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. ***