United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

WILDLAND FIRE 

MANAGEMENT 

Lack of a Cohesive Strategy 

Hinders Agencies’ CostContainment Efforts 

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST 

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 

 

GAO-07-427T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 30, 2007

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders 

Highlights of GAO-07-427T, a testimony Agencies’ Cost-Containment Efforts 

before the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

Over the past two decades, the

number of acres burned by

wildland fires has increased, often 

threatening human lives, property, 

and ecosystems. The cost of 

responding to wildland fires has

also grown, especially as more

homes are built in or near

wildlands, an area called the

wildland-urban interface. Past 

management practices, including a

concerted federal policy in the 20th 

century of suppressing fires to

protect communities and 

ecosystems, unintentionally 

resulted in steady accumulation of

dense vegetation that can fuel 

large, intense, and often costly

wildland fires. 

GAO was asked to identify actions

that federal wildland fire agencies 

need to take to help contain federal 

wildland fire expenditures. GAO 

has identified these actions in three 

of its reports addressing fuel 

reduction and cost-sharing efforts 

and as part of an ongoing review of

federal agencies’ efforts to contain 

wildland fire preparedness and

suppression costs for this 

committee. Specifically, GAO

focused on examining agencies’ 

efforts to (1) reduce accumulated 

fuels and address wildland fire

problems, (2) share with 

nonfederal entities the costs of

responding to multijurisdictional 

fires, and (3) contain the costs of 

preparing for and responding to

wildland fires. 

Over the past 7 years, GAO has recommended a number of actions federal

wildland fire agencies should take to improve their management of wildland 

fire activities, actions that could also help contain the rising federal 

expenditures for responding to wildland fires. These agencies—the Forest 

Service within the Department of Agriculture and land management agencies

within the Department of the Interior—concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations but have not completed, or in some cases have not yet 

begun, needed actions. GAO’s ongoing review of federal agencies’ efforts to 

contain wildland fire preparedness and suppression costs has also identified 

other actions that may be needed. Specifically, the agencies need to: 

• Develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the options and 

associated funding to reduce fuels and address wildland fire 

problems. In 1999, to address the problem of excess fuels and their 

potential to increase the severity of wildland fires and the cost of 

suppression efforts, GAO recommended that a cohesive strategy be 

developed that identified the available long-term options and associated 

funding for reducing these fuels. In 2005 and 2006, because the agencies 

had not yet developed one, GAO reiterated the need for such a strategy

but broadened its focus to better address the interrelated nature of fuel 

reduction efforts and wildland fire response. GAO also recommended 

that, as an interim step, the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining the 

steps and time frames needed for completing a cohesive strategy. As of 

January 2007, the agencies had not developed either a cohesive strategy

or a tactical plan. 

• Clarify their guidance for sharing wildland fire suppression 

costs with nonfederal entities. In 2006, to address the rising costs of 

responding to fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and 

resources, GAO recommended that the federal agencies provide more 

specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should be 

used. The cost-sharing method used can have significant financial 

consequences for the entities involved—potentially amounting to 

millions of dollars. As of January 2007, the agencies were updating their 

guidance on possible cost-sharing methods and when each typically 

would be used, but it is unclear how the agencies will ensure that the 

guidance is followed. 

• Establish clear goals, strategies, and performance measures to 

help contain wildland fire costs. Preliminary findings from GAO’s 

ongoing work indicate that the effectiveness of agencies’ efforts to 

contain costs may be limited because the agencies have not clearly 

defined their cost-containment goals, developed a strategy for achieving

those goals, or developed related performance measures. For these 

efforts to be effective, the agencies need to integrate cost-containment 

goals with the other goals of the wildland fire program—such as 

protecting life and property—and to recognize that trade-offs will be 

needed to meet desired goals within the context of fiscal constraints.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-427T.

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. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the key actions that we believe

federal wildland fire management agencies—the Forest Service within the 

Department of Agriculture and four agencies within the Department of the 

Interior—need to complete to help contain the rising costs of preparing for 

and responding to wildland fires. Increasing wildland fire threats to 

communities and ecosystems, combined with rising costs of addressing 

those threats—trends that we and others have reported on for many 

years—have not abated. On average, the acreage burned annually by 

wildland fires from 2000 to 2005 was 70 percent greater than the acreage 

burned annually during the 1990s. Appropriations for wildland fire 

management activities tripled from about $1 billion in fiscal year 1999 to 

nearly $3 billion in fiscal year 2005. Although the agencies are still refining 

their data, 2006 was an especially severe year, with almost 10 million acres 

burned and what are likely to be the highest federal fire suppression 

expenditures ever. A number of factors have contributed to more-severe 

fires and corresponding increases in expenditures for wildland fire 

management activities. These factors include an accumulation of fuels due 

to past fire suppression policies; severe weather and drought in some 

areas of the country; and growing numbers of homes built in or near 

wildlands, an area often called the wildland-urban interface. In light of the

federal deficit and the long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation, 

attention has increasingly focused on ways to contain these growing 

expenditures and to ensure that the agencies’ wildland fire activities are 

appropriate and carried out in a cost-effective and efficient manner. 

My testimony today includes findings from three of our recent reports, 

plus preliminary findings from work under way, which together 

summarize key wildland fire management weaknesses we have identified

over the last 7 years, as well as critical actions the agencies need to 

complete if they are to effectively contain the rising costs of responding to

wildland fires. Specifically, my testimony focuses on three issues: the 

agencies’ efforts to (1) reduce fuels and address wildland fire problems,1

(2) share with nonfederal entities the costs of responding to fires that burn 

 1

GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a 

Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats, GAO-06-671R (Washington, D.C.: May 

1, 2006); Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges 

Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy, GAO-05-147 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005). 

Page 1 GAO-07-427T 
or threaten to burn multiple jurisdictions,2

 and (3) contain federal 

expenditures of preparing for and responding to wildland fires. To 

evaluate these issues, we reviewed selected reports that we have issued 

since 2000, as well as those by other federal agencies or outside 

organizations, that assessed federal wildland fire management. We 

reviewed pertinent agency plans, policies, procedures, reports, and 

financial documents, and we interviewed federal and nonfederal officials

to identify steps federal agencies have taken to address these areas and 

the challenges remaining. We performed our work in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards from May 2006 through 

January 2007. 

In summary, federal wildland fire management agencies need to take a

number of actions to strengthen their overall management of the wildland

fire program, actions that could lead to more effective and efficient use of

scarce resources and help the agencies to better contain costs. While we 

have made a number of recommendations over the last 7 years to improve 

wildland fire management—and agencies have largely concurred with 

these recommendations—the agencies have made limited progress in 

implementing the needed changes. Further, our preliminary work on 

federal agencies’ efforts to contain wildland fire preparedness and 

suppression costs has also identified other actions that may be needed. 

Specifically, we believe that the agencies need to:

Summary 

• Develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the options and 

associated funding to reduce fuels and address wildland fire 

problems. In 1999, to address the problem of excess fuels and their 

potential to increase the severity of wildland fires and cost of suppression 

efforts, we recommended that a cohesive strategy be developed that 

identified the available long-term options and associated funding for 

reducing fuels. By 2005, the agencies had yet to develop such a strategy, 

and we reiterated the need for a cohesive strategy and broadened our 

recommendation’s focus to better address the interrelated nature of fuel 

reduction efforts and wildland fire response. We also recommended that

the agencies develop a tactical plan outlining the steps and time frames 

needed for completing a cohesive strategy. Such a strategy and plan would 

be helpful to the Congress and the agencies in making informed decisions

 2

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). 

Page 2 GAO-07-427T 
about effective and affordable long-term approaches to addressing the 

nation’s wildland fire problems. Although the agencies concurred with our 

recommendations, as of January 2007, neither a cohesive strategy nor a 

tactical plan had been developed. 

• Clarify their guidance for sharing wildland fire suppression costs 

with nonfederal entities. In 2006, to help address the rising costs of 

responding to fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and 

resources, we recommended that the federal agencies, working with 

relevant state entities, clarify the financial responsibility for these fires and 

provide more specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing 

methods should be used. The method used to share the costs of 

suppressing a wildland fire among responsible entities can have significant 

financial consequences for the entities involved—potentially amounting to 

millions of dollars. The need for clarity about how to share the rising costs 

of wildland fire protection is becoming more acute as increasing numbers 

of homes are built in areas at risk from wildland fires. As of January 2007, 

the agencies were updating guidance on possible methods for sharing 

costs between federal and nonfederal entities and the circumstances when 

each method typically would be used. It is unclear, however, how the 

agencies will ensure that such guidance is followed. 

• Establish clear goals, strategies, and performance measures to 

help contain wildland fire costs. Preliminary findings from our work 

under way for this committee indicate that, although the agencies have 

taken certain steps to help contain wildland fire costs, the effectiveness of 

these steps may be limited because agencies have not established clear 

cost-containment goals, strategies to achieve those goals, or effective 

performance measures to track their progress. 

Each of these efforts plays an important role in addressing the issue of 

containing wildland fire costs, but none of them alone can solve the 

problem. For cost-containment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to 

integrate cost-containment goals with the other goals of the wildland fire 

program—such as protecting life, resources, and property—and to 

recognize that trade-offs will be needed to meet desired goals within the 

context of fiscal constraints. Further, because the agencies’ efforts to 

reduce fuels and to prepare for and suppress wildland fires are 

interrelated, the cohesive strategy we previously recommended for 

responding to wildland fires is fundamental if agencies are to contain 

costs. 

Page 3 GAO-07-427T 
Wildland fires ignited by lightning are both natural and inevitable and play 

an important ecological role on the nation’s landscape. In addition to 

maintaining habitat diversity, releasing soil nutrients, and causing the 

seeds of fire-dependent species to germinate, fire periodically removes 

undergrowth, small trees, and vegetation that can otherwise build up and

intensify subsequent fires. However, various human land use and 

management practices, including decades of suppressing wildland fires, 

have altered the normal frequency of fires in many forest and rangeland 

ecosystems, leading to uncharacteristically dense vegetation and atypical 

fire patterns in some places. At the same time, more homes and 

communities are being built in areas where fires can occur, increasing 

risks to human life, property, and infrastructure. Experts estimate that 

between 1990 and 2000, 60 percent of all new housing units in the United

States were built in the wildland-urban interface, and by 2000, about 38 

percent of housing units overall were located in the wildland-urban 

interface.3

 Recent media reports indicate that this trend of growth in the 

wildland-urban interface continues. Finally, agency analyses indicate that 

climate change and related drought may also be responsible for significant 

increases in the occurrence of, and costs of responding to, wildland fire.

Increases in the size and severity of wildland fires, and in the cost of 

fighting 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 areas of the country, 

however, rather than eliminating severe wildland fires, decades of 

suppression disrupted ecological cycles and began to change the structure 

and makeup of forests and rangelands, increasing the land’s susceptibility 

to fire. Increasingly, the agencies have recognized the key role that fire 

plays in many ecosystems and the utility of fire itself as a tool in managing 

forests and watersheds. The agencies worked together to develop the

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy in 1995, which for the first time 

formally recognized the essential role that fire plays in maintaining natural 

systems. This policy was subsequently reaffirmed and updated in 2001. In 

addition to noting the negative effects of past wildland fire suppression, 

the policy also recognized that continued development in the wildlandurban interface has placed more values at risk from wildland fire while 

Background 

 3

The wildland-urban interface is defined as the area where structures and other human 

developments meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland. 

Page 4 GAO-07-427T 
increasing the complexity and cost of wildland fire suppression 

operations. 

To help address these trends, the policy directed agencies to consider 

management objectives and the values at risk when determining how or 

whether to suppress a wildland fire. Under this approach, termed 

“appropriate management response,” the agencies may fight fires that 

threaten communities or other highly valued areas more aggressively than

they fight fires in remote areas or in areas where natural fuel reduction 

would be beneficial. In some cases, the agencies may simply monitor the 

fire, or take only limited suppression actions, to ensure that it continues to

pose little threat to valued resources. Under current interagency policy, 

local federal units must develop land management and fire management 

plans that document approved fire management strategies for each acre of 

burnable land and other important information about how the land will be 

managed, including local values at risk, needed local fuel reduction, and

rehabilitation actions. Once a fire starts, land management and fire 

management specialists are to identify and implement the appropriate 

management response, in accordance with the unit’s approved land and 

fire management plans. 

Responding to wildland fires—which can burn across federal and 

nonfederal jurisdictions—often requires coordination and collaboration 

among federal, tribal, state, and local firefighting entities to effectively 

protect lives, homes, and resources. Five federal agencies—the Forest 

Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

National Park Service within the Department of the Interior—fight 

wildland fires. These federal agencies work together with nonfederal 

firefighting entities to share personnel, equipment, and supplies and to 

fight fires, regardless of which entities have jurisdiction over the burning 

lands. Agreements developed and agreed to by cooperating entities, 

commonly referred to as master agreements, govern cooperative fire 

protection efforts and include general provisions for sharing firefighting 

costs among responsible entities. 

Page 5 GAO-07-427T 
Agencies need a cohesive strategy that identifies the available long-term 

options and associated funding for reducing excess vegetation and 

responding to wildland fires if the agencies and the Congress are to make 

informed decisions about an effective and affordable long-term approach 

for addressing problems that have been decades in the making. We first 

recommended that the agencies develop such a strategy for addressing 

fuels in 1999. After we evaluated a number of related wildland fire 

management issues, we reiterated our recommendation in 2005 and 2006

but also recognized that a comprehensive solution needs to address not 

only reducing fuels but also an overall response to wildland fire. To 

develop an effective overall strategy, agencies need to complete several

key tasks, which address weaknesses we previously identified.

Our 2005 report summarized several weaknesses in the federal 

government’s management of fuel reduction and related wildland fire 

programs and identified a number of actions to address these weaknesses.4

Specifically, these weaknesses included the following: the agencies lacked

basic data, such as the extent and location of lands needing fuel reduction; 

the agencies needed to identify and prioritize fuel reduction projects; 

many federal land management units did not have fire management plans 

that met agency requirements designed to restore fire’s natural role in 

ecosystems consistent with human health and safety; and the agencies 

were unable to assess the extent to which they were reducing wildland fire 

risks, to establish meaningful fuel reduction performance measures, or to 

determine the cost-effectiveness of these efforts because they lacked 

needed data. We also identified a number of tasks the agencies needed to

complete to develop a cohesive strategy. These tasks included finishing 

data systems that are needed to identify the extent, severity, and location

of wildland fire threats in our national forests and rangelands; updating 

local fire management plans to better specify the actions needed to 

effectively address these threats; and assessing the cost-effectiveness and 

affordability of options for reducing fuels and responding to wildland fire 

problems. 

Agencies Need a 

Cohesive Strategy to 

Address Wildland Fire 

Problems 

 4

GAO-05-147. 

Page 6 GAO-07-427T 
The agencies have made some progress on the three primary tasks we 

identified as important to developing a wildland fire management strategy, 

although concerns have been raised about when or whether the agencies 

will successfully complete them. More specifically, 

• LANDFIRE, a geospatial data and modeling system, is being designed to 

assist the agencies in identifying the extent, severity, and location of 

wildland fire threats to the nation’s communities and ecosystems. 

LANDFIRE data are nearly complete for most of the western United 

States, with data for the remainder of the country scheduled to be 

completed in 2009. The agencies will need to ensure, however, that 

LANDFIRE data are kept current in order to reflect landscape-altering 

events, such as large fires and hurricanes, and they do not yet have a plan

to do so. 

• In 2006, we reported that 95 percent of the agencies’ individual land 

management units had completed fire management plans in accordance

with agency requirements promulgated in 2001. However, the agencies do

not require regular plan updates to ensure that new data (from 

LANDFIRE, for example) are incorporated into the plans. Moreover, in the 

wake of two court decisions—each holding that the Forest Service was 

required to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)5

 to 

accompany the relevant fire management plan—the Forest Service 

decided to withdraw the two plans instead of completing them. It is 

unclear whether the agency would withdraw other fire management plans 

successfully challenged under NEPA; nor is it clear whether or to what 

extent such agency decisions could undermine the interagency policy 

directing that every burnable acre have a fire management plan. Without 

such plans, however, current agency policy does not allow use of the 

entire range of wildland fire response strategies, including less aggressive,

and potentially less costly, strategies.

• The Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system is a computer-based model 

designed to assist the agencies in cost-effectively allocating the resources 

necessary to address wildland fires. FPA is being designed in two phases. 

Phase I was intended to provide information for use in allocating 

resources for the initial responses to fires and in developing estimates for 

agencies’ fiscal year 2008 budgets. Phase II was to be focused on 

 5

For major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment, 

the National Environmental Policy Act requires all federal agencies to analyze the 

environmental impact of the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).

Page 7 GAO-07-427T 
additional activities, including fuel reduction and large-fire suppression. A 

“midcourse review” of FPA, completed in 2006, however, has resulted in 

recent endorsement by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council6 of what may 

be significant design modifications to FPA—ones that may not fulfill key 

project goals of (1) optimizing how resources are allocated, (2) linking fuel 

reduction to future preparedness and suppression costs, (3) ensuring 

comparability among different agencies’ analyses and resulting decisions, 

and (4) enabling aggregation of local costs to identify national options and 

related budgets. Agencies plan to have a prototype of phase II, reflecting 

this design modification, completed by June 2007. According to a program 

official, the prototype will enable project managers to assess and report to

the leadership council on the planned scope, schedule, and cost of FPA, 

including whether or not they will meet the scheduled completion date of

June 2008. Further, gaps in the data collected for FPA may also reduce its 

usefulness in allocating resources. 

Although the agencies had made progress on these three primary tasks at 

the time of our 2006 update, they had not developed either a cohesive 

strategy identifying options for reducing fuels or a joint tactical plan

outlining the critical steps, together with related time frames, the agencies

would take to complete a cohesive strategy, as we recommended in our 

2005 report. In February 2006, the agencies issued an interagency 

document titled Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive 

Fuels Treatment Strategy, but we found that the document did not 

identify long-term options or associated funding for reducing fuels and 

responding to wildland fires. During our update, officials from the Office 

of Management and Budget stated that it would not allow the agencies to 

publish long-term funding estimates until the agencies had sufficiently 

reliable data on which to base the estimates. The agencies commented that 

having such data would not be possible until LANDFIRE and FPA were 

more fully operational. We continue to believe that until a cohesive 

strategy can be developed, it is essential that the agencies create a tactical

plan for developing this strategy, so the Congress understands the steps 

and time frames involved in completing the strategy. 

 6

The Wildland Fire Leadership Council was established in April 2002 to support the 

implementation and coordination of federal wildland fire management activities. The 

council includes membership from Agriculture and Interior, as well as the agencies with 

wildland fire management responsibilities. 

Page 8 GAO-07-427T 
Federal agencies need to take steps to improve the framework for sharing 

wildland fire suppression costs between federal and nonfederal entities. 

Effective sharing of suppression costs among responsible entities can play 

a role in helping to contain federal expenditures, especially with the 

growing number of homes in areas at risk from wildland fire that may 

require protection. We recommended in our 2006 report that federal 

agencies work with relevant state entities to clarify the financial 

responsibilities for suppressing fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across 

multiple jurisdictions and provide more specific guidance as to when 

particular cost-sharing methods should be used.

7

 As of January 2007, the 

agencies were updating guidance on options for sharing costs and under 

what circumstances each would typically be used, but it is unclear how the 

agencies will ensure that such guidance is followed. 

We found that federal and nonfederal entities used a variety of methods to 

share the costs of fighting wildland fires affecting both federal and 

nonfederal lands and resources. Agreements between federal and 

nonfederal entities—known as master agreements—provide the 

framework for those entities to share suppression costs for wildland fires 

that burn or threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. 

These agreements typically list several available cost-sharing methods. 

The agreements we reviewed, however, often lacked clear guidance for 

officials to use in deciding which method to apply for a specific fire. Clear 

guidance is important because local representatives of federal and 

nonfederal firefighting entities responsible for protecting lands and 

resources affected by the fire use this guidance in deciding which costs 

will be shared and for what period. We found, however, that cost-sharing 

methods were applied inconsistently within and among states, even for 

fires with similar characteristics. For example, in one state we reviewed, 

the costs for suppressing a large fire that threatened homes were shared 

solely according to the proportion of acres burned within each entity’s 

area of fire protection responsibility, a method that has traditionally been 

used. Yet costs for a similar fire within the same state were shared 

differently. For this fire, the state agreed to pay for certain aircraft and fire 

engines used to protect the wildland-urban interface, while the remaining 

costs were shared on the basis of acres burned. In contrast to the two 

methods applied in this state, officials in another state used yet a different

cost-sharing method for two similar large fires that threatened homes, 

apportioning costs each day for personnel, aircraft, and equipment 

Better Guidance 

Needed to Clarify 

Sharing of 

Suppression Costs 

between Federal and 

Nonfederal Entities 

 7

GAO-06-570. 

Page 9 GAO-07-427T 
deployed on particular lands, such as the wildland-urban interface. The 

type of cost-sharing method ultimately used can have significant financial

consequences for the entities involved, potentially amounting to millions 

of dollars. Moreover, as we reported, federal officials expressed concern 

that the existing cost-sharing framework insulated state and local 

governments from the cost of providing wildland fire protection in the 

wildland-urban interface, thus reducing the incentive for state and local 

governments to adopt laws—such as building codes that require fireresistant materials in areas at high risk of wildland fires—that in the long

run could help reduce the cost of suppressing wildland fires. 

We recommended in our 2006 report that the federal agencies work with 

relevant state entities to clarify the financial responsibility for fires that 

burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple jurisdictions and develop more 

specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should be 

used. The federal agencies generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations and agreed to improve the guidance on sharing 

suppression costs. As of January 2007, the agencies were updating 

guidance that can be used when developing master agreements between 

cooperating federal and nonfederal entities, as well as agreements on how 

to share costs for a specific fire. Agency officials said that this guidance

provides additional information about potential methods for sharing costs 

and about the circumstances under which each cost-sharing method 

would typically be used. It is unclear, however, how the agencies will 

ensure that the guidance is followed. Further, because master agreements 

are updated only every 5 years, it may take a number of years before the 

new guidance is fully incorporated into master agreements between 

cooperating entities. 

Preliminary findings from our ongoing work for the committee show that, 

despite dozens of federal and nonfederal studies issued since 2000 that 

consistently identified similar areas needing improvement to help contain

wildland fire costs, the agencies have made little progress in addressing 

these areas. Areas identified as needing improvement to help contain 

costs—in addition to reducing fuels and cost sharing discussed 

previously—include acquiring and using firefighting personnel and 

equipment, selecting appropriate strategies for responding to wildland 

fires, and effectively managing cost-containment efforts. Although the 

agencies have begun taking steps to address some of the areas previous 

studies have identified as needing improvement, much work remains to be 

done. For example: 

Lack of Clear Goals 

and Cohesive Strategy 

Hinders Agencies’ 

Efforts to Contain 

Wildland Fire Costs 

Page 10 GAO-07-427T 
• Acquiring and using personnel and equipment. The agencies have

taken steps to improve their ability to track and deploy personnel and 

equipment, but they have made little progress in completing the more 

fundamental step of determining the quantity and type of firefighting 

assets needed based on an analysis of values at risk and appropriate 

suppression strategies. Further, although the Forest Service has identified 

a series of improvements it plans to make in the acquisition process, it has 

so far made little progress. 

• Selecting appropriate suppression strategies. The agencies have 

also begun to improve analytic tools that assist land and fire managers 

identify the appropriate suppression strategy for a given fire, but 

shortcomings remain. Federal policies encourage the use of less intensive 

suppression strategies when possible, strategies that may also be less 

costly. Land and fire managers, however, may be reluctant to employ 

anything less than full suppression because of concerns that a fire will 

escape control. Currently, much of the information managers use to 

estimate potential fire size, risks, and costs are based on their individual 

experiences, which can vary widely. Researchers are developing a new 

suite of tools that will analyze fuel conditions and predicted weather 

conditions to model expected fire growth and behavior and provide better 

information for managers making fire response decisions, but as of 

January 2007, these new tools were still being developed and tested. 

• Managing cost-containment efforts. The steps the agencies have taken 

to date to contain wildland fire costs lack several key elements 

fundamental to sound program management, such as clearly defining costcontainment goals, developing a strategy for achieving those goals, and 

measuring progress toward achieving them. First, the agencies have not 

clearly articulated the goals of their cost-containment efforts. For costcontainment efforts to be effective, the agencies need to integrate costcontainment goals with the other goals of the wildland fire program—such

as protecting life, property, and resources. For example, the agencies have 

established the goal of suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost, 

considering firefighter and public safety and values being protected, but 

they have not defined criteria by which these often-competing objectives 

are to be weighed. Second, although the agencies are undertaking a variety

of steps designed to help contain wildland fire costs, the agencies have not 

developed, and agency officials to this point have been unable to 

articulate, a clear plan for how these efforts fit together or the extent to

which they will assist in containing costs. Finally, the agencies are 

developing a statistical model of fire suppression costs that they plan to 

use to identify when the cost for an individual fire may have been 

excessive. The model compares a fire’s cost to the costs of suppressing 

Page 11 GAO-07-427T 
previous fires with similar characteristics. However, such comparisons 

with previous fires’ costs may not fully consider the potential for managers 

to select less aggressive—and potentially less costly—suppression 

strategies. In addition, the model is still under development and may take a 

number of years to fully refine. Without clear program goals and 

objectives, and corresponding performance measures to evaluate 

progress, the agencies lack the tools to be able to determine the 

effectiveness of their cost-containment efforts. 

The federal government is expending substantial effort and billions of 

dollars in attempting to address our nation’s wildland fire problems. Yet 

despite promises to do so, the agencies still cannot articulate how the 

steps they are taking fit together to form a comprehensive and cohesive

strategy to contain costs or to address the many wildland fire management 

problems we and others have reported over the last 7 years. Given the 

interrelated nature of wildland fire issues, they cannot be addressed in 

isolation but must be viewed from and addressed within a broader 

perspective. Agencies need to understand how each issue affects the 

others and determine the trade-offs required to effectively meet program 

goals while containing program costs. Therefore, if the agencies and the 

Congress are to make informed decisions about an effective and 

affordable long-term approach to responding to these issues, agencies 

need to first develop clearly defined program goals and objectives and a

strategy to achieve them, including identifying associated funding. 

Because it will likely be at least 2009 before the agencies develop a 

strategy for fuel reduction efforts that would meet standards required by 

the Office of Management and Budget, we continue to believe that in the 

interim, it is essential that the agencies create a tactical plan for 

developing this strategy, so that the Congress understands the steps and 

time frames involved with its completion. In doing so, the agencies need to 

make very clear how the final design of FPA will meet the key program 

goals enumerated here, how and when the agencies will complete all fire 

management plans, and what schedule they envision for periodically 

updating LANDFIRE data. At the same time, to help address the rising cost 

of protecting the growing number of homes built in the wildland urban 

interface—a cost that may be disproportionately borne by the federal 

government—federal agencies also need to work with relevant state 

entities to ensure that appropriate methods are used for sharing the costs 

of suppressing fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple 

jurisdictions. 

Conclusions 

Page 12 GAO-07-427T 
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may 

have at this time. 

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. 

Page 13 GAO-07-427T 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360794) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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 

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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER