--the Forest Service
within the Department of Agriculture and four agencies within the
Department of the Interior--need to complete to help contain the rising
costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires. Increasing
wildland fire threats to communities and ecosystems, combined with
rising costs of addressing those threats--trends that we and others
have reported on for many years--have not abated. On average, the
acreage burned annually by wildland fires from 2000 to 2005 was 70
percent greater than the acreage burned annually during the 1990s.
Appropriations for wildland fire management activities tripled from
about $1 billion in fiscal year 1999 to nearly $3 billion in fiscal
year 2005. Although the agencies are still refining their data, 2006
was an especially severe year, with almost 10 million acres burned and
what are likely to be the highest federal fire suppression expenditures
ever. A number of factors have contributed to more-severe fires and
corresponding increases in expenditures for wildland fire management
activities. These factors include an accumulation of fuels due to past
fire suppression policies; severe weather and drought in some areas of
the country; and growing numbers of homes built in or near wildlands,
an area often called the wildland-urban interface. In light of the
federal deficit and the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation,
attention has increasingly focused on ways to contain these growing
expenditures and to ensure that the agencies' wildland fire activities
are appropriate and carried out in a cost-effective and efficient
manner.
My testimony today includes findings from three of our recent reports,
plus preliminary findings from work under way, which together summarize
key wildland fire management weaknesses we have identified over the
last 7 years, as well as critical actions the agencies need to complete
if they are to effectively contain the rising costs of responding to
wildland fires. Specifically, my testimony focuses on three issues: the
agencies' efforts to (1) reduce fuels and address wildland fire
problems,[Footnote 1] (2) share with nonfederal entities the costs of
responding to fires that burn or threaten to burn multiple
jurisdictions,[Footnote 2] and (3) contain federal expenditures of
preparing for and responding to wildland fires. To evaluate these
issues, we reviewed selected reports that we have issued since 2000, as
well as those by other federal agencies or outside organizations, that
assessed federal wildland fire management. We reviewed pertinent agency
plans, policies, procedures, reports, and financial documents, and we
interviewed federal and nonfederal officials to identify steps federal
agencies have taken to address these areas and the challenges
remaining. We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards from May 2006 through January 2007.
Summary:
In summary, federal wildland fire management agencies need to take a
number of actions to strengthen their overall management of the
wildland fire program, actions that could lead to more effective and
efficient use of scarce resources and help the agencies to better
contain costs. While we have made a number of recommendations over the
last 7 years to improve wildland fire management--and agencies have
largely concurred with these recommendations--the agencies have made
limited progress in implementing the needed changes. Further, our
preliminary work on federal agencies' efforts to contain wildland fire
preparedness and suppression costs has also identified other actions
that may be needed. Specifically, we believe that the agencies need to:
* Develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the options and
associated funding to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems.
In 1999, to address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to
increase the severity of wildland fires and cost of suppression
efforts, we recommended that a cohesive strategy be developed that
identified the available long-term options and associated funding for
reducing fuels. By 2005, the agencies had yet to develop such a
strategy, and we reiterated the need for a cohesive strategy and
broadened our recommendation's focus to better address the interrelated
nature of fuel reduction efforts and wildland fire response. We also
recommended that the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining the
steps and time frames needed for completing a cohesive strategy. Such a
strategy and plan would be helpful to the Congress and the agencies in
making informed decisions about effective and affordable long-term
approaches to addressing the nation's wildland fire problems. Although
the agencies concurred with our recommendations, as of January 2007,
neither a cohesive strategy nor a tactical plan had been developed.
* Clarify their guidance for sharing wildland fire suppression costs
with nonfederal entities. In 2006, to help address the rising costs of
responding to fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and
resources, we recommended that the federal agencies, working with
relevant state entities, clarify the financial responsibility for these
fires and provide more specific guidance as to when particular cost-
sharing methods should be used. The method used to share the costs of
suppressing a wildland fire among responsible entities can have
significant financial consequences for the entities involved--
potentially amounting to millions of dollars. The need for clarity
about how to share the rising costs of wildland fire protection is
becoming more acute as increasing numbers of homes are built in areas
at risk from wildland fires. As of January 2007, the agencies were
updating guidance on possible methods for sharing costs between federal
and nonfederal entities and the circumstances when each method
typically would be used. It is unclear, however, how the agencies will
ensure that such guidance is followed.
* Establish clear goals, strategies, and performance measures to help
contain wildland fire costs. Preliminary findings from our work under
way for this committee indicate that, although the agencies have taken
certain steps to help contain wildland fire costs, the effectiveness of
these steps may be limited because agencies have not established clear
cost-containment goals, strategies to achieve those goals, or effective
performance measures to track their progress.
Each of these efforts plays an important role in addressing the issue
of containing wildland fire costs, but none of them alone can solve the
problem. For cost-containment efforts to be effective, the agencies
need to integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the
wildland fire program--such as protecting life, resources, and
property--and to recognize that trade-offs will be needed to meet
desired goals within the context of fiscal constraints. Further,
because the agencies' efforts to reduce fuels and to prepare for and
suppress wildland fires are interrelated, the cohesive strategy we
previously recommended for responding to wildland fires is fundamental
if agencies are to contain costs.
Background:
Wildland fires ignited by lightning are both natural and inevitable and
play an important ecological role on the nation's landscape. In
addition to maintaining habitat diversity, releasing soil nutrients,
and causing the seeds of fire-dependent species to germinate, fire
periodically removes undergrowth, small trees, and vegetation that can
otherwise build up and intensify subsequent fires. However, various
human land use and management practices, including decades of
suppressing wildland fires, have altered the normal frequency of fires
in many forest and rangeland ecosystems, leading to
uncharacteristically dense vegetation and atypical fire patterns in
some places. At the same time, more homes and communities are being
built in areas where fires can occur, increasing risks to human life,
property, and infrastructure. Experts estimate that between 1990 and
2000, 60 percent of all new housing units in the United States were
built in the wildland-urban interface, and by 2000, about 38 percent of
housing units overall were located in the wildland-urban
interface.[Footnote 3] Recent media reports indicate that this trend of
growth in the wildland-urban interface continues. Finally, agency
analyses indicate that climate change and related drought may also be
responsible for significant increases in the occurrence of, and costs
of responding to, wildland fire.
Increases in the size and severity of wildland fires, and in the cost
of fighting them, have led federal agencies to fundamentally reexamine
their approach to wildland fire management. For decades, federal
agencies aggressively suppressed wildland fires and were generally
successful in decreasing the number of acres burned. In some areas of
the country, however, rather than eliminating severe wildland fires,
decades of suppression disrupted ecological cycles and began to change
the structure and makeup of forests and rangelands, increasing the
land's susceptibility to fire. Increasingly, the agencies have
recognized the key role that fire plays in many ecosystems and the
utility of fire itself as a tool in managing forests and watersheds.
The agencies worked together to develop the Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy in 1995, which for the first time formally recognized
the essential role that fire plays in maintaining natural systems. This
policy was subsequently reaffirmed and updated in 2001. In addition to
noting the negative effects of past wildland fire suppression, the
policy also recognized that continued development in the wildland-urban
interface has placed more values at risk from wildland fire while
increasing the complexity and cost of wildland fire suppression
operations.
To help address these trends, the policy directed agencies to consider
management objectives and the values at risk when determining how or
whether to suppress a wildland fire. Under this approach, termed
"appropriate management response," the agencies may fight fires that
threaten communities or other highly valued areas more aggressively
than they fight fires in remote areas or in areas where natural fuel
reduction would be beneficial. In some cases, the agencies may simply
monitor the fire, or take only limited suppression actions, to ensure
that it continues to pose little threat to valued resources. Under
current interagency policy, local federal units must develop land
management and fire management plans that document approved fire
management strategies for each acre of burnable land and other
important information about how the land will be managed, including
local values at risk, needed local fuel reduction, and rehabilitation
actions. Once a fire starts, land management and fire management
specialists are to identify and implement the appropriate management
response, in accordance with the unit's approved land and fire
management plans.
Responding to wildland fires--which can burn across federal and
nonfederal jurisdictions--often requires coordination and collaboration
among federal, tribal, state, and local firefighting entities to
effectively protect lives, homes, and resources. Five federal agencies--
the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service within the Department of the
Interior--fight wildland fires. These federal agencies work together
with nonfederal firefighting entities to share personnel, equipment,
and supplies and to fight fires, regardless of which entities have
jurisdiction over the burning lands. Agreements developed and agreed to
by cooperating entities, commonly referred to as master agreements,
govern cooperative fire protection efforts and include general
provisions for sharing firefighting costs among responsible entities.
Agencies Need a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Problems:
Agencies need a cohesive strategy that identifies the available long-
term options and associated funding for reducing excess vegetation and
responding to wildland fires if the agencies and the Congress are to
make informed decisions about an effective and affordable long-term
approach for addressing problems that have been decades in the making.
We first recommended that the agencies develop such a strategy for
addressing fuels in 1999. After we evaluated a number of related
wildland fire management issues, we reiterated our recommendation in
2005 and 2006 but also recognized that a comprehensive solution needs
to address not only reducing fuels but also an overall response to
wildland fire. To develop an effective overall strategy, agencies need
to complete several key tasks, which address weaknesses we previously
identified.
Our 2005 report summarized several weaknesses in the federal
government's management of fuel reduction and related wildland fire
programs and identified a number of actions to address these
weaknesses.[Footnote 4] Specifically, these weaknesses included the
following: the agencies lacked basic data, such as the extent and
location of lands needing fuel reduction; the agencies needed to
identify and prioritize fuel reduction projects; many federal land
management units did not have fire management plans that met agency
requirements designed to restore fire's natural role in ecosystems
consistent with human health and safety; and the agencies were unable
to assess the extent to which they were reducing wildland fire risks,
to establish meaningful fuel reduction performance measures, or to
determine the cost-effectiveness of these efforts because they lacked
needed data. We also identified a number of tasks the agencies needed
to complete to develop a cohesive strategy. These tasks included
finishing data systems that are needed to identify the extent,
severity, and location of wildland fire threats in our national forests
and rangelands; updating local fire management plans to better specify
the actions needed to effectively address these threats; and assessing
the cost-effectiveness and affordability of options for reducing fuels
and responding to wildland fire problems.
The agencies have made some progress on the three primary tasks we
identified as important to developing a wildland fire management
strategy, although concerns have been raised about when or whether the
agencies will successfully complete them. More specifically,
* LANDFIRE, a geospatial data and modeling system, is being designed to
assist the agencies in identifying the extent, severity, and location
of wildland fire threats to the nation's communities and ecosystems.
LANDFIRE data are nearly complete for most of the western United
States, with data for the remainder of the country scheduled to be
completed in 2009. The agencies will need to ensure, however, that
LANDFIRE data are kept current in order to reflect landscape-altering
events, such as large fires and hurricanes, and they do not yet have a
plan to do so.
* In 2006, we reported that 95 percent of the agencies' individual land
management units had completed fire management plans in accordance with
agency requirements promulgated in 2001. However, the agencies do not
require regular plan updates to ensure that new data (from LANDFIRE,
for example) are incorporated into the plans. Moreover, in the wake of
two court decisions--each holding that the Forest Service was required
to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)[Footnote
5] to accompany the relevant fire management plan--the Forest Service
decided to withdraw the two plans instead of completing them. It is
unclear whether the agency would withdraw other fire management plans
successfully challenged under NEPA; nor is it clear whether or to what
extent such agency decisions could undermine the interagency policy
directing that every burnable acre have a fire management plan. Without
such plans, however, current agency policy does not allow use of the
entire range of wildland fire response strategies, including less
aggressive, and potentially less costly, strategies.
* The Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system is a computer-based model
designed to assist the agencies in cost-effectively allocating the
resources necessary to address wildland fires. FPA is being designed in
two phases. Phase I was intended to provide information for use in
allocating resources for the initial responses to fires and in
developing estimates for agencies' fiscal year 2008 budgets. Phase II
was to be focused on additional activities, including fuel reduction
and large-fire suppression. A "midcourse review" of FPA, completed in
2006, however, has resulted in recent endorsement by the Wildland Fire
Leadership Council[Footnote 6] of what may be significant design
modifications to FPA--ones that may not fulfill key project goals of
(1) optimizing how resources are allocated, (2) linking fuel reduction
to future preparedness and suppression costs, (3) ensuring
comparability among different agencies' analyses and resulting
decisions, and (4) enabling aggregation of local costs to identify
national options and related budgets. Agencies plan to have a prototype
of phase II, reflecting this design modification, completed by June
2007. According to a program official, the prototype will enable
project managers to assess and report to the leadership council on the
planned scope, schedule, and cost of FPA, including whether or not they
will meet the scheduled completion date of June 2008. Further, gaps in
the data collected for FPA may also reduce its usefulness in allocating
resources.
Although the agencies had made progress on these three primary tasks at
the time of our 2006 update, they had not developed either a cohesive
strategy identifying options for reducing fuels or a joint tactical
plan outlining the critical steps, together with related time frames,
the agencies would take to complete a cohesive strategy, as we
recommended in our 2005 report. In February 2006, the agencies issued
an interagency document titled Protecting People and Natural Resources:
A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy, but we found that the document did
not identify long-term options or associated funding for reducing fuels
and responding to wildland fires. During our update, officials from the
Office of Management and Budget stated that it would not allow the
agencies to publish long-term funding estimates until the agencies had
sufficiently reliable data on which to base the estimates. The agencies
commented that having such data would not be possible until LANDFIRE
and FPA were more fully operational. We continue to believe that until
a cohesive strategy can be developed, it is essential that the agencies
create a tactical plan for developing this strategy, so the Congress
understands the steps and time frames involved in completing the
strategy.
Better Guidance Needed to Clarify Sharing of Suppression Costs between
Federal and Nonfederal Entities:
Federal agencies need to take steps to improve the framework for
sharing wildland fire suppression costs between federal and nonfederal
entities. Effective sharing of suppression costs among responsible
entities can play a role in helping to contain federal expenditures,
especially with the growing number of homes in areas at risk from
wildland fire that may require protection. We recommended in our 2006
report that federal agencies work with relevant state entities to
clarify the financial responsibilities for suppressing fires that burn,
or threaten to burn, across multiple jurisdictions and provide more
specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should be
used.[Footnote 7] As of January 2007, the agencies were updating
guidance on options for sharing costs and under what circumstances each
would typically be used, but it is unclear how the agencies will ensure
that such guidance is followed.
We found that federal and nonfederal entities used a variety of methods
to share the costs of fighting wildland fires affecting both federal
and nonfederal lands and resources. Agreements between federal and
nonfederal entities--known as master agreements--provide the framework
for those entities to share suppression costs for wildland fires that
burn or threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. These
agreements typically list several available cost-sharing methods. The
agreements we reviewed, however, often lacked clear guidance for
officials to use in deciding which method to apply for a specific fire.
Clear guidance is important because local representatives of federal
and nonfederal firefighting entities responsible for protecting lands
and resources affected by the fire use this guidance in deciding which
costs will be shared and for what period. We found, however, that cost-
sharing methods were applied inconsistently within and among states,
even for fires with similar characteristics. For example, in one state
we reviewed, the costs for suppressing a large fire that threatened
homes were shared solely according to the proportion of acres burned
within each entity's area of fire protection responsibility, a method
that has traditionally been used. Yet costs for a similar fire within
the same state were shared differently. For this fire, the state agreed
to pay for certain aircraft and fire engines used to protect the
wildland-urban interface, while the remaining costs were shared on the
basis of acres burned. In contrast to the two methods applied in this
state, officials in another state used yet a different cost-sharing
method for two similar large fires that threatened homes, apportioning
costs each day for personnel, aircraft, and equipment deployed on
particular lands, such as the wildland-urban interface. The type of
cost-sharing method ultimately used can have significant financial
consequences for the entities involved, potentially amounting to
millions of dollars. Moreover, as we reported, federal officials
expressed concern that the existing cost-sharing framework insulated
state and local governments from the cost of providing wildland fire
protection in the wildland-urban interface, thus reducing the incentive
for state and local governments to adopt laws--such as building codes
that require fire-resistant materials in areas at high risk of wildland
fires--that in the long run could help reduce the cost of suppressing
wildland fires.
We recommended in our 2006 report that the federal agencies work with
relevant state entities to clarify the financial responsibility for
fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple jurisdictions and
develop more specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing
methods should be used. The federal agencies generally agreed with our
findings and recommendations and agreed to improve the guidance on
sharing suppression costs. As of January 2007, the agencies were
updating guidance that can be used when developing master agreements
between cooperating federal and nonfederal entities, as well as
agreements on how to share costs for a specific fire. Agency officials
said that this guidance provides additional information about potential
methods for sharing costs and about the circumstances under which each
cost-sharing method would typically be used. It is unclear, however,
how the agencies will ensure that the guidance is followed. Further,
because master agreements are updated only every 5 years, it may take a
number of years before the new guidance is fully incorporated into
master agreements between cooperating entities.
Lack of Clear Goals and Cohesive Strategy Hinders Agencies' Efforts to
Contain Wildland Fire Costs:
Preliminary findings from our ongoing work for the committee show that,
despite dozens of federal and nonfederal studies issued since 2000 that
consistently identified similar areas needing improvement to help
contain wildland fire costs, the agencies have made little progress in
addressing these areas. Areas identified as needing improvement to help
contain costs--in addition to reducing fuels and cost sharing discussed
previously--include acquiring and using firefighting personnel and
equipment, selecting appropriate strategies for responding to wildland
fires, and effectively managing cost-containment efforts. Although the
agencies have begun taking steps to address some of the areas previous
studies have identified as needing improvement, much work remains to be
done. For example:
* Acquiring and using personnel and equipment. The agencies have taken
steps to improve their ability to track and deploy personnel and
equipment, but they have made little progress in completing the more
fundamental step of determining the quantity and type of firefighting
assets needed based on an analysis of values at risk and appropriate
suppression strategies. Further, although the Forest Service has
identified a series of improvements it plans to make in the acquisition
process, it has so far made little progress.
* Selecting appropriate suppression strategies. The agencies have also
begun to improve analytic tools that assist land and fire managers
identify the appropriate suppression strategy for a given fire, but
shortcomings remain. Federal policies encourage the use of less
intensive suppression strategies when possible, strategies that may
also be less costly. Land and fire managers, however, may be reluctant
to employ anything less than full suppression because of concerns that
a fire will escape control. Currently, much of the information managers
use to estimate potential fire size, risks, and costs are based on
their individual experiences, which can vary widely. Researchers are
developing a new suite of tools that will analyze fuel conditions and
predicted weather conditions to model expected fire growth and behavior
and provide better information for managers making fire response
decisions, but as of January 2007, these new tools were still being
developed and tested.
* Managing cost-containment efforts. The steps the agencies have taken
to date to contain wildland fire costs lack several key elements
fundamental to sound program management, such as clearly defining cost-
containment goals, developing a strategy for achieving those goals, and
measuring progress toward achieving them. First, the agencies have not
clearly articulated the goals of their cost-containment efforts. For
cost-containment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to
integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland
fire program--such as protecting life, property, and resources. For
example, the agencies have established the goal of suppressing wildland
fires at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety and
values being protected, but they have not defined criteria by which
these often-competing objectives are to be weighed. Second, although
the agencies are undertaking a variety of steps designed to help
contain wildland fire costs, the agencies have not developed, and
agency officials to this point have been unable to articulate, a clear
plan for how these efforts fit together or the extent to which they
will assist in containing costs. Finally, the agencies are developing a
statistical model of fire suppression costs that they plan to use to
identify when the cost for an individual fire may have been excessive.
The model compares a fire's cost to the costs of suppressing previous
fires with similar characteristics. However, such comparisons with
previous fires' costs may not fully consider the potential for managers
to select less aggressive--and potentially less costly--suppression
strategies. In addition, the model is still under development and may
take a number of years to fully refine. Without clear program goals and
objectives, and corresponding performance measures to evaluate
progress, the agencies lack the tools to be able to determine the
effectiveness of their cost-containment efforts.
Conclusions:
The federal government is expending substantial effort and billions of
dollars in attempting to address our nation's wildland fire problems.
Yet despite promises to do so, the agencies still cannot articulate how
the steps they are taking fit together to form a comprehensive and
cohesive strategy to contain costs or to address the many wildland fire
management problems we and others have reported over the last 7 years.
Given the interrelated nature of wildland fire issues, they cannot be
addressed in isolation but must be viewed from and addressed within a
broader perspective. Agencies need to understand how each issue affects
the others and determine the trade-offs required to effectively meet
program goals while containing program costs. Therefore, if the
agencies and the Congress are to make informed decisions about an
effective and affordable long-term approach to responding to these
issues, agencies need to first develop clearly defined program goals
and objectives and a strategy to achieve them, including identifying
associated funding. Because it will likely be at least 2009 before the
agencies develop a strategy for fuel reduction efforts that would meet
standards required by the Office of Management and Budget, we continue
to believe that in the interim, it is essential that the agencies
create a tactical plan for developing this strategy, so that the
Congress understands the steps and time frames involved with its
completion. In doing so, the agencies need to make very clear how the
final design of FPA will meet the key program goals enumerated here,
how and when the agencies will complete all fire management plans, and
what schedule they envision for periodically updating LANDFIRE data. At
the same time, to help address the rising cost of protecting the
growing number of homes built in the wildland urban interface--a cost
that may be disproportionately borne by the federal government--federal
agencies also need to work with relevant state entities to ensure that
appropriate methods are used for sharing the costs of suppressing fires
that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple jurisdictions.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may
have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Ellen W.
Chu; Jonathan Dent; Janet Frisch; Chester Joy; and Richard Johnson made
key contributions to this statement.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to
Develop a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats, GAO-06-
671R (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2006); Wildland Fire Management:
Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a
Cohesive Strategy, GAO-05-147 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005).
[2] GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises
Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities,
GAO-06-570 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006).
[3] The wildland-urban interface is defined as the area where
structures and other human developments meet or intermingle with
undeveloped wildland.
[4] GAO-05-147.
[5] For major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of
the human environment, the National Environmental Policy Act requires
all federal agencies to analyze the environmental impact of the
proposed action. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
[6] The Wildland Fire Leadership Council was established in April 2002
to support the implementation and coordination of federal wildland fire
management activities. The council includes membership from Agriculture
and Interior, as well as the agencies with wildland fire management
responsibilities.
[7] GAO-06-570.
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 (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 www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
