This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-922T 
entitled 'Wildland Fire: Management Improvements Could Enhance Federal 
Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires' which was 
released on June 27, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

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: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-922T, a testimony before the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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). 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

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. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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 nazzaror@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 2] I presented 
the preliminary results of our work before this Committee in January 
2007.[Footnote 3] 

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, 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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." 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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: 

* 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; 

* 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: 

* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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 nazzaror@gao.gov. 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. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] Federal 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. 

[2] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals and a Strategy 
Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting 
Fires, GAO-07-655 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2007). 

[3] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders 
Agencies' Cost-Containment Efforts, GAO-07-427T (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 
30, 2007). 

[4] The 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. 

[5] The 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. 

[6] A 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. 

[7] GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises 
Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities, 
GAO-06-570 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006). 

[8] Principles 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, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 
1999).

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 (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 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: