Wildland Fire
Management Improvements Could Enhance Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires Gao ID: GAO-07-922T June 26, 2007Annual appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires have increased substantially over the past decade, in recent years totaling about $3 billion. The Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior (Interior) are responsible for responding to wildland fires on federal lands. GAO determined what steps federal agencies have taken to (1) address key operational areas that could help contain the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires and (2) improve their management of their cost-containment efforts. This testimony is based on GAO's June 2007 report, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires (GAO-07-655).
The Forest Service and Interior agencies have initiated a number of steps to address key operational areas previously identified as needing improvement to help federal agencies contain wildland fire costs, but the effects on containing costs are unknown, in part because many of these steps are not yet complete. First, federal firefighting agencies are developing a system to help them better identify and set priorities for lands needing treatment to reduce fuels, but they have yet to decide how they will keep data in the system current. Second, federal agencies have taken some steps to improve how they acquire and use personnel, equipment, and other firefighting assets--such as implementing a computerized system to more efficiently dispatch and track available firefighting assets--but have not yet completed the more fundamental step of determining the appropriate type and quantity of firefighting assets needed for the fire season. Third, the agencies have clarified certain policies and are improving analytical tools that assist officials in identifying and implementing an appropriate response to a given fire, but several other policies limit the agencies' use of less aggressive firefighting strategies, which typically cost less. Fourth, federal agencies, working with nonfederal entities, have recently taken steps to clarify guidance to better ensure that firefighting costs are shared consistently for fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources, but it is unclear how the agencies will ensure that this guidance is followed. The agencies have also taken steps to address previously identified weaknesses in their management of cost-containment efforts, but they have neither clearly defined their cost-containment goals and objectives nor developed a strategy for achieving them--steps that are fundamental to sound program management. Although the agencies have established a broad goal of suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost--considering firefighter and public safety and resources and structures to be protected--they have no defined criteria by which to weigh the relative importance of these often-competing priorities. As a result, according to agency officials and reports, officials in the field lack a clear understanding of the relative importance the agencies' leadership places on containing costs and, therefore, are likely to select firefighting strategies without due consideration of the costs of suppression. The agencies have also yet to develop a vision of how the various cost-containment steps they are taking relate to one another or to determine the extent to which these steps will be effective. The agencies are working to develop a better cost-containment performance measure, but the measure may take a number of years to fully refine. Finally, the agencies have taken, or are beginning to take, steps to improve their oversight and increase accountability--such as requiring agency officials to evaluate firefighting teams according to how well they contained costs--although the extent to which these steps will assist the agencies in containing costs is unknown.
GAO-07-922T, Wildland Fire: Management Improvements Could Enhance Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-922T
entitled 'Wildland Fire: Management Improvements Could Enhance Federal
Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires' which was
released on June 27, 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. EDT:
Tuesday, June 26, 2007:
Wildland Fire:
Management Improvements Could Enhance Federal Agencies' Efforts to
Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-07-922T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-922T, a testimony before the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Annual appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires have
increased substantially over the past decade, in recent years totaling
about $3 billion. The Forest Service within the Department of
Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior
(Interior) are responsible for responding to wildland fires on federal
lands. GAO determined what steps federal agencies have taken to (1)
address key operational areas that could help contain the costs of
preparing for and responding to wildland fires and (2) improve their
management of their cost-containment efforts. This testimony is based
on GAO‘s June 2007 report, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear
Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies‘ Efforts to Contain the
Costs of Fighting Fires (GAO-07-655).
What GAO Found:
The Forest Service and Interior agencies have initiated a number of
steps to address key operational areas previously identified as needing
improvement to help federal agencies contain wildland fire costs, but
the effects on containing costs are unknown, in part because many of
these steps are not yet complete. First, federal firefighting agencies
are developing a system to help them better identify and set priorities
for lands needing treatment to reduce fuels, but they have yet to
decide how they will keep data in the system current. Second, federal
agencies have taken some steps to improve how they acquire and use
personnel, equipment, and other firefighting assets”such as
implementing a computerized system to more efficiently dispatch and
track available firefighting assets”but have not yet completed the more
fundamental step of determining the appropriate type and quantity of
firefighting assets needed for the fire season. Third, the agencies
have clarified certain policies and are improving analytical tools that
assist officials in identifying and implementing an appropriate
response to a given fire, but several other policies limit the
agencies‘ use of less aggressive firefighting strategies, which
typically cost less. Fourth, federal agencies, working with nonfederal
entities, have recently taken steps to clarify guidance to better
ensure that firefighting costs are shared consistently for fires that
threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources, but it is
unclear how the agencies will ensure that this guidance is followed.
The agencies have also taken steps to address previously identified
weaknesses in their management of cost-containment efforts, but they
have neither clearly defined their cost-containment goals and
objectives nor developed a strategy for achieving them”steps that are
fundamental to sound program management. Although the agencies have
established a broad goal of suppressing wildland fires at minimum
cost”considering firefighter and public safety and resources and
structures to be protected”they have no defined criteria by which to
weigh the relative importance of these often-competing priorities. As a
result, according to agency officials and reports, officials in the
field lack a clear understanding of the relative importance the
agencies‘ leadership places on containing costs and, therefore, are
likely to select firefighting strategies without due consideration of
the costs of suppression. The agencies have also yet to develop a
vision of how the various cost-containment steps they are taking relate
to one another or to determine the extent to which these steps will be
effective. The agencies are working to develop a better cost-
containment performance measure, but the measure may take a number of
years to fully refine. Finally, the agencies have taken, or are
beginning to take, steps to improve their oversight and increase
accountability”such as requiring agency officials to evaluate
firefighting teams according to how well they contained costs”although
the extent to which these steps will assist the agencies in containing
costs is unknown.
What GAO Recommends:
In its report, GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior take several steps to improve their management of cost-
containment efforts in preparation for the 2008 fire season. The Forest
Service and Interior generally disagreed with the report‘s findings,
stating that GAO did not accurately portray some of the agencies‘
actions to contain wildland fire costs; they neither agreed nor
disagreed with the report‘s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-922T].
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 federal firefighting agencies'
efforts to contain the costs of preparing for and responding to
wildland fires--costs that have increased substantially over the past
decade. Wildland fire appropriations to prepare for and respond to
wildland fires, including appropriations for reducing fuels, have
increased from an average of $1.1 billion annually from fiscal years
1996 through 2000 to an average of more than $2.9 billion annually from
fiscal years 2001 through 2005; adjusted for inflation, these
appropriations increased from $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion.[Footnote 1]
Accumulations of fuels, due in part to past suppression policies;
severe drought and weather in some areas of the country; and continued
development in or near wildlands--an area commonly known as the
wildland-urban interface--have contributed to increased costs. Five
federal land management agencies--the Forest Service within the
Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) and the Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, and Fish
and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior (Interior)-
-are responsible for managing wildland fires on federal lands.
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, federal agency
officials, and others have expressed concerns about the mounting
federal wildland fire expenditures. These concerns have led federal
agencies (including the Forest Service, Interior, the Agriculture
Office of Inspector General, and GAO) and others to conduct numerous
reviews of the federal wildland fire program.
My testimony is based on our report, released today, that discusses
steps the Forest Service and Interior agencies have taken to (1)
address key operational areas that could help contain the costs of
preparing for and responding to wildland fires and (2) improve their
management of their cost-containment efforts.[Footnote 2] I presented
the preliminary results of our work before this Committee in January
2007.[Footnote 3]
Summary:
In summary, the Forest Service and Interior agencies have initiated a
number of steps to address key operational areas that past studies
identified as needing improvement to help federal agencies contain
wildland fire costs, but the effects on containing costs are unknown,
in part because many of these steps are not yet complete. For example,
* Federal firefighting agencies are developing a system to help them
better identify and set priorities for lands needing treatment to
reduce fuels. The agencies are developing, but have not yet finalized,
a plan for keeping data in the system current.
* Federal agencies have also taken some steps to improve how they
acquire and use personnel, equipment, and other firefighting assets,
such as implementing a computerized system to more efficiently dispatch
and track available firefighting assets. The agencies, however, have
not completed the more fundamental step of determining the appropriate
type and quantity of firefighting assets needed for the fire season.
Over the past several years, the agencies have been developing a system
for doing so, although we have concerns that recent modifications to
the system may not allow the agencies to fully meet certain key goals.
* The agencies have clarified certain policies and are improving
analytical tools that assist officials in identifying and implementing
an appropriate response to a given fire. Other policies, however, limit
the agencies' use of less aggressive firefighting strategies, which
typically cost less.
* Federal agencies, working with nonfederal entities, have recently
taken steps to clarify guidance to better ensure that firefighting
costs are shared consistently for fires that threaten both federal and
nonfederal lands and resources, although it is unclear how the agencies
will provide oversight to ensure that this guidance is followed in the
field.
Despite steps taken to strengthen the management of their cost-
containment efforts, the agencies have neither clearly defined their
cost-containment goals and objectives nor developed a strategy for
achieving them--steps that are fundamental to sound program management.
Although the agencies have established a broad goal of suppressing
wildland fires at minimum cost--considering firefighter and public
safety, and resources and structures to be protected--they have no
defined criteria by which to weigh the relative importance of these
often-competing priorities. As a result, according to agency officials
and reports, officials in the field lack a clear understanding of the
relative importance the agencies' leadership places on containing costs
and, therefore, are likely to select firefighting strategies without
due consideration of the costs of suppression. The agencies have also
yet to develop a vision of how the various cost-containment steps they
are taking relate to one another or to determine the extent to which
these steps will be effective. The agencies are working to develop a
better cost-containment performance measure, but the measure may take a
number of years to fully refine. Finally, the agencies have taken, or
are beginning to take, steps to improve their oversight and increase
accountability--such as requiring agency officials to evaluate
firefighting teams on how well they contain costs--although the extent
to which these steps will assist the agencies in containing costs is
unknown.
We recommended in our report that the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior take several steps to improve their management of their
cost-containment efforts. The Forest Service and Interior generally
disagreed with our findings, stating that we had not accurately
portrayed some of the agencies' actions to contain costs; they neither
agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. We continue to believe
that our recommendations, if effectively implemented, would help the
agencies better manage their cost-containment efforts and improve their
ability to contain wildland fire costs.
Background:
Over the past decade, the number of acres burned annually by wildland
fires in the United States has substantially increased. Federal
appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including
appropriations for fuel treatments, have almost tripled. Increases in
the size and severity of wildland fires, and in the cost of preparing
for and responding to 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
parts of the country, however, rather than eliminating severe wildland
fires, decades of suppression contributed to the disruption of
ecological cycles and began to change the structure and composition of
forests and rangelands, thereby making lands more susceptible to fire.
Increasingly, the agencies have recognized the role that fire plays in
many ecosystems and the role that it could play in the agencies'
management of forests and watersheds. The agencies worked together to
develop a federal wildland fire management policy in 1995, which for
the first time formally recognized the essential role of fire in
sustaining natural systems; this policy was subsequently reaffirmed and
updated in 2001. The agencies, in conjunction with Congress, also began
developing the National Fire Plan in 2000.[Footnote 4] To align their
policies and to ensure a consistent and coordinated effort to implement
the federal wildland fire policy and National Fire Plan, Agriculture
and Interior established the Wildland Fire Leadership Council in
2002.[Footnote 5] In addition to noting the negative effects of past
successes in suppressing wildland fires, the policy and plan also
recognized that continued development in the wildland-urban interface
has placed more structures at risk from wildland fire at the same time
that it has increased the complexity and cost of wildland fire
suppression. Forest Service and university researchers estimated in
2005 that about 44 million homes in the lower 48 states are located in
the wildland-urban interface.
To help address these trends, current federal policy directs agencies
to consider land management objectives--identified in land and fire
management plans developed by each local unit, such as a national
forest or a Bureau of Land Management district--and the structures and
resources at risk when determining whether or how to suppress a
wildland fire. When a fire starts, the land manager at the affected
local unit is responsible for determining the strategy that will be
used to respond to the fire. A wide spectrum of strategies is available
to choose from, some of which can be significantly more costly than
others. For example, the agencies may fight fires ignited close to
communities or other high-value areas more aggressively than fires on
remote lands or at sites where fire may provide ecological or fuel-
reduction benefits. In some cases, the agencies may simply monitor a
fire, or take only limited suppression actions, to ensure that the fire
continues to pose little threat to important resources, a practice
known as "wildland fire use."
Federal Agencies Are Taking Some Steps to Contain Wildland Fire Costs,
but Results Are Unknown:
The Forest Service and Interior agencies have initiated a number of
steps to address issues that we and others have identified as needing
improvement to help federal agencies contain wildland fire costs, but
the effects of these steps on containing costs are unknown, in part
because many of the steps are not yet complete. Dozens of studies by
federal agencies and other organizations examining federal agencies'
management of wildland fire have repeatedly identified a number of
similar issues needing improvement to help contain wildland fire costs.
These issues generally fall into one of three operational areas--
reducing accumulated fuels, acquiring and using firefighting assets,
and selecting firefighting strategies. Recent studies have also raised
concerns about the framework used to share the cost of fighting fires
between federal and nonfederal entities.
First, federal firefighting agencies have made progress in developing a
system to help them better identify and set priorities for lands
needing treatment to reduce accumulated fuels. Many past studies have
identified fuel reduction as important for containing wildland fire
costs because accumulated fuels can contribute to more-severe and more
costly fires. The agencies are developing a geospatial data and
modeling system, called LANDFIRE, intended to produce consistent and
comprehensive maps and data describing vegetation, wildland fuels, and
fire regimes across the United States.[Footnote 6] The agencies will be
able to use this information to help identify fuel accumulations and
fire hazards across the nation, help set nationwide priorities for fuel-
reduction projects, and assist in determining an appropriate response
when wildland fires do occur. According to Forest Service and Interior
officials, the agencies completed mapping the western United States in
April 2007; mapping of the eastern states is scheduled to be completed
by 2008 and of Alaska and Hawaii by 2009. The agencies, however, have
not yet finalized their plan for ensuring that collected data are
routinely updated to reflect changes to fuels, including those from
landscape-altering events, such as hurricanes, disease, or wildland
fires themselves. Forest Service and Interior officials told us that
they recognize the importance of ensuring that data are periodically
updated and are developing a plan to operate and maintain the system,
including determining how often data will be updated. The agencies
expect to submit this plan to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council for
approval in June 2007.
Second, the agencies have also taken some steps to improve how they
acquire and use firefighting personnel, aviation resources, and
equipment--assets that constitute a major cost of responding to
wildland fires--but much remains to be done. The agencies have improved
their systems for dispatching and monitoring firefighting assets and
for gathering and analyzing cost data. However, they have yet to
complete the more fundamental step of determining the appropriate type
and quantity of firefighting assets needed for the fire season. Over
the past several years, the agencies have been developing a Fire
Program Analysis (FPA) system, which was proposed and funded to help
the agencies:
* determine national budget needs by analyzing budget alternatives at
the local level--using a common, interagency process for fire
management planning and budgeting--and aggregating the results;
* determine the relative costs and benefits for the full scope of fire
management activities, including potential trade-offs among investments
in fuel reduction, fire preparedness, and fire suppression activities;
and:
* identify, for a given budget level, the most cost-effective mix of
personnel and equipment to carry out these activities.
We have said for several years--and the agencies have concurred--that
FPA is critical to helping the agencies contain wildland fire costs and
plan and budget effectively. Recent design modifications to the system,
however, raise questions about the agencies' ability to fully achieve
these key goals. A midcourse review of the developing system resulted
in the Wildland Fire Leadership Council's approving in December 2006
modifications to the system's design. FPA and senior Forest Service and
Interior officials told us in April 2007 they believed the
modifications will allow the agencies to meet the key goals. The
officials said they expected to have a prototype developed for the
council's review in June 2007 and to substantially complete the system
by June 2008. We have yet to systematically review the modifications,
but after reviewing agency reports on the modifications and
interviewing knowledgeable officials, we have concerns that the
modifications may not allow the agencies to meet FPA's key goals. For
example, under the redesigned system, local land managers will use a
different method to analyze and select various budget alternatives, and
it is unclear whether this method will identify the most cost-effective
allocation of resources. In addition, it is unclear how the budget
alternatives for local units will be meaningfully aggregated on a
nationwide basis, a key FPA goal.
Third, the agencies have clarified certain policies and are improving
analytical tools to assist agency officials in identifying and
implementing an appropriate response to a given fire. Officials have a
wide spectrum of strategies available to them when responding to
wildland fires, some of which can be significantly more costly than
others. For individual fires, past studies have found that officials
may not always consider the full range of available strategies and may
not select the most appropriate one, which would consider the cost of
suppression; value of structures and other resources threatened by the
fire; and, where appropriate, any benefits the fire may provide to
natural resources. The agencies call a strategy that considers these
factors the "appropriate management response." The agencies updated
their policies in 2004 to require officials to consider the full
spectrum of available strategies when selecting one to use.
Nevertheless, other policies limit the agencies' use of less aggressive
strategies, which typically cost less. The Forest Service and Interior
agencies are working together to revise these policies--revisions that
could, for example, allow different areas of the same fire to be
managed for suppression and wildland fire use concurrently or allow a
fire that was previously being suppressed to be managed instead for
wildland fire use. The agencies are also continuing to refine existing
tools, and to develop new ones, for analyzing both fuel and predicted
weather conditions to model expected fire behavior, information that
officials can use to identify appropriate suppression strategies; these
tools are still being designed and tested. It is still too early to
tell, however, to what extent the policy changes being considered or
the new tools being developed will help to contain costs.
Finally, we and others have also reported that the existing framework
for sharing firefighting costs between federal and nonfederal entities
insulates state and local governments from the cost of protecting homes
and communities in or near wildlands, which may reduce those
governments' incentive to adopt building codes and land use
requirements that could help reduce the cost of suppressing wildland
fires.[Footnote 7] Federal agencies, working with nonfederal entities,
have recently taken steps to clarify guidance and better ensure that
firefighting costs are shared consistently for fires that threaten both
federal and nonfederal lands and resources. In early 2007, the Forest
Service and Interior agencies approved an updated template that land
managers can use when developing master agreements--which establish the
framework for sharing costs between federal and nonfederal entities--as
well as agreements on how to share costs for a specific fire. Because
master agreements are normally updated every 5 years, however, it may
take several years to fully incorporate this new guidance. Although the
new guidance states that managers must document their rationale for
selecting a particular cost-sharing method, officials told us that the
agencies have no clear plan for how they will provide oversight to
ensure that appropriate cost-sharing methods are used.
Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies' Management
of Wildland Fire Cost-Containment Efforts:
Despite steps taken to strengthen their management of cost-containment
efforts, the agencies have neither clearly defined their cost-
containment goals and objectives nor developed a strategy for achieving
them--steps that are fundamental to sound program management. To manage
their cost-containment efforts effectively, the Forest Service and
Interior agencies should, at a minimum, have (1) clearly defined goals
and measurable objectives, (2) a strategy to achieve the goals and
objectives, (3) performance measures to track their progress, and (4) a
framework for holding appropriate agency officials accountable for
achieving the goals.[Footnote 8]
First, although the agencies have established a broad goal of
suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost considering firefighter and
public safety and the resources and structures to be protected, they
have established neither clear criteria by which to weigh the relative
importance of these often-competing priorities nor measurable
objectives by which to determine if they are meeting their goal.
Without such criteria and objectives, according to agency officials we
interviewed and reports we reviewed, officials in the field lack a
clear understanding of the relative importance that the agencies'
leadership places on containing costs and, therefore, are likely to
select firefighting strategies without due consideration of costs.
Second, the agencies have yet to establish an overall cost-containment
strategy. Without a strategy designed to achieve clear cost-containment
goals, the agencies (1) have no assurance that the variety of steps
they are taking to help contain wildland fire costs are prioritized so
that the most important steps are undertaken first and (2) are unable
to determine to what extent these steps will help contain costs and if
a different approach may therefore be needed.
Third, the agencies recently adopted a new performance measure--known
as the stratified cost index--that may improve the agencies' ability to
evaluate their progress in containing costs, but the measure may take a
number of years to fully refine. Also, although the agencies have in
recent years improved their data on suppression costs and fire
characteristics, additional improvement is needed. In particular, cost
data for "fire complexes"--that is, two or more fires burning in
proximity that are managed as a single incident--are particularly
difficult to identify. Thus, the costs of many of the largest fires are
not included in the index, limiting its effectiveness. Further, to
date, the index is based solely on fires managed by the Forest Service.
Forest Service researchers are currently developing, at Interior's
request, a similar index for fires managed by the Interior agencies,
but it will be several years, at the earliest, before enough data have
been collected for the index to be useful. In addition, because the
stratified cost index is based on costs from previous fires--and
because the agencies have only recently begun to emphasize the
importance of using less aggressive suppression strategies--we are
concerned that the index does not include data from many fires where
less costly firefighting strategies were used. As a result, the index
may not accurately identify fires where more, or more-expensive,
resources were used than needed. According to Forest Service officials,
data from recent fires will be added annually; over time, the index
should therefore include more fires where less aggressive firefighting
strategies were used.
Finally, the agencies have also taken, or are beginning to take, steps
to improve their oversight and accountability framework, although the
extent to which these steps will assist the agencies in containing
costs is unknown. For example, the agencies have issued guidance
clarifying that land managers, not fire managers, have primary
responsibility for containing wildland fire costs, but they have not
yet determined how the land managers are to be held accountable for
doing so. Rather, the agencies have taken several incremental steps
intended to assist land managers in carrying out this responsibility--
such as assigning "incident business advisors" to observe firefighting
operations and work with fire managers to identify ways those
operations could be more cost-effective, and requiring land managers to
evaluate fire managers for how well they achieve cost-containment
goals. The utility of these steps, however, may be limited because the
agencies have yet to establish a clear measure to evaluate the benefits
and costs of alternative firefighting strategies. Some past studies
have concluded that the absence of such a measure fundamentally weakens
the agencies' ability to provide effective oversight.
Conclusions:
Continuing concerns about the cost of preparing for and responding to
wildland fires have spurred numerous studies and actions by federal
wildland fire agencies, but little in the way of a coordinated and
focused effort to rein in these costs. Although the agencies have
taken--and continue to take--steps intended to contain wildland fire
costs, the effect of these steps on containing costs is unknown, in
part because the agencies lack a clear vision for what they want to
achieve. Without clearly defined cost-containment goals and objectives,
federal land and fire managers in the field are more likely to select
strategies and tactics that favor suppressing fires quickly over those
that seek to balance the benefits of protecting the resources at risk
and the costs of protecting them. Further, without clear goals, the
agencies will be unable to develop consistent standards by which to
measure their performance. Perhaps most important, without a clear
vision of what they are trying to achieve and a systematic approach for
achieving it, the agencies--and Congress and the American people--have
little assurance that cost-containment efforts will lead to substantial
improvement.
Thus, to help the agencies manage their ongoing efforts to contain
wildland fire costs effectively and efficiently, and to assist Congress
in its oversight role, we recommended in our report that the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior work together to direct
their respective agencies to (1) establish clearly defined goals and
measurable objectives for containing wildland fire costs, (2) develop a
strategy to achieve these goals and objectives, (3) establish
performance measures that are aligned with these goals and objectives,
and (4) establish a framework to ensure that officials are held
accountable for achieving the goals and objectives. Because of the
importance of these actions and continuing concerns about the agencies'
response to the increasing cost of wildland fires--and so that the
agencies can use the results of these actions to prepare for the 2008
fire season--the agencies should provide Congress with this information
no later than November 2007.
In commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service and Interior
generally disagreed with the characterization of many of our findings;
they neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. In
particular, the Forest Service and Interior stated that they did not
believe we had accurately portrayed some of the significant actions
they had taken to contain wildland fire costs, and they identified
several agency documents that they believe provide clearly defined
goals and objectives that make up their strategy to contain costs.
Although documents cited by the agencies provide overarching goals and
objectives, we believe that they lack the clarity and specificity
needed by their land management and firefighting officials in the field
to help manage and contain wildland fire costs. Therefore, we believe
that our recommendations, if effectively implemented, would help the
agencies better manage their cost-containment efforts and improve their
ability to contain wildland fire costs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be please
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] Federal expenditures are a more direct measure of the federal
government's investment in wildland fire activities, but the Forest
Service and Interior agencies were unable to provide us with consistent
data on these expenditures for the years we reviewed. As a result, we
are instead reporting appropriations data. We adjusted the
appropriations dollars for inflation, using the chain-weighted gross
domestic product price index with fiscal year 2005 as the base year.
[2] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals and a Strategy
Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting
Fires, GAO-07-655 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2007).
[3] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders
Agencies' Cost-Containment Efforts, GAO-07-427T (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
30, 2007).
[4] The National Fire Plan is a joint interagency effort to respond to
wildland fires. Its core comprises several strategic documents,
including (1) a September 2000 report from the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior to the President in response to the
wildland fires of 2000, (2) congressional direction accompanying
substantial new appropriations in fiscal year 2001, and (3) several
approved and draft strategies to implement all or parts of the plan.
[5] The Wildland Fire Leadership Council is composed of senior
Agriculture and Interior officials, including the Agriculture
Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment; the Interior
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget; the Interior
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Business Management and Wildland Fire;
and the heads of the five federal firefighting agencies. Other members
include representatives of the Intertribal Timber Council, the National
Association of State Foresters, and the Western Governors' Association.
[6] A fire regime generally classifies the role that wildland fire
plays in a particular ecosystem on the basis of certain
characteristics, such as the average number of years between fires and
the typical severity of fire under historic conditions.
[7] 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).
[8] Principles of sound program management for federal agencies are
established in, among other sources, the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 and GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November
1999).
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:
