Forest Service: Continued Work Needed to Address Persistent Management Challenges
Published: 2011-03-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, manages over 190 million acres of national forest and grasslands. The agency is responsible for managing its lands for various purposes--including recreation, grazing, timber harvesting, and others--while ensuring that such activities do not impair the lands' long-term productivity. Numerous GAO reports examining different aspects of Forest Service programs--including a testimony before this Subcommittee in 2009--have identified persistent management challenges facing the agency. In light of the federal deficit and long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation, the Forest Service cannot ensure that it is spending its limited budget effectively and efficiently without addressing these challenges. This testimony highlights some of the management challenges facing the Forest Service today and is based on recent reports GAO has issued on a variety of the agency's activities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In 2009, GAO highlighted management challenges that the Forest Service faced in three key areas--wildland fire management, data on program activities and costs, and financial and performance accountability. The Forest Service has made some improvements, but challenges persist in each of these three areas. In addition, recent GAO reports have identified additional challenges related to program oversight and strategic planning. Strategies are still needed to ensure effective use of wildland fire management funds. In numerous previous reports, GAO has highlighted the challenges the Forest Service faces in protecting the nation against the threat of wildland fire. The agency continues to take steps to improve its approach, but it has yet to take several key steps--including developing a cohesive wildland fire strategy that identifies potential long-term options for reducing hazardous fuels and responding to fires--that, if completed, would substantially strengthen wildland fire management. Incomplete data on program activities remain a concern. In 2009, GAO concluded that long-standing data problems plagued the Forest Service, hampering its ability to manage its programs and account for its costs. While GAO has not comprehensively reviewed the quality of all Forest Service data, shortcomings identified during several recent reviews reinforce these concerns. For example, GAO recently identified data gaps in the agency's system for tracking appeals and litigation of Forest Service projects and in the number of abandoned hardrock mines on its lands. Even with improvements, financial and performance accountability shortcomings persist. Although its financial accountability has improved, the Forest Service continues to struggle to implement adequate internal controls over its funds and to demonstrate how its expenditures relate to the goals in the agency's strategic plan. For example, in 2010 Agriculture reported that the agency needed to improve controls over its expenditures for wildland fire management and identified the wildland fire suppression program as susceptible to significant improper payments. Additional challenges related to program oversight and strategic planning have been identified. Several recent GAO reviews have identified additional challenges facing the Forest Service, which the agency must address if it is to effectively and efficiently fulfill its mission. Specifically, the agency has yet to develop a national land tenure strategy that would protect the public's interest in land exchanges and return fair value to taxpayers from such exchanges. In addition, it has yet to take recommended steps to align its workforce planning with its strategic plan, which may compromise its ability to carry out its mission; for example, it has not adequately planned for the likely retirement of firefighters, which may reduce the agency's ability to protect the safety of both people and property. Finally, the Forest Service needs a more systematic, risk-based approach to allocate its law-enforcement resources. Without such an approach it cannot be assured that it is deploying its resources effectively against illegal activities on the lands it manages.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve the Forest Service's management of wildland fires, strengthen its collection of data, increase accountability, and improve program management. The Forest Service has taken steps to implement many of these recommendations, but additional action is needed if the agency is to make further progress in rectifying identified shortcomings.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss management  challenges facing the Forest Service. As the steward of more than  190 million acres of national forest and grassland, the Forest Service, within  the Department of Agriculture, is responsible for managing its lands for  various purposes—including recreation, rangeland, timber, wilderness, and  the protection of watersheds and wildlife—while ensuring that the agency’s  management of the lands does not impair their long-term productivity. In  managing its lands in accordance with these purposes, the agency provides  a variety of goods and services. Goods include timber, natural gas, oil,  minerals, and range for livestock to graze. Watersheds on Forest Service  lands provide drinking water to thousands of communities, and the national  forests and grasslands themselves offer the public recreational  opportunities, such as camping, hiking, and rafting. To carry out its  responsibilities, the Forest Service employs about 30,000 permanent full- time employees and maintains hundreds of regional, forest, and ranger  district offices nationwide, as well as a network of research facilities.  Appropriations for the agency totaled $6.2 billion in fiscal year 2010.
My testimony today updates our 2009 testimony before this Subcommittee  on Forest Service management challenges and is based primarily on  findings from several reports we have recently issued on the agency’s  activities. Specifically, I will focus on management challenges in three key  areas we identified in our 2009 testimony—wildland fire management, data  on program activities and costs, and financial and performance  accountability—as well as on additional challenges related to program  oversight and strategic planning. As we stated in 2009, in light of the  federal deficit and long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation, it is  important for the Forest Service to address these management challenges  to ensure that its limited budget is effectively and efficiently spent.
subsections: section_title: Strategies Are Still Needed to Ensure Effective Use of Wildland Fire Management Funds
paragraphs: In our 2009 testimony, we reported that the Forest Service, working with  the Department of the Interior, had taken steps to help manage perhaps  the agency’s most daunting challenge—protecting lives, private property,  and federal resources from the threat of wildland fire—but that it  continued to lack key strategies needed to use its wildland fire funds  effectively. Over the past decade, our nation’s wildland fire problem has  worsened dramatically. Since 2000, wildland fires burned more than  double the acres annually, on average, than during the 1990s, and the  Forest Service’s wildland fire-related appropriations have also grown  substantially, averaging approximately $2.3 billion over the past 5 years,  up from about $722 million in fiscal year 1999. As we have previously  reported, a number of factors have contributed to worsening fire seasons  and increased firefighting expenditures, including an accumulation of  flammable vegetation due to past land management practices; drought and  other stresses, in part related to climate change; and increased human  development in or near wildlands. The Forest Service shares federal  responsibility for wildland fire management with four Interior agencies— the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and  Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.
In our 2009 testimony we noted four primary areas we believed the Forest  Service, in conjunction with Interior, needed to address to better respond  to the nation’s wildland fire problems. The agencies have taken steps to  improve these areas, but work remains to be done in each. As a result, we  continue to believe that these areas remain major management challenges  for the Forest Service:    Developing a cohesive strategy that identifies options and associated  funding to reduce potentially hazardous vegetation and address  wildland fire problems. In a series of reports dating to 1999, we have  recommended that the Forest Service and Interior agencies develop a  cohesive wildland fire strategy identifying potential long-term options for  reducing fuels and responding to fires, as well as the funding requirements  associated with the various options. By laying out various potential  approaches, their estimated costs, and the accompanying trade-offs, we  reported that such a strategy would help Congress and the agencies make  informed decisions about effective and affordable long-term approaches to  addressing the nation’s wildland fire problems. Congress echoed our call  for a cohesive strategy in the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and  Enhancement Act of 2009, which requires the agencies to produce a  cohesive strategy consistent with our recommendations.
In response, the agencies have prepared “Phase I” of the cohesive strategy,  which, according to a Forest Service official, provides a general  description of the agencies’ approach to the wildland fire problem and  establishes a framework for collecting and analyzing the information  needed to assess the problem and make decisions about how to address it.  The Phase I document has not yet been made final or formally submitted  to Congress, even though the act requires the strategy to be submitted  within 1 year of the act’s 2009 passage. Once the document has been made  final, according to this official, the agencies expect to begin drafting Phase  II of the strategy, which will involve actual collection and analysis of data  and assessment of different options.
Establishing clear goals and a strategy to help contain wildland fire  costs. The agencies have taken steps intended to help contain wildland fire  costs, but they have not yet clearly defined their cost-containment goals or  developed a strategy for achieving those goals—steps we first  recommended in 2007. Without such fundamental steps, we continue to  believe that the agencies cannot be assured that they are taking the most  important steps first, nor can they be certain of whether or to what extent  the steps they are taking will help contain costs. Agency officials identified  several agency documents that they stated clearly define goals and  objectives and that make up their strategy to contain costs. However,  these documents lack the clarity and specificity needed by officials in the  field to help manage and contain wildland fire costs. We therefore  continue to believe that the agencies will be challenged in managing their  cost-containment efforts and improving their ability to contain wildland  fire costs.
Continuing to improve processes for allocating fuel reduction funds and  selecting fuel reduction projects. The Forest Service has continued to  improve its processes for allocating funds to reduce fuels and select fuel  reduction projects but has yet to fully implement the steps we  recommended in 2007. These improvements, which we reported on in 2009  and which the agency has continued to build upon, include (1) the use of a  computer model to assist in making allocation decisions, rather than relying  primarily on historical funding patterns and professional judgment, and  (2) taking into consideration when making allocation decisions information  on wildland fire risk and the effectiveness of fuel treatments. Even with  these improvements, we believe the Forest Service will continue to face  challenges in more effectively using its limited fuel reduction dollars unless  it takes the additional steps that we have previously recommended. The  agency, for example, still lacks a measure of the effectiveness of fuel  reduction treatments and therefore lacks information needed to ensure that  fuel reduction funds are directed to the areas where they can best minimize  risk to communities and natural and cultural resources. And while Forest  Service officials told us that they, in conjunction with Interior, had begun a  comprehensive effort to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of fuel  treatments, including the longevity of those treatments and their effects on  ecosystems and natural resources, this endeavor is likely to be a long term  effort and require considerable research investment.
Taking steps to improve the use of an interagency budgeting and  planning tool. Since 2008, we have been concerned about the Forest  Service’s and Interior’s development of a planning tool known as fire  program analysis, or FPA. FPA is designed to allow the agencies to  analyze potential combinations of firefighting assets, and potential  strategies for reducing fuels and fighting fires, to identify the most cost- effective among them. By identifying cost-effective combinations of assets  and strategies within the agencies, FPA was also designed to help the  agencies develop their wildland fire budget requests and allocate  resources across the country. FPA’s development continues to be  characterized by delays and revisions, however, and the agencies are  several years behind their initially projected timeline for using it to help  develop their budget requests. The agencies collected nationwide data on  available assets and strategies in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, but in neither  case did the agencies have sufficient confidence in the quality of the data  to use them to help develop their budget requests. FPA program officials  told us that they are currently analyzing data collected early in fiscal year  2011 to determine the extent to which the data can be used to help  develop the agencies’ fiscal year 2013 budget requests. The officials also  told us they expect an independent external peer review of the science  underlying FPA—a step we recommended in our 2008 report—to begin in  May 2011. The agencies continue to take steps to improve FPA, but it is  not clear how effective these steps will be in correcting the problems we  have identified, and therefore we believe that the agencies will continue to  face challenges in this area.
section_title: Incomplete Data on Program Activities Remain a Concern
paragraphs: Our 2009 testimony noted shortcomings in the completeness and accuracy  of Forest Service data on activities and costs. Although we have not  comprehensively reviewed the quality of all Forest Service data, we have  encountered shortcomings during several recent reviews that reinforce  our concerns. For example, during our review of appeals and litigation of  Forest Service decisions related to fuel reduction projects, we sought to  use the agency’s Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System, which was  designed to track planning, appeals, and litigation information for all  Forest Service decisions. During our review, however, we determined that  the system did not contain all the information we believed was pertinent  to decisions that had been appealed or litigated and that the information  the system did contain was not always complete or accurate. As a result,  we conducted our own survey of Forest Service field unit employees.  Likewise, during our recent testimony on hardrock mining, we noted that  the Forest Service had difficulty determining the number of abandoned  hardrock mines on its land, and we were concerned about the accuracy of  the data that the agency maintained. Further, we recently reported that  the Forest Service does not track all costs associated with activities under  its land exchange program—another area of concern in our 2009  testimony.
One area that is expected to see improvements in the future is the  completeness and accuracy of cost data, because in 2012 Agriculture is  scheduled to replace its current Foundation Financial Information System  with a new Financial Management Modernization Initiative system that  includes managerial cost-accounting capabilities. Managerial cost  accounting, rather than measuring only the cost of “inputs” such as labor  and materials, integrates financial and nonfinancial data, such as the  number of hours worked or number of acres treated, to measure the cost  of outputs and the activities that produce them. Such an approach allows  managers to routinely analyze cost information and use it in making  decisions about agency operations and supports a focus on managing  costs, rather than simply managing budgets. Such information is crucial  for the Forest Service, as for all federal agencies, to make difficult funding  decisions in this era of limited budgets and competing program priorities.  According to Agriculture’s 2010 Performance and Accountability Report,  the Forest Service has assessed its managerial cost accounting needs, and  the cost-accounting module in the new system should allow the Forest  Service to collect more-relevant managerial cost-accounting information.
section_title: Even with Improvements, Some Financial and Performance Accountability Shortcomings Persist
paragraphs: In 2009, we testified that the Forest Service had made sufficient progress  resolving problems we identified with its financial management for us to  remove the agency from our high-risk list in 2005 but that concerns about  financial accountability remained. While we have not reexamined these  issues in detail since that time, recent reports from Agriculture, including  from the Office of the Inspector General, continue to identify concerns in  this area. For example, in 2010 Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General  reported six significant deficiencies—including poor coordination of  efforts to address financial reporting requirements and weaknesses in  internal controls for revenue-related transactions—although it did not find  any of the deficiencies to be material weaknesses. Echoing these  concerns about internal control weaknesses, Agriculture reported in its  2010 Performance and Accountability Report that the Forest Service  needed to improve controls over its expenditures for wildland fire  management and identified the wildland fire suppression program as  susceptible to significant improper payments.
The Forest Service likewise has not fully resolved the performance  accountability concerns that we raised in our 2009 testimony. As we noted  at that time, the agency’s long-standing performance accountability  problems included an inability to link planning, budgeting, and results  reporting. This concern was also raised by a 2010 Inspector General  report, which stated that the major goals cited in the agency’s strategic  plan did not match the categories in its Foundation Financial Information  System. In other words, the Forest Service could not meaningfully  compare its cost information with its performance measures.
section_title: The Forest Service Faces Additional Challenges Related to Program Oversight and Strategic Planning
paragraphs: In addition to the management challenges we discussed in our 2009  testimony, several of our recent reviews have identified additional  challenges facing the Forest Service—challenges that highlight the need  for more effective program oversight and better strategic planning. In light  of potential funding constraints resulting from our nation’s long-term fiscal  condition, it is essential that the Forest Service be able to maximize the  impact of its limited budget resources by exercising effective program  oversight and appropriate strategic planning. Some recent concerns we  have noted in this area include the following:    Oversight of the land exchange process. As part of its land management  responsibilities, the Forest Service acquires and disposes of lands through  land exchanges—trading federal lands for lands owned by willing private  entities, individuals, or state or local governments. In the past, we and  others identified problems in the Forest Service’s land exchange program  and made recommendations to correct them. However, in our 2009 report  on the Forest Service’s land exchange program, we found that, although  the agency had taken action to address most of the problems we had  previously identified, it needed to take additional action to better oversee  and manage the land exchange process so as to ensure that land  exchanges serve the public interest and return fair value to taxpayers. In  that report we made recommendations for the agency to, among other  things, strengthen its oversight of the land exchange process, develop a  national land tenure strategy, track costs, make certain training  mandatory, and develop a formal system to track staff training. The Forest  Service generally agreed with our recommendations, but as of October  2010, the agency had yet to develop a national land tenure strategy, track  land exchange costs, require specific training for staff working on land  exchanges, or fully implement a system to track attendance at training.
Workforce planning. In recent reports, we and Agriculture’s Inspector  General have raised concerns about the Forest Service’s ability to maintain  an effective workforce through strategic workforce planning. In a 2010  report, we noted that the Forest Service (like Interior and the  Environmental Protection Agency) had fallen short with respect to two of  the six leading principles that we and others have identified as important  to effective workforce planning: (1) aligning the agency’s workforce plan  with its strategic plan and (2) monitoring and evaluating its workforce- planning efforts. Without more clearly aligning its workforce plans with  its strategic plan, and monitoring and evaluating its progress in workforce  planning, as we recommended in that report, the Forest Service remains at  risk of not having the appropriately skilled workforce it needs to  effectively achieve its mission. In addition, we reported that the Forest  Service developed and issued annual workforce plans containing  information on emerging workforce issues and that the agency had  identified recommendations to address these issues but did not  communicate its recommendations, nor assign responsibility for  implementing recommendations. For the Forest Service to further  capitalize on its existing workforce-planning efforts, we recommended  that the agency communicate its recommendations in its annual 5-year  workforce plan, assign responsibility and establish time frames for  implementing the recommendations, and track implementation progress.  As of November 2010, the Forest Service had begun several actions to  address our recommendations, although they had not yet been fully  implemented.
Workforce planning is of particular concern in the area of wildland  firefighting. In March 2010, Agriculture’s Inspector General reported that  the Forest Service lacked a workforce plan specific to firefighters, despite  the relatively high number of staff eligible to retire among those in  positions critical to firefighting and the agency’s own expectations of an  increase in the size and number of fires it will be responsible for  suppressing. As the Inspector General noted, a lack of qualified  firefighters due to retirements and inadequate planning could jeopardize  the Forest Service’s ability to accomplish its wildland fire suppression  mission, resulting in the loss of more property and natural resources and  increased safety risks to fire suppression personnel.
Strategic approaches for protecting and securing federal lands. In 2010,  we issued reports examining different aspects of the Forest Service’s  response to illegal activities occurring on the lands it manages, including  human and drug smuggling into the United States. For example, we  reported that the Forest Service, like other federal land management  agencies, lacks a risk-based approach to managing its law enforcement  resources and concluded that without a more systematic method to assess  risks posed by illegal activities, the Forest Service could not be assured  that it was allocating scarce resources effectively. For federal lands along  the United States border, we reported that communication and  coordination between Border Patrol and federal land management  agencies, including the Forest Service, had not been effective in certain  areas, including the sharing of intelligence and threat information,  deployment plans, and radio communications between the agencies. In  light of these shortcomings, and to better protect resources and the public,  we recommended that the Forest Service adopt a risk-based approach to  better manage its law enforcement resources and, in conjunction with the  Department of the Interior and the Department of Homeland Security, take  steps to improve communication and coordination between the agencies.  The Forest Service concurred with our recommendations.
Management strategies for the use of off-highway vehicles (OHV). Over  the past few decades, the use of OHVs on federal lands has become a  popular form of recreation, although questions have been raised about the  effects of OHV use on natural resources and on other visitors. In 2009, we  reported that the Forest Service’s plans for OHV management lacked key  elements of strategic planning, such as results-oriented goals, strategies to  achieve the goals, time frames for implementing strategies, and  performance measures to monitor incremental progress. We  recommended that the Forest Service take a number of steps to provide  quality OHV recreational opportunities while protecting natural and  cultural resources on federal lands, including identifying additional  strategies to improve OHV management, time frames for carrying out the  strategies, and performance measures for monitoring progress. As of June  2010, the Forest Service had several actions under way to address our  recommendations, but none were yet complete.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee  may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me at   (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony include Steve Gaty,  Assistant Director; Andrea Wamstad Brown; Ellen W. Chu; Jonathan Dent;  Griffin Glatt-Dowd; and Richard P. Johnson.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help  Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement  Resources. GAO-11-144. Washington, D.C.: December 17, 2010.
Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure a  Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands.  GAO-11-177. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2010.
Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should  Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation.  GAO-10-413. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2010.
Forest Service: Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation  Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008.  GAO-10-337. Washington, D.C: March 4, 2010.
Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Have Taken Important  Steps Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action Is Needed to Capitalize  on Those Steps. GAO-09-877. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009.
Hardrock Mining: Information on State Royalties and the Number of  Abandoned Mine Sites and Hazards. GAO-09-854T. Washington, D.C: July  14, 2009.
Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing  Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles. GAO-09-509. Washington, D.C.:  June 30, 2009.
Federal Land Management: BLM and the Forest Service Have Improved  Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional Actions Are  Needed. GAO-09-611. Washington, D.C: June 12, 2009.
Forest Service: Emerging Issues Highlight the Need to Address Persistent  Management Challenges. GAO-09-443T. Washington, D.C: March 11, 2009.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product 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.