United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,

Committee on Resources, House of Representatives

For Release

on Delivery

Expected at

2:00 p.m. EDT

Tuesday

June 29, 1999

WESTERN NATIONAL

FORESTS

Status of Forest Service’s

Efforts to Reduce

Catastrophic Wildfire

Threats

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Associate Director,

Energy, Resources, and Science Issues,

Resources, Community, and Economic

Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-99-241

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are here today

to discuss the status of efforts by the Department of Agriculture’s Forest

Service to develop a cohesive strategy to reduce the threat of catastrophic

wildfires on national forests in the interior West. Our comments are based

primarily on the report and two testimonies that we prepared for this

Subcommittee over the last year1

 and the agency’s actions to date in

response to our findings and recommendation.

In summary, the Forest Service has begun to develop a strategy to address

the growing threat that catastrophic wildfires pose to forest resources and

nearby communities. Developing and implementing such a strategy

presents a difficult challenge to the agency because the wildfire issue

transcends the boundaries of both its regions and forests and its

resource-specific programs. Confronted with other issues that transcend

these boundaries—such as protecting the habitat of the threatened

northern spotted owl—the Forest Service has, on occasion, shown that it

can develop and implement a cohesive strategy expeditiously and at a

relatively low cost. At other times, it has begun to develop a strategy but

has either studied and restudied the issue without ever doing so or

developed a strategy but left its implementation to the discretion of its

independent and highly autonomous field offices with mixed results. A key

factor that separates the strategies that are effectively implemented from

those that are not is whether the agency treats the issue as an agencywide

priority. Those issues that are treated as priorities (1) benefit from a sense

of urgency and strong leadership by top-level management in developing

and implementing a strategy, (2) are addressed through a strategy that

provides the agency’s managers with adequate direction and sets

standards for holding them accountable, and (3) are allocated the

resources necessary to implement the strategy. To date, we have not seen

the strong leadership or the marshalling of funds and resources within the

agency that would indicate to us that the Forest Service feels a sense of

urgency and assigns a high priority to reducing the threat of catastrophic

wildfires.

1

Western National Forests: Catastrophic Wildfires Threaten Resources and Communities

(GAO/T-RCED-98-273, Sept. 28, 1998); Western National Forests: Nearby Communities Are

Increasingly Threatened by Catastrophic Wildfires (GAO/T-RCED-99-79, Feb. 9, 1999); and Western

National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats

(GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr. 2, 1999).

Page 1 GAO/T-RCED-99-241
The Forest Service

Has Agreed to

Develop a Cohesive

Strategy to Reduce

the Threat of

Catastrophic Wildfires

In April 1999, we reported that many national forests in the interior West,

as well as nearby communities, are increasingly threatened by large,

catastrophic wildfires caused by the excessive accumulation of vegetation

that forms fuels for such fires. Fuels are accumulating, in large part,

because for decades the agency has suppressed fire in forests where

frequent, low-intensity fires historically removed such accumulations. We

observed that the actions taken by the agency to date to deal with this

problem may be too little, too late. Moreover, the Forest Service faces

several barriers, including (1) difficulties in reconciling different fuel

reduction methods with other stewardship objectives, such as clean air

and clean water; (2) programmatic incentives that tend to focus efforts on

areas that may not present the highest fire hazards; (3) statutorily defined

contracting procedures that impede efforts to reduce fuels; and (4) the

high costs associated with implementing the different fuel reduction

methods. We also found that the agency lacks the data required to

overcome these barriers and to establish meaningful goals and measures

for fuel reduction.

The Forest Service agreed with our findings and recommendation that it

develop a cohesive strategy for addressing these barriers and reducing

fuels and formally communicate the strategy to the Congress, together

with estimates of the costs to implement it. According to the Forest

Service, it intends to develop a strategy by December 31, 1999.

Developing a Strategy

Presents a Difficult

Challenge to the

Forest Service

Developing and implementing a strategy to address the growing threat of

catastrophic wildfires in the interior West presents a difficult challenge to

the Forest Service. We estimate that the cost to the agency to reduce fuels

on the 39 million acres of national forestland in the interior West that are

at high risk could be as much as $725 million annually, or more than 10

times the current level of funding for reducing fuels.

Such a strategy also transcends the boundaries of both the Forest

Service’s field and program structures. For example, the 155 national

forests are the agency’s basic planning units, and each forest has

considerable autonomy and discretion in interpreting and applying the

agency’s policies and directions. However, a strategy to reduce the risk of

catastrophic fire in the region will need to transcend the boundaries of

individual forests and involve most, if not all, of the 91 national forests

located in the interior West.

Page 2 GAO/T-RCED-99-241
Similarly, a strategy to reduce fuels must include all three of the Forest

Service’s major organizational areas—the National Forest System, which

includes the national forests; State and Private Forestry programs, which

include those for hazardous fuel reduction; and the Research and

Development arm of the agency, which conducts fire-related research.

Within the National Forest System, such a strategy will need to draw funds

and staff from many of the agency’s nine resource-specific programs,

including those responsible for timber, wildlife and fish, recreation, and

water and air quality. These programs often have separate staffs in the

agency’s headquarters and field offices. Forest Service field staff told us

that it is often difficult to undertake needed fuel reduction efforts because

the agency’s areas and programs often have different goals, objectives, and

funding sources; use different criteria to allocate funds to the field offices;

and are not adequately coordinated to focus on overarching priorities,

such as fuel reduction.

The Forest Service

Has Adequately

Addressed Some

Issues That Transcend

Its Boundaries, but

Not Others

Confronted with other issues that transcend the boundaries of its field and

program structures, the Forest Service has, on occasion, shown that it can

develop and implement a cohesive strategy. For example, together with

the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the

Forest Service developed and is implementing a regional land management

strategy in the Pacific Northwest called the Northwest Forest Plan. The

plan provides management direction for 22.3 million acres of land

managed by the two agencies—including 19 national forests and 7 BLM

districts—in the range of the threatened northern spotted owl.2 The

agencies completed the plan expeditiously and at a relatively low cost

compared with past national forest planning efforts. The plan not only

resulted in the federal courts’ lifting the injunctions that had brought

timber sales on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest to a virtual halt, but

also provided guidance on protecting the environment across the

ecosystem.

Key factors that contributed to the timely and cost-effective development

of the Northwest Forest Plan included the (1) sense of urgency created by

the court injunctions and (2) strong leadership displayed by top-level

officials in developing the plan. Moreover, the plan provides the agencies’

land managers with adequate direction for implementation and sets

standards for holding them accountable. In addition, the plan has been

identified as a special project for funding in the Forest Service’s fiscal year

2

Ecosystem Planning: Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin Plans Demonstrate

Improvements in Land-Use Planning (GAO/RCED-99-64, May 26, 1999).

Page 3 GAO/T-RCED-99-241
budget justifications, and funds are withheld from the regions’ and forests’

budgets to develop and implement the plan before they are allocated to

resource-specific programs.

Other agencywide issues, however, have languished for years as the Forest

Service has undertaken study after study without ever developing a

strategy or has developed a strategy but left its implementation to the

discretion of its independent and highly autonomous regional offices and

forests with mixed results. In fiscal year 1991, for example, the Congress

asked the Forest Service to develop a multiyear strategy to reduce the

escalating costs of its timber program by not less than 5 percent per year.

The agency responded by undertaking a cost-reduction study and issuing a

report in April 1993. However, the Forest Service left the implementation

of the field-level actions to the discretion of each of its nine regional

offices, and while some regions rapidly pursued the goal of becoming

cost-efficient, others did not. In April 1997, the agency was preparing to

undertake the third major examination of its timber program in the last 4

years.

Similarly, the House Committee on the Budget has an ongoing interest in

the Forest Service’s efforts to be more cost-effective and businesslike in

its operations. In October 1998, the agency agreed to revise the strategic

plan that it has developed to comply with the requirements of the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act) to

include goals and performance measures for obtaining fair market value

for goods, recovering costs for services, and containing expenses.

However, to date the agency has not done so.

Reducing the Threat

of Catastrophic

Wildfires Does Not

Appear to Be a High

Priority for the Forest

Service

At the Forest Service, a key factor that separates the strategies that are

effectively implemented from those that are not is whether the agency

treats the issue as an agencywide priority. For example, improving the

condition of the road system in the national forests is clearly a high

priority within the agency and is one of only four areas emphasized in the

Forest Service’s natural resource agenda. This agenda sets the agency’s

priorities and gives strategic focus to its programs. Under the agenda, and

at the direction of the Chief of the Forest Service, the agency is developing

a long-term forest road policy that will guide (1) the building of new roads;

(2) the elimination of old, unneeded ones; (3) the upgrade and

maintenance of roads that are important to public access; and (4) the

development of new and dependable funding for road management. To

accomplish these objectives, the Forest Service has (1) identified the issue

Page 4 GAO/T-RCED-99-241
as a funding priority in its fiscal year 2000 budget justification,

(2) requested an additional $22.6 million for maintaining and

decommissioning roads during fiscal year 2000, (3) proposed a new

appropriation for fiscal year 2000 that includes moneys for reconstructing

and maintaining roads, and (4) linked the issue to the goals and objectives

in its strategic plan.

In comparison, reducing the growing threat of catastrophic wildfires is not

emphasized in the agency’s natural resource agenda or in its strategic plan,

and top-level management has not been involved in developing a fuel

reduction strategy. In addition, only one of the Forest Service’s three

major organizational areas with responsibility for reducing fuels—State

and Private Forestry programs—has been tasked with developing such a

strategy. A team from various disciplines within the agency is to advise

staff from State and Private Forestry. The strategy is to be developed by

the end of the year, but the team has not yet been formed and a leader has

not yet been appointed. In addition, even though the Forest Service said

that it would need an additional $37 million in fiscal year 2000 to increase

the number of acres treated, the agency did not request any additional

funds and will therefore treat about 60,000 fewer acres next year than it

will treat this year.

Madam Chairman, we recognize that the Forest Service has just begun to

develop a fuel reduction strategy and that priorities can, and do, change. If

reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfires does become a priority, then

we would expect it to be reflected in three documents that the agency will

issue over the next 8 months. The first will be the Forest Service’s updated

strategic plan that is scheduled for release this fall. If fuel reduction has

become a high priority for the agency, then we would expect it to appear

in the strategic plan as an objective or outcome, or at least to be linked to

the plan’s goals and objectives. The second document will be the strategy

itself. A good indicator of the priority given to fuel reduction will be

whether the strategy provides the agency’s land managers with adequate

direction for implementation and sets standards for holding them

accountable or whether it merely provides broad, general objectives and

direction that cannot be quantified or measured. Finally, and probably

most telling of all, will be the Forest Service’s fiscal year 2001 budget

request. If fuel reduction is accorded a high priority, then we would expect

the agency to identify the strategy as a special project for funding and to

withhold funds from the regions’ and forests’ budgets to develop and

implement the strategy before funds are allocated to resource-specific

programs.

Page 5 GAO/T-RCED-99-241
Madam Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. If you or the other

Members of the Subcommittee have any questions, we will be pleased to

answer them.

Contact and

Acknowledgment

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Barry T. Hill

at (202) 512-8021. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony

included Charles S. Cotton, Chester M. Joy, and Michael J. Daulton.

(141349) Page 6 GAO/T-RCED-99-241
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100