Wildland Fire: Management Improvements Could Enhance Federal
Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires
(26-JUN-07, GAO-07-922T).
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).
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-922T
ACCNO: A70289
TITLE: Wildland Fire: Management Improvements Could Enhance
Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires
DATE: 06/26/2007
SUBJECT: Accountability
Cost analysis
Cost control
Emergency preparedness
Federal agencies
Financial management
Performance measures
Program management
Public lands
Strategic planning
Wildfires
Policies and procedures
Program goals or objectives
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-922T
* [1]Summary
* [2]Background
* [3]Federal Agencies Are Taking Some Steps to Contain Wildland F
* [4]Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies'
* [5]Conclusions
* [6]GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
* [7]Order by Mail or Phone
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
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.^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.^2 I presented the preliminary results of our
work before this Committee in January 2007.^3
1Federal 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.
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,
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
^2GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals and a Strategy
Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires,
[15]GAO-07-655 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2007).
^3GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders
Agencies' Cost-Containment Efforts, [16]GAO-07-427T (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 30, 2007).
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.^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.^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."
^4The 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.
^5The 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.
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.^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.
^6A 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.
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
o 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;
o 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
o 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.^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.^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.
^7GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns
about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities, [17]GAO-06-570
(Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006).
^8Principles 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, [18]GAO/AIMD-00-21 .3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
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 [8][email protected] . 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.
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 ( [9]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 [10]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: [11]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [12][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [13][email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [14][email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
(360847)
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. However, 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.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? [19]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
[email protected].
Highlights of [20]GAO-07-922T , a testimony before the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate
June 26, 2007
WILDLAND FIRE
Management Improvements Could Enhance Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain
the Costs of Fighting Fires
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).
[21]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.
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.
References
Visible links
8. mailto:[email protected]
9. http://www.gao.gov/
10. http://www.gao.gov/
11. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
12. mailto:[email protected]
13. mailto:[email protected]
14. mailto:[email protected]
15. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-655
16. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-427T
17. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-570
18. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
19. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-922T
20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-922T
*** End of document. ***