These concerns have led  GAO, the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General, the  Forest Service, Interior, and others to conduct numerous reviews of the  federal wildland fire program. Agencies Need a Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy to Manage Limited Resources Effectively, but Have Retreated from Their Commitment to Develop One

If the agencies and Congress are to make informed decisions about an  effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland fire,  the agencies need a cohesive strategy that identifies the long-term options  and associated funding for reducing excess vegetation and responding to  fires. We first recommended the development of a cohesive strategy for  addressing excess vegetation in 1999. By 2005, the agencies had yet to  develop such a strategy, and that year we reiterated the need for such a  strategy and broadened our recommendation’s focus to include options  not only for reducing fuels but also for responding to wildland fires when  they do occur, in order to better address the interrelated nature of the two  activities. We also believe  the agencies have mischaracterized our recommendation to develop long- term options, and associated funding, for reducing fuels. Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires

We reported in 2007 that although the Forest Service and Interior agencies  had taken several steps intended to help contain wildland fire costs, they  had not clearly defined their cost-containment goals or developed a  strategy for achieving those goals—steps that are fundamental to sound  program management. As we reported, the agencies are implementing a  number of steps designed to help them contain wildland fire costs—such  as improving how they acquire and use firefighting assets, updating  policies to require officials to consider the full spectrum of available  strategies when selecting a firefighting strategy, and developing new  decision support tools that help officials select the most appropriate  strategy. As a result, we recommended that the agencies take several steps to  improve the management of their cost-containment efforts, including  establishing clearly defined goals and measurable objectives and a strategy  to achieve them. As a result, despite improvements the agencies continue to make  to policy, decision support tools, and oversight, we believe that managers  in the field lack a clear understanding of the relative importance that the  agencies’ leadership places on containing costs, and—as we concluded in  our 2007 report—are therefore likely to continue to select firefighting  strategies without due consideration of the costs of suppression. Better Information and a Systematic Process Would Improve Agencies’ Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction Funds

In 2007, we also identified several shortcomings in the agencies’ processes  for allocating fuel reduction funds to field units and selecting fuel  reduction projects, which the agencies should correct in order to use their  fuel reduction funds more effectively. Specifically, we noted that the  agencies (1) did not consistently use systematic allocation processes—that  is, processes that are based on criteria and applied consistently—in all  agencies or at all levels, often relying instead on historical funding levels  and professional judgment to allocate funds and select projects; (2) did  not consistently consider the potential risk from wildland fire or the  potential effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments when allocating funds  and selecting projects; and (3) had not clarified the relative importance of  the numerous factors they consider when allocating funds and selecting  projects, including factors (such as funding stability or the use of forest  products resulting from fuel reduction treatments) unrelated to risk or  effectiveness. Some agencies have begun implementing systematic processes for  allocating funds. Agencies Plan to Complete the FPA Model in 2008, but the Extent to Which It Will Help Ensure Cost-Effective Fire Management Decisions Is Uncertain

Agency officials plan to complete the FPA model by June 30, 2008, but  preliminary results from our ongoing review raise questions about the  extent to which the current model will be able to meet all of the key goals  established for FPA. FPA also is critical to developing and implementing a cohesive strategy,  and to the agencies’ efforts to contain wildland fire costs. Such a limited time frame, however,  substantially impairs the ability of the model to analyze long-term trade- offs between annual fuel reduction treatment costs and future expected  suppression costs for large fires, a key goal of FPA. They have taken an important first step by establishing and  updating federal wildland fire policy.
Why GAO Did This Study

The nation's wildland fire problems have worsened over the past decade. Recent years have seen dramatic increases in the number of acres burned and the dollars spent on preparing for and responding to wildland fires. As GAO has previously reported, a number of factors have contributed to worsening fire seasons and increased firefighting expenditures, including an accumulation of fuels due to past land management practices; drought and other stresses, in part related to climate change; and an increase in human development in or near wildlands. Recent GAO reports have identified shortcomings in the approach to wildland fire management taken by the responsible federal agencies--the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and four agencies within the Department of the Interior. GAO was asked to testify on agency efforts to (1) develop a cohesive strategy for preparing for and responding to wildland fire, (2) contain federal expenditures related to wildland fire, and (3) improve the processes used to allocate funds for reducing accumulated fuels and to select fuel reduction projects. GAO also is providing preliminary findings from its ongoing review of an interagency budget allocation and planning model known as fire program analysis (FPA). This testimony is based on issued GAO reports, reviews of agency documents related to the development of FPA, and discussions with agency officials.

What GAO Found

In recent years, GAO has recommended a number of actions federal wildland fire agencies should take to better diagnose the extent of the nation's wildland fire problems and develop a strategic approach for addressing them. The agencies have taken some steps to respond to GAO's recommendations, but have not completed other needed steps. Specifically, the agencies should: (1) recommit to developing a cohesive strategy that identifies options and associated funding to reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems. In several reports dating to 1999, GAO recommended that a cohesive strategy be developed that identifies the available long-term options and associated funding for reducing hazardous fuels and for responding to wildland fires. Such a strategy would assist Congress and the agencies in making informed decisions about effective and affordable long-term approaches to addressing the nation's wildland fire problems. As of January 2008, the agencies had not developed such a strategy and, in fact, had retreated from earlier commitments to do so. (2) Establish clear goals and a strategy to help contain wildland fire costs. In 2007, GAO reported that the agencies had taken several steps to contain wildland fire costs, including developing new decision support tools to help officials select the most appropriate strategy for fighting wildland fires, but lacked clearly defined cost-containment goals and a strategy for achieving them. As a result, we believe managers in the field lacked a clear understanding of the relative importance agency leadership placed on containing costs and were therefore likely to select firefighting strategies without duly considering the costs of suppression. Although the agencies have continued to implement individual cost-containment steps, they still have not developed clear goals or a strategy for achieving them. (3) Continue to improve their processes for allocating fuel reduction funds and selecting fuel reduction projects. Also in 2007, GAO recommended several improvements to the agencies' processes for allocating fuel reduction funds to field units and selecting projects. Specifically, GAO recommended that the agencies use a more systematic allocation process, improve the information they use to make allocation decisions, and clarify the relative importance of the various factors they consider when allocating funds. The agencies are currently taking steps to implement these improvements, although none have yet been completed. In addition, GAO's ongoing review of FPA suggests that the current model, which the agencies expect to complete in June 2008, may not allow the agencies to meet all of the key goals established for FPA. Specifically, preliminary results from GAO's review suggest that the model will not allow the agencies to analyze long-term trade-offs between annual fuel reduction treatments and future expected suppression costs for large fires. GAO intends to conduct a full assessment of FPA once it is completed.