Wildland Fire Management
Actions by Federal Agencies and Congress Could Mitigate Rising Fire Costs and Their Effects on Other Agency Programs Gao ID: GAO-09-444T April 1, 2009Our nation's wildland fire problems have worsened in the past decade. The Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the Interior (Interior) are responsible for managing fires on federal lands. Federal appropriations to these agencies for wildland fire management have more than doubled since the late 1990s, averaging $2.9 billion annually in recent years. Rising wildland fire costs have challenged the agencies to meet their land management responsibilities. This testimony, based on previous GAO reports, discusses (1) the budgetary and programmatic effects of the increasing cost of fire management activities and (2) steps the agencies could take to help contain wildland fire expenditures and steps they could take, and Congress could consider, to reduce the need to transfer funds from other programs.
The sharply rising costs of managing wildland fires have led the Forest Service and Interior agencies to transfer funds from other programs to help pay for fire suppression and, according to agency officials and others, may also be reducing the total funds available to agency programs unrelated to fire. GAO reported in 2004 that from fiscal years 1999 through 2003, the Forest Service and Interior transferred over $2.7 billion from nonfire programs to help fund fire suppression. Although agencies received additional appropriations to cover about 80 percent of the transferred funds, GAO found that the transfers led to canceled and delayed projects and strained relationships with nonfederal partners. Moreover, some of the canceled or delayed projects, such as constructing new facilities, were intended to improve the agencies' capabilities to fight fires. Since 2004, funding transfers have continued, with the agencies' transferring funds in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Furthermore, federal and state officials have expressed concern that rising fire management costs are reducing the total funds available to the agencies' nonfire programs. As GAO has reported, there are several steps the agencies could take, and actions Congress could consider, that could mitigate the rising costs of wildland fire management and its effect on the agencies' other programs. ? Although the agencies have, among other actions, improved decision-support tools for helping officials select appropriate strategies for fighting individual wildland fires, the agencies continue to lack both an agencywide strategy for containing fire suppression costs and a broader long-term wildland fire management strategy that identifies options, along with associated funding, for reducing excess vegetation and responding to fires--what GAO has termed a cohesive strategy. ? The agencies could develop a better method of estimating the suppression funds requested, as GAO recommended in 2004. Better estimates in a given year could reduce the likelihood that the agencies would need to transfer funds from other accounts, yet the agencies continue to use an estimation method with known problems. The Forest Service told GAO it analyzed alternative methods for estimating needed suppression funds but determined that no better method was available. Because the agencies had to transfer funds in each of the last 3 years, however, a more accurate method for estimating suppression costs may still be needed. ? In addition, Congress may wish to consider establishing a reserve account to fund emergency wildland firefighting, which could reduce the need for the agencies to transfer funds. The advantages and disadvantages of several alternative funding approaches were discussed in GAO's 2004 report. Congress considered at least two bills in 2008 proposing establishment of a reserve account, but neither bill passed. One of those bills was reintroduced in March 2009.
GAO-09-444T, Wildland Fire Management: Actions by Federal Agencies and Congress Could Mitigate Rising Fire Costs and Their Effects on Other Agency Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-444T
entitled 'Wildland Fire Management: Actions by Federal Agencies and
Congress Could Mitigate Rising Fire Costs and Their Effects on Other
Agency Programs' which was released on April 1, 2009.
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 Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, April 1, 2009:
Wildland Fire Management:
Actions by Federal Agencies and Congress Could Mitigate Rising Fire
Costs and Their Effects on Other Agency Programs:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-09-444T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-444T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Our nation‘s wildland fire problems have worsened in the past decade.
The Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and four
agencies within the Department of the Interior (Interior) are
responsible for managing fires on federal lands. Federal appropriations
to these agencies for wildland fire management have more than doubled
since the late 1990s, averaging $2.9 billion annually in recent years.
Rising wildland fire costs have challenged the agencies to meet their
land management responsibilities. This testimony, based on previous GAO
reports, discusses (1) the budgetary and programmatic effects of the
increasing cost of fire management activities and (2) steps the
agencies could take to help contain wildland fire expenditures and
steps they could take, and Congress could consider, to reduce the need
to transfer funds from other programs.
What GAO Found:
The sharply rising costs of managing wildland fires have led the Forest
Service and Interior agencies to transfer funds from other programs to
help pay for fire suppression and, according to agency officials and
others, may also be reducing the total funds available to agency
programs unrelated to fire. GAO reported in 2004 that from fiscal years
1999 through 2003, the Forest Service and Interior transferred over
$2.7 billion from nonfire programs to help fund fire suppression.
Although agencies received additional appropriations to cover about 80
percent of the transferred funds, GAO found that the transfers led to
canceled and delayed projects and strained relationships with
nonfederal partners. Moreover, some of the canceled or delayed
projects, such as constructing new facilities, were intended to improve
the agencies‘ capabilities to fight fires. Since 2004, funding
transfers have continued, with the agencies‘ transferring funds in
fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Furthermore, federal and state
officials have expressed concern that rising fire management costs are
reducing the total funds available to the agencies‘ nonfire programs.
As GAO has reported, there are several steps the agencies could take,
and actions Congress could consider, that could mitigate the rising
costs of wildland fire management and its effect on the agencies‘ other
programs.
* Although the agencies have, among other actions, improved decision-
support tools for helping officials select appropriate strategies for
fighting individual wildland fires, the agencies continue to lack both
an agencywide strategy for containing fire suppression costs and a
broader long-term wildland fire management strategy that identifies
options, along with associated funding, for reducing excess vegetation
and responding to fires”what GAO has termed a cohesive strategy.
* The agencies could develop a better method of estimating the
suppression funds requested, as GAO recommended in 2004. Better
estimates in a given year could reduce the likelihood that the agencies
would need to transfer funds from other accounts, yet the agencies
continue to use an estimation method with known problems. The Forest
Service told GAO it analyzed alternative methods for estimating needed
suppression funds but determined that no better method was available.
Because the agencies had to transfer funds in each of the last 3 years,
however, a more accurate method for estimating suppression costs may
still be needed.
* In addition, Congress may wish to consider establishing a reserve
account to fund emergency wildland firefighting, which could reduce the
need for the agencies to transfer funds. The advantages and
disadvantages of several alternative funding approaches were discussed
in GAO‘s 2004 report. Congress considered at least two bills in 2008
proposing establishment of a reserve account, but neither bill passed.
One of those bills was reintroduced in March 2009.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO previously recommended that the Forest Service and Interior take
several steps to help contain the rising costs of managing wildland
fires and address the problems associated with transferring funds to
fight fires. Although the agencies have made some progress, they have
been slow to implement several key recommendations. GAO also previously
identified alternative funding approaches Congress could consider,
which could reduce the need to transfer funds from nonfire accounts.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-444T] or key
components. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-
3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the funding of wildland fire
suppression activities and federal agencies' management of wildland
fires. Our nation's wildland fire problems have worsened in the past
decade. Uncharacteristic accumulations of fuels, due in part to past
fire suppression policies, and severe regional weather and drought have
contributed to higher-intensity fires and longer fire seasons. At the
same time, continued development in and near wildlands, an area often
called the wildland-urban interface, has placed more homes at risk.
Together these factors have contributed to more than a doubling of
appropriations for wildland fire management activities--from an average
of $1.2 billion annually during fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to more
than $2.9 billion annually during fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 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 (Interior)--are responsible for managing
wildland fires on federal lands.
Rising fire costs have challenged the agencies' abilities to meet their
other land management responsibilities. We reported in 2004, for
example, that the agencies often had to transfer funds from other
programs to help cover increasing fire suppression costs. While such
transfers allowed the agencies to fund emergency fire suppression
activities and help protect natural resources and communities, we
reported that the transfers also resulted in canceled and delayed
projects, strained agency relationships with state and local partners,
and difficulties in managing programs.
In this context, my testimony today discusses (1) the budgetary and
programmatic effects of the increasing cost of fire management
activities and (2) steps the agencies could take to help contain
wildland fire expenditures and steps they could take, and Congress
could consider, to reduce the need to transfer funds from other
programs. To evaluate these issues, we reviewed reports we have issued
since 2004 discussing federal agencies' management of wildland fires,
as well as recent agency documents about funding transfers occurring
since 2004.[Footnote 1]
Background:
The federal wildland fire management program has three major
components: preparedness, suppression, and fuel reduction. To prepare
for a wildland fire season, the agencies acquire firefighting assets--
including firefighters, engines, aircraft, and other equipment--and
station them either at individual federal land management units (such
as national forests or national parks) or at centralized dispatch
locations. The primary purpose of these assets is to respond to fires
before they become large--a response referred to as initial attack--
thus forestalling threats to communities and natural and cultural
resources. The assets the agencies use for initial attack are funded
primarily from the agencies' preparedness accounts. In the relatively
rare instances in which fires escape initial attack and grow large, the
agencies respond using an interagency system that mobilizes additional
firefighting assets from federal, state, and local agencies, as well as
private contractors, regardless of which agency or agencies have
jurisdiction over the burning lands. Federal agencies typically fund
the costs of these activities from their wildland fire suppression
accounts. To reduce the potential for severe wildland fires, lessen the
damage caused by fires, limit the spread of flammable invasive species,
and restore and maintain healthy ecosystems, the agencies also reduce
potentially hazardous vegetation that can fuel fires. They remove or
modify fuels using prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, herbicides,
certain grazing methods, or combinations of these and other approaches.
The agencies fund these activities from their fuel reduction accounts.
The agencies develop budget requests about 2 years before the fiscal
year for which funds are requested. They use several different
processes and systems to develop these requests. For preparedness and
fuel reduction, the agencies have recently begun implementing a tool
known as fire program analysis.[Footnote 2] For suppression, the
agencies have historically used a 10-year rolling average as the
foundation for their budget requests.[Footnote 3] The year-to-year
variability in the number, location, and severity of fires, however,
complicates the accurate estimation of needed suppression funds, which
often results in appropriated funds' being insufficient to cover actual
suppression expenditures. In this event, the agencies are authorized to
use funds from their other programs to pay for emergency firefighting
activities.
Federal appropriations to the Forest Service and Interior agencies to
prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including appropriations for
reducing fuels, have more than doubled, from an average of $1.2 billion
from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to $2.9 billion from fiscal years
2001 through 2007 (see table 1). Adjusting for inflation, the average
annual appropriations for these periods increased from $1.5 billion to
$3.1 billion (in 2007 dollars). The Forest Service received about 70
percent and Interior about 30 percent of the funds appropriated.
Table 1: Forest Service and Interior Wildland Fire Appropriations,
Fiscal Years 1996 through 2007 (millions of dollars):
Fiscal year: 1996;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $772.4;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $984.2.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $1,432.1;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $1,793.3.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $1,116.7;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $1,381.7.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $1,159.3;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $1,415.9.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $1,598.9;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $1,914.2.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $2,859.9;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $3,344.7.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $2,238.8;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $2,569.0.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $3,165.1;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]:$3,560.2.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $3,230.6;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $3,541.6.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $2,929.8;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $3,144.0.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $2,701.4;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $2,775.4.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Total appropriations: Nominal: $3,047.0;
Total appropriations: Inflation-adjusted[A]: $3,047.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service data.
[A] We adjusted the appropriations dollars for inflation, using the
chain-weighted gross domestic product price index with fiscal year 2007
as the base year.
[End of table]
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 reducing the number of acres burned.
Rather than eliminating severe wildland fires, however, decades of
suppression--and the attendant accumulation of brush, small trees, and
other vegetation--have disrupted ecological cycles and, in some forests
and grasslands, have intensified fires. Increasingly, the agencies have
recognized the role fire plays in many ecosystems and the role fire can
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. Two important implications
of the policy are the agencies' recognition of (1) their need to reduce
accumulated vegetation that could fuel intense wildland fires and (2)
the inappropriateness of continued attempts to suppress all fires.
Funding Transfers Have Delayed or Canceled Projects and Strained
Relationships with the Agencies' Nonfederal Partners:
We reported in 2004 that rising wildland fire suppression costs had led
the Forest Service and Interior to transfer funds from other agency
programs to help fund suppression activities.[Footnote 4] The Forest
Service transferred funds from numerous programs, including
construction and maintenance; the national forest system; and state and
private forestry programs, which provide grants to states, tribes,
communities, and private landowners for fire and insect management,
among other purposes. Interior primarily transferred funds from its
construction and land acquisition programs. We reported that the
agencies had transferred more than $2.7 billion from these other
programs from 1999 through 2003, and that the agencies received
additional appropriations to cover, on average, about 80 percent of the
funds transferred.
Although the agencies received additional appropriations to cover most
of the transferred funds, we found that the transfers had caused the
agencies to cancel or delay some projects and fail to fulfill certain
commitments to their nonfederal partners. We reported, for example,
that funding transfers delayed planned construction and land
acquisition projects, which in some cases led to higher project costs
due to revised budget and construction plans or higher supply and land
acquisition costs. In one instance, the Forest Service delayed
purchasing a 65-acre property in Arizona it had planned to acquire for
approximately $3.2 million in 2002; it was able to purchase the
property about a year later, but the cost of the property had increased
by $195,000. Also, although funds were transferred to help the agencies
suppress wildland fires, among the delayed projects were ones to reduce
fuels to lower the fire risk to communities, construct new firefighting
facilities, and provide firefighting training courses.
Transferring funds to help pay for fire suppression also affected the
agencies' abilities to fulfill commitments they had made to their
nonfederal partners, including states, communities, and nonprofit
organizations. In 2003, for example, the Forest Service transferred $50
million, only $10 million of which was reimbursed, from its Forest Land
Enhancement Program. Managed by state forestry agencies, this program
provides funds to help private landowners improve the health of
forestlands. We reported that this transfer raised concerns about the
program's viability, which, if borne out, might cause some private
forest owners to sell their land for development, leading to habitat
fragmentation--one of the primary threats the Forest Service has
identified to the nation's forests. In addition, federal land
acquisition projects are often facilitated by nonprofit organizations,
which purchase land from private owners and then sell it to federal
agencies. Delays caused by transferring funds can, therefore, lead to
higher costs for those organizations. We reported a case in South
Carolina, for example, where the Forest Service delayed purchasing a
property for 1 year, which led a nonprofit organization to incur about
$300,000 in interest costs. Such delays may lead some nonprofits to
reconsider working with the agencies. We reported that one organization
had 22 projects delayed in 2002 and 21 projects delayed in 2003 because
of funding transfers; a representative from that organization told us
that if funds continued to be transferred, it would likely invest its
funds elsewhere rather than work with the Forest Service and Interior.
Since 2004, funding transfers to help pay for fire suppression have
continued, with the agencies transferring funds in fiscal years 2006,
2007, and 2008. These transfers may have caused problems for the
agencies' nonfire programs similar to those we reported in 2004. An
August 2008 memo from the Chief of the Forest Service, for example,
stated that fire transfers that year would effectively rescind or delay
grants to nonfederal partners and stop work on construction, research,
and natural resource projects.
Moreover, although we have not evaluated the impact of rising fire
costs on funding for the agencies' nonfire programs, federal and state
officials have expressed concern that rising fire costs are reducing
the total funds the agencies receive for their other programs. The
Chief's August 2008 memo also stated that because the agency must fund
the expected cost of managing fires out of its total available funds,
all other Forest Service activities "have experienced a steady decline
in funding." A similar concern was expressed in a letter written by
five former Forest Service Chiefs and in a statement before this
Subcommittee last year by the National Association of State Foresters.
The Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to Contain Rising Wildland
Fire Costs and Improve Cost Estimates, and Congress Could Consider
Alternative Funding Approaches:
Several of our previous reports, including our 2004 report on fire-
related funding transfers, identified steps the agencies could take,
and actions Congress could consider, which could help address the
rising cost of wildland fire management and its effect on the agencies'
other programs. Reducing the overall cost of fire suppression could
help the agencies mitigate the effects of fire costs on their nonfire
programs and avoid the need to transfer funds. We issued a number of
reports in recent years that examined different aspects of the
agencies' wildland fire management programs, including a testimony
before this Subcommittee in February 2008 in which we highlighted
several key recommendations that, if implemented, could help the
agencies contain the overall costs of managing wildland fires.[Footnote
5] Among other recommendations, we discussed the need for the agencies
to:
* develop a cohesive strategy that identifies options and associated
costs to reduce potentially hazardous vegetation and address wildland
fire problems. Despite our repeated calls for a cohesive wildland fire
strategy, the agencies have yet to develop one. 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 to identify available long-term options
for reducing fuels and the associated costs. By laying out various
potential approaches for addressing wildland fire, estimated costs
associated with each approach, and the trade-offs involved, 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. Six years later, in 2005, 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. In January 2009,
agency officials told us they were working to create such a cohesive
strategy, although they had no estimate of when the strategy would be
completed.
* establish clear goals and a strategy to help contain wildland fire
costs. In 2007, we reported that the agencies were taking a number of
steps intended to help contain wildland fire costs, including improving
decision-support tools for helping officials select strategies for
fighting wildland fires, but that they had not clearly defined cost-
containment goals or developed a strategy for achieving those goals--
steps that are fundamental to sound program management. Agency
officials identified several documents that they argued provide clearly
defined goals and objectives constituting their strategy to contain
costs. In our view, 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 our
recommendations for developing clear goals and a strategy for
containing costs, if effectively implemented, would help the agencies
better manage their cost-containment efforts and improve their ability
to contain wildland fire costs.
Since our testimony last year, the agencies have continued to take
steps intended to help improve their management of wildland fires. They
have, for example, been reviewing their guidance for implementing the
federal wildland fire management policy. Senior agency officials told
us they expect to revise the guidance this year to allow agency
officials more flexibility in selecting strategies for managing
wildland fire incidents, which could help reduce the costs of managing
some fires. We are currently reviewing the agencies' actions aimed at
addressing the shortcomings we previously identified and expect to
report on the status of these actions later this year.
Better estimates of the costs of suppressing fires in a given year
would also reduce the likelihood that the agencies would need to
transfer funds from other accounts. We recommended in 2004 that the
agencies improve their methods for estimating annual suppression costs,
but the agencies continue to use a 10-year suppression cost average as
the foundation of their budget request. Interior, in commenting on a
draft of the 2004 report, stated it believed that the current method
for predicting costs was a "reasonable and durable basis for
suppression budgeting." The Forest Service, however, concurred with our
recommendation. A Forest Service official told us in 2008 that the
agency had analyzed alternative methods for estimating needed
suppression funds but determined that no better method was available.
While we recognize that the accuracy of the 10-year average is likely
to improve as recent years with higher suppression costs are included
in that average, the need to transfer funds in each of the last 3 years
suggests that the agencies should continue to seek a more accurate
method for estimating needed suppression costs.
In addition to the actions we believe the agencies need to take,
Congress may wish to consider legislating alternative approaches to
funding wildland fire suppression that could help reduce the need for
the agencies to transfer funds. As we reported in 2004, for example,
Congress could establish a reserve account dedicated to funding
wildfire suppression activities, which the agencies could access when
their suppression accounts are depleted. If such an account is
established, Congress could provide either a specified amount (known as
a definite appropriation) or as much funding as the agencies need to
fund emergency suppression (known as an indefinite appropriation);
Congress could also determine whether any funds it provides would be
available to the agencies only for a single fiscal year or also in
future years.
Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages. Establishing
a reserve account with a definite appropriation would provide the
agencies with incentives to contain suppression costs within the amount
in the reserve account, but depending on the size of the appropriation
and the severity of a fire season, suppression costs could still exceed
the funds reserved, and the agencies might still need to transfer funds
from other programs. An account with an indefinite appropriation, in
contrast, would eliminate the need for transferring funds from other
programs but would offer no inherent incentives for the agencies to
contain suppression costs. Furthermore, both definite and indefinite
appropriations could raise the overall federal budget deficit,
depending on whether funding levels for other agency, or government,
programs are reduced. In 2008, Congress considered at least two bills-
-the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act and the
Emergency Wildland Fire Response Act of 2008--that proposed
establishing a wildland fire suppression reserve account, although
neither bill became law.[Footnote 6] The Federal Land Assistance,
Management, and Enhancement Act was reintroduced in March
2009.[Footnote 7] The administration's budget overview for fiscal year
2010 proposes a $282 million reserve account for the Forest Service and
a $75 million reserve account for Interior to provide funding for
firefighting when the appropriated 10-year average is exhausted.
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 Contact 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. Steve Gaty, Assistant Director; David P.
Bixler; Ellen W. Chu; Jonathan Dent; Carol Henn; and Richard P. Johnson
made key contributions to this statement.
Related GAO Products:
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.: November 24,
2008.
Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Lack Key Long-and Short-Term
Management Strategies for Using Program Funds Effectively. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-433T]. Washington, D.C.: February
12, 2008.
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.: September
28, 2007.
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.
Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a
Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-671R]. Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2006.
Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns about
Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-570]. Washington, D.C.: May 30,
2006.
Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but
Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-147]. Washington, D.C.: January 14,
2005.
Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a
Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-705]. Washington, D.C.:
June 24, 2004.
Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and
Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management Disruptions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-612]. Washington, D.C.: June 2,
2004.
Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better
Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-805]. Washington, D.C.: August 15,
2003.
Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-65]. Washington, D.C.: April 2,
1999.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] These previous performance audits were conducted in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provided a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
[2] Our recent review of the fire program analysis tool identified
several shortcomings that need to be addressed; see 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). The agencies have also developed
other systems to help them allocate fuel reduction funds among the
federal agencies; see 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). At the time of our 2008 report, the agencies had yet to decide
how they would use the information from these different systems to
develop their budget requests and allocate their fuel reduction funds.
[3] The agencies calculate a simple rolling or moving average by
computing average annual expenditures over a 10-year period and
updating the average each year, using expenditures from the most recent
10 years. Each year's value receives equal weight in the average. The
moving average is generally considered to be a lagging indicator of
current costs.
[4] GAO, Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project
Cancellations and Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management
Disruptions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-612]
(Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2004).
[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-68]; Wildland Fire
Management: Federal Agencies Lack Key Long-and Short-Term Management
Strategies for Using Program Funds Effectively, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-433T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12,
2008); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1168]; 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); Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises
Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-570] (Washington, D.C.:
May 30, 2006); and Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency
Efforts to Develop a Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire
Threats, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-671R]
(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2006).
[6] H.R. 5541, 110th Cong. (2nd sess., 2008); H.R. 5648, 110th Cong.
(2nd sess., 2008).
[7] S. 561, 111th Cong. (1st sess., 2009); H.R. 1404, 111th Cong. (1st
sess., 2009).
[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:
