United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

WILDLAND FIRE 

MANAGEMENT 

Lack of Clear Goals or 

a Strategy Hinders 

Federal Agencies’ 

Efforts to Contain the 

Costs of Fighting Fires

June 2007 

 

GAO-07-655 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2007

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders 

Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Contain the 

Costs of Fighting Fires 

Highlights of GAO-07-655, a report to 

congressional requesters 

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, in response to findings from

previous studies, 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. 

To address these objectives, GAO 

reviewed previous costcontainment studies and other

agency documents and interviewed 

agency officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the

Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior take several steps to 

improve their management of costcontainment efforts, including 

establishing clearly defined goals 

and measurable objectives and a

strategy to achieve them, and 

provide this information to 

Congress in preparation for the 

2008 fire season. The Forest

Service and Interior generally

disagreed with GAO’s findings,

stating that GAO did not accurately 

portray some of the agencies’ 

actions to contain costs. They 

neither agreed nor disagreed with

GAO’s recommendations.

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 also have 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. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-655.

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. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

To Help Contain Costs, Federal Agencies Are Taking Some Steps to 

Target Operational Areas Identified as Needing Improvement, 

but Results Are Unknown 11 

Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies’ 

Management of Wildland Fire Cost-Containment Efforts 25 

Conclusions 32

Recommendations for Executive Action 33 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 35 

Appendix II Selected GAO Products and Other Reports 

Reviewed 37 

GAO Products 37 

Federal or State Firefighting Entity Reports 38 

Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General Reports 38 

National Academy of Public Administration Reports 39 

Appendix III Comments from the Forest Service and the 

Department of the Interior 40 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47

Table 

Table 1: Forest Service and Interior Wildland Fire Appropriations 

and Distribution, by Wildland Fire Activity, Fiscal Years 

1996 through 2005 7 

Page i GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
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. 

Page ii GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 1, 2007

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Larry E. Craig 

United States Senate 

The federal government’s cost of preparing for and responding to wildland 

fires, which burn millions of acres each year, has increased substantially 

over the past decade. 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. A 

firefighting agency’s response to a wildland fire can range from monitoring 

the fire while letting it burn to aggressively suppressing it. In choosing a 

response, agency officials must assess a number of factors that can affect

the size and severity of the fire as well as the value of threatened 

resources, such as communities, watersheds, or natural resources. In 

recent years, accumulations of fuels, due in part to past suppression 

policies, and severe drought and weather in some areas of the country 

have contributed to more-severe fires and longer fire seasons. At the same 

time, wildland fires have increasingly threatened not only federal lands 

and public resources, such as forests and watersheds, but also nonfederal

lands and resources, including homes and other structures, as 

development has continued to expand into areas in or near wildlands—

commonly known as the wildland-urban interface. Consequently, 

preparing for and responding to wildland fires has become more costly. 

Over the past decade, annual wildland fire appropriations to prepare for 

and suppress wildland fires, including appropriations for reducing fuels, 

have increased from an average of $1.1 billion from fiscal years 1996 

through 2000 to more than $2.9 billion from fiscal years 2001 through 2005; 

The federal government’s cost of preparing for and responding to wildland 

fires, which burn millions of acres each year, has increased substantially 

over the past decade. 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. A 

firefighting agency’s response to a wildland fire can range from monitoring 

the fire while letting it burn to aggressively suppressing it. In choosing a 

response, agency officials must assess a number of factors that can affect

the size and severity of the fire as well as the value of threatened 

resources, such as communities, watersheds, or natural resources. In 

recent years, accumulations of fuels, due in part to past suppression 

policies, and severe drought and weather in some areas of the country 

have contributed to more-severe fires and longer fire seasons. At the same 

time, wildland fires have increasingly threatened not only federal lands 

and public resources, such as forests and watersheds, but also nonfederal

lands and resources, including homes and other structures, as 

development has continued to expand into areas in or near wildlands—

commonly known as the wildland-urban interface. Consequently, 

preparing for and responding to wildland fires has become more costly. 

Over the past decade, annual wildland fire appropriations to prepare for 

and suppress wildland fires, including appropriations for reducing fuels, 

have increased from an average of $1.1 billion from fiscal years 1996 

through 2000 to more than $2.9 billion from fiscal years 2001 through 2005; 

Page 1 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
adjusted for inflation, the appropriations increased from $1.3 billion to 

$3.1 billion.1

Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, federal agency officials, 

and others have expressed concerns about the mounting federal wildland 

fire expenditures. Over the last decade, these concerns have led federal

agencies (including the Forest Service, Interior, the Agriculture Office of

Inspector General, and GAO) and other organizations (including the 

National Association of State Foresters and the National Academy of 

Public Administration2

) to conduct numerous reviews of the federal 

wildland fire program. These reviews generally sought to identify the 

reasons for worsening wildland fire severity and increasing expenditures 

and to recommend possible steps that federal agencies could take to 

contain costs. Despite the dozens of studies conducted, problems 

identified, and hundreds of recommendations for agency action, concerns 

remain about the increasing costs of preparing for and responding to 

wildland fires and the effectiveness of the agencies’ efforts to contain 

those costs. 

In this context, we examined the responsible federal agencies’ efforts to 

contain wildland fire costs. This report discusses steps the Forest Service 

and Interior agencies have taken, in response to findings from previous 

studies, 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. 

To address these issues, we reviewed selected studies—most conducted 

since 2000 by federal, state, and nongovernmental entities—that evaluated 

issues related to wildland fire cost containment, including studies of 

several large fires. We reviewed the issues these studies identified as 

needing improvement to help contain costs and categorized them into 

 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

The National Association of State Foresters is a nonprofit organization representing the 

directors of the forestry agencies of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 8 United

States territories. The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, 

nonpartisan organization chartered by Congress to help federal, state, and local 

governments improve the management and administration of government agencies. 

Page 2 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
broad areas corresponding to key operational areas of preparing for and 

responding to wildland fires. To corroborate our understanding and 

categorization of the issues and the steps that federal agencies have taken 

to address the issues, we interviewed officials from the Forest Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, and Office of Wildland Fire Coordination 

within Interior at the national offices in Washington, D.C., and at the 

National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho.

3

 We also reviewed 

program documents from the Forest Service and Interior agencies. These

documents, along with Congressional Research Service reports, provided 

information on the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland fires. 

Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in more detail, and 

appendix II lists many of the studies we reviewed. We performed our work 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, 

which included an assessment of data reliability, from May 2006 through 

May 2007. 

The Forest Service and Interior agencies have initiated a number of steps 

to address issues that previous studies 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. These issues are generally related to the key 

operational areas of reducing accumulated fuels, acquiring and using 

firefighting personnel and equipment, and selecting firefighting strategies. 

Concerns have also been raised about the framework used to share 

firefighting costs between federal and nonfederal entities. 

Results in Brief 

• Reducing accumulated fuels. 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 

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’ new system, LANDFIRE, is scheduled for 

completion in 2009, but the agencies have yet to decide how they will keep 

data in the system current. Forest Service and Interior officials told us 

they recognize the importance of ensuring that data are periodically 

 3

The National Interagency Fire Center is the nation’s support center for wildland 

firefighting. Representatives from each of the five wildland firefighting agencies, as well as 

from the National Association of State Foresters, National Weather Service, and Office of 

Aircraft Services, are located there and work together to coordinate and support wildland 

fire and disaster operations. 

Page 3 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
updated, and they are developing a plan to operate and maintain the 

system, including determining how often data will be updated. 

• Acquiring and using firefighting assets. Federal firefighting agencies 

have also taken some steps to improve how they acquire and use 

firefighting personnel, aviation resources, equipment, and supplies—assets 

that constitute a major cost of responding to wildland fires—but much 

remains to be done. Agencies have computerized their systems for 

dispatching and monitoring firefighting assets and for gathering and 

analyzing cost data, although project officials could not quantify the 

savings resulting from such efforts. Agencies have not yet improved their

systems for determining the appropriate type and quantity of firefighting 

assets needed for the fire season or for effectively and efficiently 

procuring them. 

• Selecting firefighting strategies. The agencies have clarified certain 

policies and are improving analytical tools that assist agency officials in 

identifying and implementing an appropriate response to a given fire, but

shortcomings remain. 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, 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 potential benefits to 

natural resources. The agencies use the term “appropriate management 

response” for a strategy that considers these factors. The agencies updated

their policies in 2004 to require officials to consider the full spectrum of 

available strategies when selecting a firefighting strategy, but studies have

identified several policies that limit the agencies’ use of less aggressive 

strategies, which typically cost less. 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, however, and it is not yet clear to

what extent these tools will affect officials’ selection of firefighting 

strategies. 

• Sharing wildland fire costs. 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. 

Page 4 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Federal agencies, working with some 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. It is unclear, however, how the agencies will ensure 

that this guidance is followed in the field. 

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. To manage their cost-containment efforts 

effectively, the Forest Service and Interior agencies should, at minimum, 

have (1) clearly defined goals and measurable objectives, (2) a strategy to

achieve the goals and objectives, (3) performance measures to track 

progress, and (4) a framework for holding the appropriate agency officials 

accountable for achieving the goals.4

 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 

goals. 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 the costs of suppression. Second, 

the agencies have not developed a vision of how the various costcontainment steps they are taking relate to one another or determined the 

extent to which these steps will be effective. Third, the agencies are 

working to develop a better performance measure for containing costs, 

but the measure may take a number of years to fully refine, and, moreover, 

the agencies have yet to identify the cost-containment goals they are trying

to achieve. Finally, the agencies have also taken, or are beginning to take, 

steps to improve their oversight and accountability framework—such as 

requiring 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. 

 4

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.: 

Nov. 1999). 

Page 5 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Without clear goals and a strategy for containing wildland fire costs, the 

agencies are unable to effectively and efficiently manage their myriad 

ongoing efforts to contain wildland fire costs. To help them do so, and to 

assist Congress in its oversight role, we are recommending 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 this 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. We added further clarifying language, 

where appropriate, to more accurately characterize some of the agencies’ 

actions. 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. 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. The Forest Service and Interior’s joint 

comments, and our evaluation of them, are included in appendix III. 

Wildland fires triggered by lightning are both natural and inevitable and 

play an important ecological role in the nation’s landscapes. These fires 

shape the composition of forests and grasslands, periodically reduce 

vegetation densities, and stimulate seedling regeneration and growth in 

some species. Over the past century, however, various land use and 

management practices—including fire suppression, grazing, and timber 

harvest—have reduced the normal frequency of fires in many forest and 

rangeland ecosystems and contributed to abnormally dense, continuous 

Background 

Page 6 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
accumulations of vegetation. Such accumulations not only can fuel 

uncharacteristically large or severe wildland fires, but also can threaten 

human lives, health, property, and infrastructure as more homes and 

communities are built in or near areas at risk from wildland fires. Over the 

past decade, the number of acres burned annually by wildland fires in the

United States has substantially increased. 

Federal appropriations to the Forest Service and Interior agencies to 

prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including appropriations for fuel 

treatments have almost tripled, from an average of $1.1 billion from fiscal 

years 1996 through 2000 to more than $2.9 billion from fiscal years 2001 

through 2005 (see table 1). Adjusting for inflation, the average annual 

appropriations for these periods increased from $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion. 

The Forest Service received about 70 percent and Interior about 30 

percent of the funds appropriated. 

Table 1: Forest Service and Interior Wildland Fire Appropriations and Distribution, by Wildland Fire Activity, Fiscal Years 1996 

through 2005 

Dollars in millions 

Total appropriations

Distribution of appropriations, by wildland fire activity 

(percentage) 

Fiscal year Nominal Inflation-adjustedaPreparednessbSuppressioncOther

d

1996 $772.3 $924.8 55.2% 44.8% N/A

1997 1,081.9 1,273.3 42.8 57.2 N/A

1998 1,119.3 1,301.6 42.5 57.5 N/A

1999 1,159.2 1,330.6 45.9 54.1 N/A

2000 1,588.9 1,787.6 36.8 63.2 N/A

2001 2,863.6 3,147.4 32.4 67.6 N/A

2002 2,269.1 2,447.2 39.8 31.0 29.2%

2003 3,195.6 3,378.1 27.8 53.9 18.4

2004 3,293.8 3,394.1 28.1 52.7 19.2

2005 2,998.6 2,998.6 31.2 46.4 22.4

Source: GAO analysis of Congressional Research Service data. 

Note: N/A, not applicable. 

a

We adjusted the appropriations dollars for inflation, using the chain-weighted gross domestic product 

price index with fiscal year 2005 as the base year. 

b

Includes appropriations for hiring, training, and paying fire organization personnel; for acquiring 

needed equipment; and for prevention activities, including public education efforts. 

c

Includes emergency supplemental and contingent appropriations that Congress provided to fund 

suppression activities in years when agencies’ suppression expenditures exceeded the funds initially 

appropriated.

Page 7 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
d

Includes appropriations for fuel reduction activities for fiscal years 2002 through 2005; fuel reduction

activities were limited before fiscal year 2002 and are included in the suppression column. 

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 2000.5

 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 also established the Wildland Fire Leadership 

Council in 2002.6

 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. 

 5

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. 

6

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. 

Page 8 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
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.” 

An incident commander is responsible for implementing the suppression 

strategy selected by the land manager, including determining the tactics to

use and ordering the firefighting assets needed to carry out the strategy. 

For large and complex fires, an incident management team comprising not 

only an incident commander but also a cadre of personnel to handle 

command, planning, logistics, operations, and finance functions manages 

suppression operations. The incident management team orders firefighting 

assets—including personnel, aircraft, equipment, and supplies—through a 

three-tiered system of local, regional, and national dispatch centers. 

Because one firefighting agency alone cannot handle all wildland fires that 

may burn in its jurisdiction and because a single fire may burn across 

federal, state, and local jurisdictions, the five federal land management 

agencies work together with tribal, state, and local firefighting entities to 

respond to a fire. These entities develop agreements, often called master 

agreements, that guide cooperative fire protection efforts and include 

provisions for sharing the costs of these efforts. When a fire is first 

detected, firefighting entities normally follow a principle of “closest 

available resource,” whereby, regardless of jurisdiction, the closest 

available firefighting personnel and equipment respond to the fire. As the 

fire continues to burn, these entities use an interagency incident 

management system with an organizational structure that expands to meet 

a fire’s complexity and demands; this system enables entities to share 

firefighting assets and facilitates an effective response. 

Since the mid-1990s, when annual federal expenditures for wildland fire 

suppression approached $1 billion for the first time, numerous studies 

Page 9 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
have been conducted examining steps that federal agencies could take to 

contain wildland fire suppression costs (see app. II). Some of these studies 

were produced in response to direction from Congress, some were 

initiated by the agencies themselves, and the National Academy of Public

Administration conducted a series of five studies beginning in 2000. In 

addition, Agriculture’s Inspector General, the National Association of State 

Foresters, and GAO have all examined the agencies’ efficiency and 

effectiveness in wildland firefighting. In 2005, the Forest Service hired a 

consultant to review 22 recent reports and to evaluate the costeffectiveness of the reports’ more than 300 recommendations. 

Because previous reports have, year after year, identified many of the 

same issues as needing improvement and recommended similar steps to 

address those issues, some recent studies have concluded that the 

agencies lack the leadership commitment to make the changes needed to 

contain wildland fire costs. The National Association of State Foresters, 

for example, reported that strong national leadership and a mechanism to 

hold officials throughout the agencies accountable for their decisions are 

needed to effectively contain wildland fire costs. The report concluded,

however, that the Forest Service and Interior agencies had made little 

progress in developing a broad and effective response and appeared to 

lack the leadership commitment to make needed changes. An independent 

panel convened by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council reached a similar 

conclusion. Further, the Agriculture Inspector General reported that 

shortcomings identified in Forest Service management, although not 

specific to the wildland fire program, have proven resistant to change. In 

particular, the Inspector General noted that the Forest Service delegates 

broad authority to field units but does not have adequate internal controls, 

including appropriate performance measures, to ensure that agency

policies are followed. 

Page 10 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Dozens of studies by federal agencies and other organizations examining 

federal agencies’ management of wildland fire have repeatedly identified a 

number of similar issues related to wildland fire operations as 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. 

Federal agencies have a number of efforts under way to address needs for 

improvement, but in part because many of the efforts are incomplete, the 

results of these efforts are unknown. 

Numerous studies have reported that reducing accumulated vegetation

and other fuels, although not directly part of wildland firefighting, is a key 

area needing attention if the agencies are to effectively contain wildland

fire preparedness and suppression costs. These fuels can contribute to 

larger and more-severe wildland fires and, consequently, to increasing 

preparedness and suppression costs. The studies also identified several 

factors that hindered the agencies’ ability to effectively reduce fuels. For 

example, we issued a number of reports, beginning in 1999, that found that 

the agencies lacked (1) basic data needed to identify and prioritize lands 

needing fuel reduction treatment; (2) a sound framework to ensure that 

funds appropriated to reduce fuels were spent in an effective, efficient, 

and timely manner; and (3) a cohesive strategy for addressing 

accumulated fuels and wildland fire problems.7

 Other organizations, 

including the Agriculture Inspector General and the National Association 

of State Foresters, reported similar findings. A 2001 update of the federal

wildland fire management policy also reported that no centralized 

database was available to agency officials and scientists for compiling 

consistent information and using that information for long-term 

monitoring, research, or planning. 

To Help Contain 

Costs, Federal 

Agencies Are Taking 

Some Steps to Target 

Operational Areas 

Identified as Needing 

Improvement, but 

Results Are Unknown 

System to Help Identify 

and Set Priorities for 

Lands Needing Fuel 

Treatment Is under 

Development but Not Yet 

Completed 

 7

GAO, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic 

Wildfire Threats, GAO/RCED-99-65 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 1999); Severe Wildland 

Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce Risks to Communities and 

Resources, GAO-02-259 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002); Wildland Fire Management: 

Additional Actions Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels

Reduction, GAO-03-805 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2003); 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); and 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). 

Page 11 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
To help address these shortcomings, the agencies are developing a 

geospatial data and modeling system, called LANDFIRE, but the agencies 

have yet to decide how they will keep data in the system current. 

LANDFIRE—about a $39 million undertaking shared by the Forest Service 

and Interior—is intended to produce consistent and comprehensive maps 

and data describing vegetation, wildland fuels, and fire regimes across the 

United States.

8

 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 identifying 

the 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 are developing, but have not yet finalized, a plan for routinely 

updating data to reflect changes to fuels, including from landscape-altering

events, such as hurricanes, disease, or wildland fires themselves. Such a 

step is critical for keeping the system both current and relevant over the 

long term and for ensuring that the funds invested in LANDFIRE will be of 

more than short-term value. Forest Service and Interior officials told us 

that they recognize the importance of ensuring that data are periodically 

updated, and they are developing a plan to operate and maintain the 

system, including determining how often data will be updated. The 

officials expect to submit this plan in June 2007 to the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council for approval. 

The agencies have yet to develop a cohesive strategy, including long-term 

options and associated funding, to address accumulated fuels and 

wildland fire problems, although they agreed with our recommendation 

that they do so. In February 2006, the agencies completed a document 

titled Protecting People and Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels 

Treatment Strategy. Our review of this document, however, showed that it 

did not include long-term options and associated funding, which are key 

elements of an effective cohesive strategy. Officials from the Office of 

Management and Budget told us they would not allow the firefighting 

agencies to publish long-term funding estimates until the agencies had 

sufficiently reliable data on which to base those estimates. As a result, we 

recommended that the agencies develop a joint tactical plan outlining the

 8

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. 

Page 12 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
critical steps, together with related time frames, that they would take to 

complete a cohesive strategy. Such a strategy and tactical plan would help 

Congress and the agencies in making informed decisions about effective 

and affordable long-term approaches to addressing the nation’s wildland 

fire problems, but as of April 2007, the agencies had developed neither a 

cohesive strategy nor a tactical plan. Because containing costs is one of 

several goals of the wildland fire program, developing a cohesive strategy

that addresses all aspects of the agencies’ preparation for and response to 

wildland fires is fundamental if the agencies are to contain costs. 

Agencies Have Addressed 

Few of the Problems 

Identified in Their 

Acquisition and Use of 

Firefighting Assets 

Federal firefighting agencies have taken some steps to improve how they 

acquire and use firefighting personnel, aviation resources, equipment, and 

supplies—an area that studies have identified as needing improvement to 

better contain costs, especially because firefighting assets constitute a 

major cost of responding to wildland fires—but much remains to be done. 

Issues identified as needing improvement included that (1) federal 

agencies lacked a shared or integrated system for effectively determining 

the appropriate type and quantity of firefighting assets needed for a fire 

season; (2) the agencies’ processes and systems for acquiring firefighting 

assets lacked controls to ensure that the agencies were procuring assets 

cost-effectively; and (3) the agencies sometimes used firefighting assets 

ineffectively or inefficiently, often in response to political or social 

pressures. 

Studies have reported that the agencies do not use a shared or integrated 

system for determining the appropriate type and quantity of firefighting 

assets—personnel, aviation resources, equipment, and supplies—that they 

need during a fire season to respond effectively and efficiently to wildland

fires. This problem is part of a larger issue: the agencies have no

standardized budgeting and resource allocation process. In 2001, a team of 

Forest Service, Interior, and state officials evaluated the processes used by 

the Forest Service and Interior agencies to determine wildland fire budget 

needs and to allocate resources among fire management activities. The 

team found a number of problems.9

 First, agencies’ budgeting and resource 

allocation systems differed from one to the other, and as a result, it was 

difficult to evaluate and compare information across agencies. Yet given 

Determining the Appropriate 

Type and Quantity of Wildland 

Firefighting Assets for a Fire 

Season 

 9

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior,

Developing an Interagency, Landscape-Scale Fire Planning Analysis and Budget Tool 

(Washington, D.C.: November 2001). 

Page 13 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
the cooperative firefighting system used in the United States, a common 

federal budgeting and allocation system would help ensure that each 

agency’s resources and firefighting assets are considered when 

determining type, quantity, and location of firefighting assets needed for a

fire season. Second, the systems to budget and allocate resources for 

different fire management activities within an agency, such as fuel 

reduction and wildland fire response, were not integrated, even though 

these programs can complement one another in achieving overall land 

management goals and objectives. For example, funds spent to reduce 

accumulated fuels may help reduce the number of severe wildland fires 

and, accordingly, wildland firefighting costs. Third, the team found that 

some of the systems used by individual agencies did not provide managers 

with the tools to determine the most cost-effective type and quantity of 

firefighting assets or where they should be located to most effectively 

respond to wildland fires. Determining the appropriate types, quantity, and 

location of firefighting assets is key to carrying out a rapid, effective, and 

efficient response. The review team recommended that Agriculture and 

Interior develop and implement a common interagency process that would 

identify resource needs for the full scope of fire management activities and 

develop the most cost-effective allocation of fire program resources across 

and within these activities. In 2002, the National Academy of Public 

Administration similarly reported that the agencies needed a national 

budgeting methodology to analyze the cost, benefit, number, composition, 

location, mobility, productivity, and seasonality of each type of firefighting

asset.10

Although the agencies are working on two efforts that could potentially 

improve their ability to determine the appropriate type and quantity of 

firefighting assets needed for a fire season, it is unclear whether these 

efforts will actually do so. The first effort is development of 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; 

 10National Academy of Public Administration, Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for

Containing Costs (Washington, D.C.: September 2002). 

Page 14 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
• 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. 

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 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. 

The agencies are also working together to develop national strategies for 

the organization, procurement, and management of aviation resources and 

firefighting crews. Although national Forest Service and Interior officials 

originally indicated that these strategies would be completed by the end of

2006, as of March 2007, the strategies were unfinished. Agency officials 

said that it could be another year before the strategies are completed. 

Studies also reported that federal firefighting agencies lacked effective 

systems for acquiring needed firefighting assets cost-effectively, that is, 

ensuring that vendors provided equipment of sufficient quality at 

competitive prices. Once the agencies have determined the type and 

quantity of firefighting assets needed, they must decide where and how to 

acquire these assets. They have a variety of procurement options to 

choose from: 

Acquiring Firefighting Assets 

Cost-Effectively 

• National contracts are used for assets that can be deployed anywhere in

the nation, including some firefighting crews; aviation resources, such as

large helicopters and air tankers; and camp resources, such as catering 

Page 15 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
and shower facilities. 

• Regional contracts are similar to national contracts, but they are executed

at the regional or state level. 

• Emergency equipment rental agreements are often developed before the 

fire season, but they are executed only when needed; they are used for 

assets such as firefighting crews, engines, bulldozers, water tenders, and 

other equipment. 

• Fire caches store firefighting equipment and other items that can be

delivered to a fire; 11 national caches are strategically located around the 

country. 

• Buying teams support an incident management team at a fire by procuring 

services and supplies and renting land and equipment locally. 

Several studies reported, however, that despite the agencies’ growing 

reliance on contracted personnel and equipment to carry out firefighting 

activities, the agencies’ acquisition systems had several shortcomings. The 

National Academy of Public Administration reported that the agencies’ 

acquisition process was unable to help federal firefighting agencies 

determine the best source for needed firefighting assets—for example, inhouse or contracted. The academy, the Forest Service, and other 

organizations also reported problems with the Forest Service’s process for 

developing contracts and rental agreements for emergency equipment, 

observing, for example, that requirements varied from contract to contract 

and did not ensure that the agencies obtained the most cost-effective 

assets. Further, inadequate administration and oversight of the agreements 

by the agencies resulted in poor contractor performance and high rental 

rates. A 2003 interagency report recommended that the Forest Service and

Interior agencies establish national standards for agreements and 

strengthen national control and oversight to better ensure standard 

operating procedures and policies. Nevertheless, when the Agriculture 

Inspector General evaluated the same issue in 2005, it found that the 

problems remained.11 The Inspector General reported that the Forest 

Service’s administration of the agreements provided the agency with 

neither the best value nor the best vendor for its dollar. Further, although 

 11U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Forest Service 

Emergency Equipment Rental Agreement, Report No. 08601-40-SF (Washington, D.C.: 

July 2005). 

Page 16 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
the Forest Service identified potential vendors and equipment before a fire

season, the agency did not use a competitive bidding process to improve 

either the price or equipment quality.

Despite planned improvements in the acquisition process, the agencies 

have made limited progress in implementing needed changes. The effort to

improve acquisition practices—led by the Forest Service—is initially 

focused on developing a nationwide Web-based system for managing the 

rental agreements for emergency equipment. Such a system would make it 

easier to locate reliable, cost-effective firefighting assets. The agencies 

could use the system to help choose suppliers at the time of a fire—using 

information provided by contractors on equipment specifications, price, 

and other information—and to evaluate and record contractor

performance afterward. A Forest Service official said that when fully 

implemented, the system will let the agencies better evaluate “best value,” 

rather than just lowest price for firefighting assets, although the official

said that it may be difficult to measure the system’s effect on containing

costs. This effort faces some challenges, however. First, while testing a 

prototype, the Forest Service found problems that are likely to delay 

completion of the system by more than a year, until fiscal year 2009. 

Moreover, although using this system will be mandatory for the Forest 

Service, it will not be required for either Interior or state agencies, 

according to Forest Service officials, and Interior agencies have expressed 

concerns about the security of a Web-based system. The Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management have also begun an effort to evaluate the 

national cache system to ensure that the appropriate types and quantities 

of items are maintained in the caches. A strategic plan has been developed 

but, according to the Forest Service national manager in charge of the 

effort, no changes to the cache system have been made. Finally, a senior 

Forest Service acquisition official said that the agencies also planned to 

improve national and regional contracts, but they have not begun these 

efforts. 

The agencies have taken steps to develop and implement systems to help 

improve the effective and efficient use of firefighting assets—another area

that studies have identified as needing improvement. Studies have 

reported that agencies sometimes used more, or more-costly, firefighting 

assets than necessary, often in response to political or social pressures. 

For example, firefighting assets may sit idle at a fire rather than be 

released for use elsewhere because managers are concerned that they will 

be unable to recall an asset if they need it later, or air tankers may drop 

flame retardants when on-the-ground conditions may not warrant such 

drops. Agency and other studies reported that to more effectively use their 

Using Firefighting Assets 

Effectively and Efficiently 

Page 17 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
firefighting assets, the agencies needed to improve their systems for 

(1) requesting, deploying, tracking, and releasing firefighting assets for a 

fire and (2) recording and analyzing data about the cost and use of these 

assets at the time of the fire. The studies also recommended that agencies 

should make greater use of local incident commanders to reduce the need 

to mobilize more-costly incident management teams. 

The agencies have implemented two systems to help improve the use of 

their firefighting assets. They completed implementation of a computerbased dispatching system called the Resource Ordering and Status System, 

or ROSS, in December 2006. For many years, agencies used a manual, 

paper-based system for requesting and assigning firefighting assets; ROSS 

was designed to allow the agencies to more effectively and efficiently 

monitor firefighting assets during a fire or other incident.12 A project 

official told us that he could not quantify the actual cost savings resulting 

from ROSS, but he provided us with a cost-benefit analysis for the project. 

This analysis indicated potential cost savings from increasing the use of 

local firefighting assets, which could hasten response and thus perhaps 

reduce fire size, and from reducing the personnel needed to dispatch 

resources. In addition, the agencies can also use ROSS to identify 

individuals qualified and available to serve in various firefighting positions, 

which may help increase the agencies’ use of local incident commanders 

and reduce the need to mobilize more-costly incident management teams. 

The agencies have also implemented a system, known as I-Suite, to 

improve the accuracy and completeness of cost and other data needed to 

effectively monitor and manage firefighting assets. The National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group13 chartered a task group in April 2001 to evaluate and 

recommend a data management application to address what was identified 

as a perennial problem for incident management teams: lack of data 

management tools to use at a fire. I-Suite, completed by the Forest Service 

 12This effort came not in response to reports issued since 2000 but rather from

investigations and interagency management reviews of disasters in 1994 involving the loss 

of life and property. Findings from the investigations and reviews at that time cited 

shortcomings in the dispatch systems for fire and other incidents, insufficient 

documentation on the status of firefighting personnel and equipment, and the inability to 

mobilize appropriate resources in a timely manner. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the

Interior, in a December 1995 policy memorandum, directed the agencies to correct the

deficiencies in the dispatch process. 

13The purpose of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group is to coordinate programs of the 

participating federal and state wildfire management agencies. 

Page 18 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
in October 2006, is a set of computer applications designed to automate 

and improve business practices at a fire through a common system to 

track and analyze information about firefighting assets, such as personnel 

hours worked, contractor costs, and fire costs. According to a Forest 

Service official, I-Suite has helped contain costs by reducing the number of 

timekeepers needed to process records for personnel and equipment and 

has improved the accuracy of payment documents, although officials 

could not quantify the cost savings. Only the Forest Service, however, 

requires that I-Suite be used on all fires; Interior has recommended but not 

mandated its use, and I-Suite is optional for state-managed fires. 

In addition to implementing these systems, the agencies have taken other 

steps to improve the agencies’ use of aviation resources, which can 

account for about one-third of all firefighting costs on a large fire. In 2004, 

the agencies assigned a helicopter coordinator to the national dispatch 

center in Boise, Idaho, to monitor helicopter use and help identify 

situations where less expensive helicopters could be deployed. An 

estimated $1.8 million in savings were identified in 2005 as a direct result 

of the helicopter coordinator’s efforts. In 2006, the agencies began testing 

a computer program to assist the helicopter coordinator in identifying the 

best-value helicopter, given a particular fire’s elevation and the 

temperature. Also beginning in 2006, the national dispatch center assumed 

control of national aviation resources, including helicopters and air 

tankers, rather than leaving them under the control of regions or incident 

management teams. National control of these assets will allow the 

agencies to evaluate where best to deploy them from a national 

perspective, rather than from a regional or local perspective. National 

aviation officials said that this step is important because little incentive 

exists at the local level to contain costs. Interagency guidance states that 

the assignment of national assets will be reviewed daily, and national 

dispatch center officials will make the final decision. 

The Forest Service and Interior agencies have taken steps, and are 

considering taking additional steps, to improve their policies on how 

firefighting strategies are chosen and the analytical tools managers in the 

field use to compare alternative strategies, issues that previous studies 

have identified as needing improvement to help contain costs. Although 

the agencies have made some progress, considerable work remains if they 

are to seize additional opportunities to increase their use of less aggressive 

strategies, which typically cost less. 

Agencies May Miss 

Opportunities to Increase 

Their Use of Lower-Cost 

Firefighting Strategies 

Page 19 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Land managers and incident management teams have a wide spectrum of 

strategies available to them when responding to wildland fires, some of 

which can be significantly more costly than others. These strategies range 

from having a few personnel monitor a fire while allowing it to burn to 

achieve ecological benefits, a practice known as wildland fire use, to 

mobilizing all available personnel and equipment to try to control the 

entire perimeter of the fire or otherwise suppress it as quickly as possible. 

In selecting a strategy for a particular fire, land managers are required to

consider the cost of suppression; value of structures and other resources 

threatened by the fire; and, where appropriate, potential ecological 

benefits. The agencies use the term “appropriate management response” 

for a strategy that considers these factors. 

Previous studies have raised concerns that federal policies and 

shortcomings in the agencies’ analytical tools are limiting the ability of 

land managers and incident management teams to use the full spectrum of 

available strategies, including less costly ones. Interagency policy, for 

example, directs land managers to select firefighting strategies in 

accordance with local federal units’ land and fire management plans. If a 

plan has not been developed and approved, the policy directs land 

managers to suppress the fire. A 2006 Agriculture Inspector General report 

also found that for the Forest Service, several existing policies unduly 

restrict land and fire managers from using lower-cost firefighting 

strategies. In particular, Forest Service policy prohibits (1) managing a fire 

for both suppression and wildland fire use concurrently, (2) deciding to let 

a fire burn after initially deciding to suppress it, and (3) considering 

potential ecological or fuel-reduction benefits of letting a fire burn certain

areas if the decision has already been made to suppress it. Interior 

agencies face similar constraints. Previous studies also reported that key

elements of the analytical tools agency managers use to compare 

alternative firefighting strategies are based on subjective or incomplete 

information; these tools may therefore not provide accurate information 

that would enable managers to select the appropriate firefighting strategy, 

that is, one that neither unnecessarily increases suppression costs nor 

unnecessarily places resources at risk. 

The agencies have taken steps to clarify their policies on, and to 

emphasize the importance of, selecting appropriate firefighting strategies. 

For example, in 2004, the agencies updated their Interagency Standards 

for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations to require that land managers 

consider the full range of strategies available in developing their response 

to a wildland fire. They also have emphasized the importance of 

considering appropriate firefighting strategies in the action plans they 

Steps to Improve Policies 

Regarding Firefighting 

Strategies 

Page 20 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
develop annually to provide guidance for the pending fire season. In 

addition, agency officials told us that since 2000 they have substantially 

increased wildland fire use, a strategy at one end of the response 

spectrum. For example, Forest Service officials estimated that the agency

managed approximately 250,000 acres for wildland fire use in fiscal year 

2005—compared with less than 70,000 acres annually in fiscal years 

2000 through 2002—but we were unable to verify the reliability of these 

data. According to one Forest Service official, this trend represented an 

improvement, but opportunities remained to further increase wildland fire 

use. 

Considerable work remains if the agencies are to fulfill the potential of 

using less costly strategies. First, the Forest Service and Interior agencies 

are working together to revise their policies—revisions that could allow 

different areas of the same fire to be managed for suppression and 

wildland fire use concurrently and could allow a fire that was previously 

being suppressed to be managed instead for wildland fire use. It is still too 

early, however, to determine how the policies may change or the extent to

which any changes will help contain costs. Second, Agriculture’s Inspector 

General recently reported that the agencies lack qualified staff to manage

wildland fire use fires.14 A wildland fire use official for the Forest Service 

estimated that for trained staff to be located in the field where decisions 

are made about whether to suppress a fire or manage it for wildland fire 

use, the agency needed about 300 wildland fire use managers. As of fall 

2006, the Forest Service had fewer than 100 qualified managers, although 

about another 100 were being trained. Senior Forest Service officials said

that once these managers were trained, they believed that the agency 

would have sufficient staff trained in wildland fire use. An Interior official

said that Interior also needed more personnel qualified in wildland fire 

use, but this official did not have any estimate of additional staff needed. 

Third, we recently reported that although 95 percent of the agencies’ land

management units had completed fire management plans that could allow

them to select lower-cost firefighting strategies, the agencies did not 

require that these plans be updated to reflect new data, such as data from

LANDFIRE.15 If the plans do not contain accurate information on current 

fuel conditions, land managers and incident management teams may be 

more likely to select more-aggressive firefighting strategies. Fourth, 

 14U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Forest Service 

Large Fire Suppression Costs, Report No. 08601-44-SF (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 20, 2006). 

15GAO-07-427T. 

Page 21 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
although agency policy directs land managers to consider the full range of 

available strategies, our discussions with agency officials and review of a 

recent Agriculture Inspector General report show that the agencies lack a 

method for ensuring that land managers follow this direction. 

Federal firefighting agencies, led by the Forest Service, are also taking 

steps to improve decision-support tools that help land managers select 

appropriate firefighting strategies, but shortcomings with these tools 

remain. If firefighters are unable to contain a fire during initial attack, land

managers are directed to analyze alternative strategies for suppressing it. 

The agencies have taken steps in recent years to improve the current tool 

for conducting such an analysis, which is known as wildland fire situation 

analysis. Forest Service researchers, for example, have made wildland fire 

situation analysis a Web-based system, and they have created different 

versions of the tool, which provide additional elements for land managers 

to use for larger or more-severe fires. The Web-based version, first 

released in 2005, has several advantages, according to a Forest Service 

researcher. First, the Web-based version is updated centrally, thus 

ensuring that land managers in the field are using the most up-to-date 

version. Second, it provides an easier means for managers near a fire to 

share information with experts elsewhere about a fire’s expected behavior 

and the likely values at risk, and can provide a way for senior officials to 

review the basis for strategic decisions while there is still time to change 

them. Third, the Web-based version also includes some geospatial 

mapping capabilities, which helps land managers and incident 

management teams quickly identify key geographic features, roads, 

structures, and other resources that may be threatened by the fire. 

Many critical inputs to wildland fire situation analysis are estimates, 

whose accuracy depends to a great extent on the knowledge and 

experience of land managers in the field, and this knowledge and 

experience can vary. The firefighting strategy ultimately used—which 

greatly influences a fire’s final cost—is chosen largely on the basis of these 

estimates. First, the range of firefighting strategies considered in the 

analysis depends on the knowledge and experience of the land managers 

in the field who identify possible alternatives. Second, estimating the 

probability of success for each alternative is critical to making an 

informed decision in selecting a firefighting strategy; yet this estimate is 

based on the manager’s subjective assessment of fuel conditions, 

topography, weather predictions, and the availability of firefighting 

resources. Third, the expected suppression cost for each alternative is also

an estimate, often based on the cost per acre of suppressing previous fires 

in the area—which may or may not be an accurate predictor of future 

Steps to Improve Tools That 

Managers Use to Select 

Firefighting Strategies 

Page 22 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
costs—and on the final size of the fire, which is also an estimate. Finally, 

land managers identify structures and other resources that may be 

threatened by the fire, but, agency officials told us, there is no consistent 

method for estimating the value of the identified structures and resources. 

Senior Forest Service and Interior officials told us that professional 

judgment is an inherent element of managing wildland fires, and local

managers’ estimates and predictions are important in selecting appropriate 

firefighting strategies, but that they also recognized the importance of 

establishing robust processes and tools to assist managers in making 

informed decisions. 

Forest Service researchers are developing a new tool, called the wildland 

fire decision support system, which may alleviate some of these 

shortcomings. The exact capabilities of the new tool are still being 

determined, but it is expected to greatly increase the analytical power 

available to land managers. For example, the new tool will likely allow 

managers in the field to predict the probability that a wildland fire will 

reach certain areas—considering the fire’s current location, adjacent fuel

conditions, and forecast weather conditions—and to identify nearby 

structures and other highly valued resources. The results of this analysis 

can be combined to provide land managers and incident management 

teams with a map illustrating the probability that a particular wildland fire, 

barring any suppression actions, will burn a certain area within a specified 

time and which structures or other resources may therefore be threatened. 

In addition, the tool is expected to improve the precision of the cost 

estimates for different suppression strategies. Having such information 

would better help land managers and incident management teams 

understand the resources threatened by a wildland fire, the costs 

associated with different firefighting strategies, and the probability of 

successfully suppressing the fire, and it could result in less intensive, and 

therefore less costly, responses. Although the new tool will not be 

available to managers in the field before 2009, Forest Service researchers 

have begun to use several of its components to provide analysis to land 

managers. The researcher leading this effort said that information on 

predicted fire spread and the locations of structures and other highly 

valued resources at risk has been provided for more than 70 fires since 

2005 and that the information contributed to strategic decisions that likely 

reduced costs, although he was unable to estimate the impact. For 

example, for a 2006 fire in Idaho, he said that managers in the field used 

the information to identify where best to position firefighting assets and to 

determine that fewer assets were needed than initially projected, thus 

reducing costs. 

Page 23 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Several challenges have been identified, however, to the full development 

and deployment of the wildland fire decision support system. First, the fire 

spread probability model relies on data from LANDFIRE about fuel 

conditions, and, as we previously discussed, the agencies have yet to 

decide how they will keep data on fuel conditions updated over time. If 

LANDFIRE data do not reflect current fuel conditions, land managers and 

incident management teams are unlikely to trust the fire spread probability 

maps, which we believe could result in the selection of more-aggressive 

and more-costly firefighting strategies than necessary. Second, according 

to the lead researcher, successful deployment of the system requires 

(1) training staff in the field to use it, (2) acquiring new computer 

hardware capable of quickly running data-intensive calculations, and 

(3) ensuring adequate bandwidth in field locations to allow remote access 

to complex Web-based applications. Third, although the tool would help 

managers estimate the probability that particular locations will burn, an 

element of risk is inherent in decisions about firefighting strategies. 

According to the lead agency researcher, whether the wildland fire 

decision support system results in less aggressive and less costly strategy 

decisions will depend greatly on the framework the agencies establish to 

define acceptable levels of risk and to ensure that managers in the field 

select appropriate strategies. 

Finally, we and others have reported that federal and nonfederal entities 

need to work together to better share wildland fire suppression costs.16

For example, we reported that agencies lacked clear guidance on how 

federal and nonfederal entities should share the cost of fighting fires that 

burned or threatened both federal and nonfederal lands, an issue of 

increasing importance because of the rising number of homes in the 

wildland-urban interface and the increasing costs of protecting these 

homes from fires. We further reported that the existing framework for 

sharing costs insulates state and local governments from the cost of 

protecting the wildland-urban interface, which may reduce those 

governments’ incentive to adopt building codes and land use requirements 

that could help reduce the cost of suppressing wildland fires.

Agencies Have Updated 

Guidance for Sharing 

Suppression Costs with 

Nonfederal Entities but 

Have No Clear Plan for 

Ensuring That Appropriate 

Cost-Sharing Methods Are 

Used 

 16GAO, 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 24 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
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. It may take several 

years to fully incorporate this new guidance into master agreements 

because they are normally updated every 5 years. Although the guidance 

states that managers must document their rationale for selecting a 

particular cost-sharing method, according to officials, the agencies have 

no clear plan for how they will provide oversight to ensure that 

appropriate cost-sharing methods are used. 

To effectively manage their cost-containment efforts, the Forest Service 

and Interior agencies should, at a minimum, have (1) clearly defined goals 

and measurable objectives, (2) a strategy to achieve these goals and 

objectives, (3) performance measures to track their progress, and (4) a 

framework for holding the appropriate agency officials accountable for 

achieving the goals.17 The agencies, however, have yet to clearly define 

their goals or establish measurable objectives for containing costs or to 

develop a strategy for achieving those goals. In addition, while the 

agencies have adopted a new cost-containment performance measure and 

have taken, or are planning to take, steps to improve accountability within 

the agencies for containing costs, the extent to which these steps will help 

contain costs is unknown. 

Federal firefighting agencies have yet to establish clear goals and 

measurable objectives for their wildland fire cost-containment efforts. 

Since 2000, the agencies have issued many documents—including updates 

to the federal wildland fire policy, agency strategic plans, and annual 

interagency fire and aviation operations plans—that recognize the 

importance of cost containment. These documents may have raised 

awareness in the agencies about containing costs, but none of them clearly

states the agencies’ cost-containment goals and objectives. For example, 

Lack of Clear Goals or 

a Strategy Hinders 

Federal Agencies’ 

Management of 

Wildland Fire CostContainment Efforts 

Agencies Lack Clear CostContainment Goals and 

Objectives 

 17Principles of sound program management for federal agencies are established in, among 

other sources, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

Page 25 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
several key documents—including the 2001 Review and Update of the 

1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, the Interagency 

Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, and the Forest 

Service’s and Interior’s policy manuals—state that wildland fires are to be

suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public safety and 

resources to be protected. The agencies, however, have established 

neither clear criteria by which to weigh the relative importance of the

often-competing elements of this broad goal, nor measurable objectives by 

which to determine if they are meeting the goal. Without such criteria and 

objectives, the importance of containing costs, relative to the other 

elements, is not clear. As a result, according to agency officials we 

interviewed and reports we reviewed, managers in the field lack a clear 

understanding of the relative importance that the agencies’ leadership 

places on containing costs and are therefore likely to continue to select 

firefighting strategies without due consideration of the costs of 

suppression. 

The Forest Service and Interior agencies have also 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. The agencies

have issued several documents addressing the increased costs and severity

of wildland fires, but none of the documents we reviewed provided an

overall strategy for how the agencies would contain costs. For example, 

the 2005 Quadrennial Fire and Fuel Review Report identifies several 

factors contributing to more-severe fires and higher costs but does not 

indicate the steps the agencies would take to respond effectively to those 

factors. In contrast, a March 2003 document, Large Fire Cost Reduction 

Action Plan, lists many steps the agencies planned to take to help contain

costs but does not indicate to what extent the steps would in fact do so. 

Although senior fire officials in both the Forest Service and Interior said 

the agencies did not have a written strategy for containing costs, some of 

these officials said they believed the steps they were taking were useful 

and reflected a sound approach to containing costs. 

Agencies Lack a Clear 

Strategy to Contain 

Wildland Fire Costs 

Page 26 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Recent reports, as well as Office of Management and Budget reviews, have

raised concerns that the Forest Service’s and Interior agencies’ 

performance measures do not allow the agencies to measure their 

progress effectively or report their accomplishments in containing 

wildland fire costs. The Forest Service, in its strategic plan for fiscal years 

2004 through 2008, established as its primary cost-containment 

performance measure the percentage of large fires in which the value of

protected resources exceeded the cost of suppression. This measure, 

however, evaluates neither the effectiveness nor the efficiency of the 

agencies’ suppression activities. For example, the Forest Service might 

carry out suppression activities that cost less than the value of the 

resources protected, but those actions might not contribute to containing

the fire and might therefore be unnecessary. In other cases, the agency 

might have been able to protect the same resources by taking different, 

less costly actions. The Forest Service has recognized the shortcomings of 

this performance measure and has not reported any results for the 

measure in its annual performance and accountability reports for fiscal 

years 2004 through 2006. Unlike the Forest Service, Interior has not 

adopted any performance measures related to containing wildland fire 

costs in its strategic plan. In conjunction with the Forest Service and 

nonfederal partners, however, Interior adopted a performance measure in 

the May 2002 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy as part of the National Fire 

Plan to track the average suppression cost per acre for wildland fires 

(1) in different size classes and fire regimes, (2) near and away from the 

wildland-urban interface, and (3) in areas with and without approved fire 

management plans. Such information, collected and tracked over time, 

could assist the agencies in gauging their progress in containing costs. 

However, the agencies have not reported the results of this measure, in 

part because of difficulties in obtaining accurate data, according to Forest 

Service officials. 

To address these concerns, federal firefighting agencies have adopted a 

new performance measure that may improve their ability to evaluate their

progress in containing costs.18 Since 2005, the agencies, led by the Forest 

Service, have been developing a measure known as the stratified cost 

Performance Measures for 

Containing Costs Have 

Improved, but Concerns 

Remain 

 18The Forest Service used this measure in its July 2006 submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget and has indicated that it will also adopt the measure in its revised 

strategic plan, which is currently being developed. The Forest Service and Interior 

agencies, along with their nonfederal partners, also adopted this measure in a December

2006 update to the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, although data for Interior are not yet

available. 

Page 27 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
index. This index is based on models that estimate suppression costs for a 

particular fire on the basis of the costs of previous fires with similar 

characteristics.19 The new performance measure identifies the percentage

of fires whose suppression costs exceeded the cost estimated by the 

stratified cost index. The Forest Service has reported that 31 of 117 fires 

(26 percent) in fiscal year 2005 cost significantly more than predicted by

the stratified cost index, and that 24 fires (21 percent) cost significantly 

less than predicted by the index. In part because of the development of the 

index, the Office of Management and Budget recently recognized that the

Forest Service has improved the wildland fire program’s performance 

measures, although it also stated that further improvement is needed. 

Several concerns have been raised about the stratified cost index. First, 

although the agencies have improved their data on suppression costs and 

fire characteristics in recent years, 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 models, limiting their effectiveness. Second, the 

wide variation in the costs of past fires with similar characteristics means 

that the models’ ability to estimate suppression costs is limited. For 

example, although the models estimated an average cost of $317 per acre 

for fires in fiscal year 2005, the range of estimated costs was $88 to

$1,132.20 This range is expected to narrow over time as data from more 

fires are incorporated into the models. Third, to date, the models are based 

solely on fires managed by the Forest Service. Forest Service researchers 

are developing, at Interior’s request, similar models for fires managed by

the Interior agencies. However, it will be several years, at the earliest, 

before enough data have been collected for the model to be useful. In 

addition, we are concerned that because the stratified cost index is based

on costs from previous fires—and because the agencies have only recently 

emphasized the importance of using less aggressive suppression 

strategies—the index does not include data from many fires where less 

 19Forest Service researchers have developed two regression models to date, one for the

western United States (Forest Service regions 1 through 6) and one for the eastern United

States (Forest Service regions 8 and 9). Characteristics affecting suppression costs include 

fire size; fuel types; fire intensity; physical terrain; proximity to the nearest community; 

total value of structures close to the fire; and special management considerations, such as

whether the fire was burning in a wilderness or other designated area. 

20The range of $88 to $1,132 per acre reflects one standard deviation from the mean; several 

fires’ cost per acre were outside of this range.

Page 28 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
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 to the models annually; therefore, over time, the models 

should include more fires where less aggressive firefighting strategies 

were used. 

Federal firefighting agencies lack effective oversight mechanisms to 

increase accountability for containing costs, according to previous studies. 

Even though land managers and incident management teams make critical 

decisions affecting suppression costs, previous studies have found that 

managers and teams have few incentives to consider cost containment in 

making those decisions. Some of these and other studies have also 

reported that despite longtime recognition of the lack of incentives, the 

agencies have not yet established effective oversight mechanisms to 

increase managers’ and teams’ accountability. The agencies, for example, 

do not consistently review decisions made in the field that affect 

suppression costs. The studies reported that the lack of a clear and valid 

measure evaluating both the benefits and costs of alternative suppression 

strategies was a key impediment to the agencies’ establishing more 

effective oversight mechanisms. In addition, an independent panel 

convened by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council concluded that the 

current budget framework was perceived as providing a “blank check” for 

firefighting and provided few incentives for the agencies to contain costs. 

To increase such incentives, the panel recommended that the agencies 

allocate suppression funds on a regional basis and penalize regions that 

exceed their allocation by reducing the funds from the region’s other 

accounts, such as those for land management activities. 

Federal firefighting agencies have taken a number of steps to establish or

improve oversight mechanisms, but the extent to which these steps will 

assist the agencies in containing costs is unknown. These steps include: 

Agencies Have Yet to 

Establish an Effective 

Oversight and 

Accountability Framework 

• Reviewing the costs of large fires. The Forest Service has reviewed the 

costs of many large fires, a practice that could help identify instances 

where officials could have taken less costly actions. Since 2003, the Forest 

Service has directed its regional offices to review all fires in each region

that cost more than $2 million to suppress, and directed the Washington, 

D.C., office to review fires costing more than $5 million. Agriculture’s 

Inspector General, however, recently reported that the Forest Service 

Page 29 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
reviewed only 11 of the 91 fires (12 percent) requiring regional review and

7 of the 50 fires (14 percent) requiring national review.21 Forest Service 

officials told us they did not review more of these fires because it would 

have taken too much staff time to complete all of the reviews. They 

therefore decided to conduct fewer but more-detailed reviews. These 

officials also said that they are in the process of changing their policy to 

require regional reviews of fires costing more than $5 million and national

reviews of fires costing more than $10 million. In addition, Congress 

directed the Forest Service to establish an outside independent review 

panel to examine, beginning in fiscal year 2004, Forest Service fires with 

suppression costs that exceeded $10 million. Together, these reviews 

identified many steps that local land managers and incident management 

teams could have taken to help contain costs. However, some studies have

questioned the effectiveness of these reviews because, for example, 

managers were not required to respond to the issues the reviews raised or 

to implement the recommended steps. Forest Service officials told us that, 

beginning with fires that occurred in fiscal year 2006, land managers are 

required to respond to recommendations made in the reviews, either by 

agreeing to implement a recommendation or by explaining why not. 

• Clarifying land managers’ responsibility for containing costs. The 

agencies have issued guidance clarifying that land managers, not incident 

management teams, 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. First, a Forest Service official told us that because many 

land managers lack both wildland fire experience and the time to closely 

monitor incident management teams, the agencies require that an 

“incident business advisor” be assigned to fires expected to cost more than 

$5 million and recommend that an advisor be assigned to fires expected to 

cost more than $1 million. An incident business advisor represents the 

land manager’s interest in containing costs by observing firefighting 

operations and working with the incident management team to identify 

ways those operations could be more cost-effective. For example, an 

incident business advisor may observe the types and quantity of 

firefighting personnel and equipment assigned to a fire and how they are 

used, observe how equipment and supplies are procured, and ensure that 

the most expensive personnel and equipment are released first as a fire 

comes under control. The overall impact of incident business advisors has 

 21U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Forest Service 

Large Fire Suppression Costs. 

Page 30 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
most likely been moderate, Forest Service officials told us, in large part 

because the advisors do not examine the firefighting strategies being used. 

Second, the agencies require land managers to include cost containment 

as a consideration when they delegate authority to an incident

management team to fight a particular fire and to evaluate the team for 

how well it achieves the land managers’ goals. These requirements are 

intended to provide a mechanism for land managers to hold a team 

accountable for achieving cost-containment goals. The Forest Service 

officials told us, however, that there is no clear method of evaluating the 

cost-effectiveness of the firefighting actions taken by the incident 

management team. Moreover, land managers may be reluctant to identify 

instances where firefighting actions were not cost-effective, since poor 

performance by the incident management team also reflects poorly on the 

land managers. Third, the agencies have adopted policies requiring land 

managers to consider expected fire suppression costs when developing

land and fire management plans. Decisions made in these plans can affect 

future suppression costs, and this requirement is intended to ensure that 

managers consider this impact. It is too early to determine the

effectiveness of this requirement. 

• Establishing a comptroller to monitor costs. In August 2006, the Chief of

the Forest Service established a comptroller position to oversee Forest 

Service wildland fire suppression expenditures. The current comptroller, 

the Associate Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, told us that the

duties of the position are not defined, although in 2006 he reviewed several 

high-cost fires, including fires in California and Washington. During these 

reviews, to identify opportunities for achieving firefighting goals at a lower 

cost, the comptroller discussed with managers in the field, and with the 

appropriate regional foresters, the firefighting strategies selected and the

quantity of firefighting assets used. The comptroller told us he believed 

these efforts were helpful, in part because managers in the field were

aware that their decisions could be reviewed, but he could not provide an 

example where his involvement led directly to a change in strategy or 

tactics that could have reduced costs. The role of the comptroller for 2007 

and later is still being determined. The Forest Service has also indicated 

that, beginning with fires in 2007, it will designate a small team to monitor 

fires having the potential to be costly or otherwise complex and to work 

with field managers and regional officials to represent the Chief’s interest 

in containing costs. 

Although the agencies have taken some steps to improve their oversight of

wildland fire costs, they have made little progress in two key areas 

identified by previous studies. First, the agencies have yet to establish a 

clear measure to evaluate the benefits and costs of alternative firefighting

Page 31 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
strategies, even though some studies have concluded that absence of such

a measure fundamentally hinders the agencies’ ability to provide effective 

oversight. Second, the agencies considered the recommendation to 

provide budgetary incentives to regions to contain wildland fire costs but 

decided against pursuing it, in part because of concerns that transferring 

funds from other appropriations accounts would violate appropriations 

law. The co-chair of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council panel recently 

testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

that the panel continues to believe that this recommendation provides the 

greatest opportunity for the agencies to contain wildland fire costs. 

Continuing concerns over the last decade about the mounting federal cost 

of preparing for and responding to wildland fires have spurred numerous 

studies and actions by federal wildland fire agencies to address areas 

needing improvement, 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. Because cost-containment 

goals should be considered in relation to other wildland fire program 

goals—such as protecting life, resources, and property—it is important 

that the agencies integrate cost-containment goals within the overall

cohesive strategy for responding to wildland fires that we previously 

recommended. The conditions that have contributed to increasing 

wildland fire severity and expenditures are complex, have been decades in 

the making, and will take decades to resolve. Developing an effective and 

affordable strategy for addressing these conditions is therefore critical,

particularly in light of the large federal deficit and the long-term fiscal 

challenges facing the nation. 

Conclusions 

Page 32 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Without clear goals and a strategy for containing wildland fire costs, the 

agencies are unable to effectively and efficiently manage their myriad 

ongoing efforts to contain wildland fire costs. Thus, to help manage these 

efforts and to assist Congress in its oversight role, we recommend that the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior work together to direct their 

respective agencies to take the following four actions: 

• Establish clearly defined goals and measurable objectives for containing

wildland fire costs. 

• Develop a strategy to achieve these goals and objectives. 

• Establish performance measures that are aligned with these goals and 

objectives. 

• Establish a framework to ensure that officials are held accountable for 

achieving these 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 this information to Congress no 

later than November 2007. 

In commenting on a draft of this 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. We acknowledge that the agencies have 

established a broad goal of suppressing fires at minimum cost, considering 

firefighter and public safety and resources to be protected, but we also 

found that the agencies 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 this goal. 

Our review suggests that without measurable objectives, the importance of 

containing costs relative to the other program priorities is not clear and 

that managers in the field are therefore likely to select firefighting 

strategies without due consideration of suppression costs. Therefore, 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. The Forest Service and 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 33 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Interior’s joint comments, and our evaluation of them, are included in 

appendix III. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 

days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 

to interested congressional committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

the Interior, the Chief of the Forest Service, the Director of the Bureau of 

Land Management, and other interested parties. We will also make copies

available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available 

at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, 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 report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Page 34 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine the steps that federal agencies have taken to address the 

areas identified by previous studies, we first reviewed selected studies—

most conducted since 2000 by federal, state, and nongovernmental 

entities—that examined issues related to wildland fire cost containment.

Studies reviewed included independent reviews by GAO, the Department 

of Agriculture (Agriculture) Office of Inspector General, the National 

Academy of Public Administration, the National Association of State 

Foresters, and the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, as well as studies by 

the Forest Service and Department of the Interior (Interior) agencies, 

including several reviews of individual wildland fires. Forest Service and 

Interior officials at the national offices in Washington, D.C., reviewed our

list of studies and agreed that we had included those key to addressing 

issues related to cost containment. We reviewed the issues these studies

identified as needing improvement to help contain costs and categorized 

them into broad operational areas corresponding to key aspects of 

preparing for and responding to wildland fires. To determine the steps that

federal agencies have taken to address these issues—and to corroborate 

our understanding and categorization of the issues—we interviewed 

officials from the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Office

of Wildland Fire Coordination within Interior at the national offices and at 

the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. To determine the 

current status and results or intended results of the steps that the agencies

identified, we reviewed relevant agency documents, including agency 

policies, manuals, other guidance, implementation strategies, and project 

plans. We also interviewed pertinent agency officials and nonagency

officials, including those from the National Academy of Public 

Administration and state representatives on the Wildland Fire Leadership 

Council’s independent panel. 

To determine steps that the agencies have taken to improve their 

management of their cost-containment efforts, we reviewed wildland fire 

program reviews by the Office of Management and Budget, agency

documents—including strategic plans and performance and accountability 

reports, federal wildland fire policy documents, and National Fire Plan 

documents—and interviewed agency officials. We also interviewed 

officials from the Office of Management and Budget. To determine 

management steps that agencies are required to take and best 

management practices, we reviewed relevant statutes and guidance,

including the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and GAO’s 

Page 35 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,

1

 as well as 

other GAO reports on improving federal agency management.

We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards, which included an assessment of data 

reliability, from May 2006 through May 2007. 

 1

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Page 36 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix II: Se

O

lected GAO Products and 

ther Reports Reviewed 

Page 37 GAO-07-655

Appendix II: Selected GAO Products and 

Other Reports Reviewed 

To identify areas potentially in need of improvement for federal 

firefighting agencies to contain the costs of fighting wildland fires, we 

reviewed dozens of reports, most issued since 2000. In addition to our own 

reports on wildland fire issues, we also reviewed reports prepared or 

commissioned by Agriculture, Interior, the Agriculture Office of Inspector 

General, the National Association of State Foresters, and the National 

Academy of Public Administration. The following list does not include all 

of the reports we reviewed but is intended to illustrate the range of related 

topics that we examined. 

Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders 

Agencies’ Cost-Containment Efforts. GAO-07-427T. Washington, D.C.: 

January 30, 2007. 

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. 

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.: January 14, 2005. 

Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better 

Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction. GAO-03-805. 

Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2003. 

Forest Service: Little Progress on Performance Accountability Likely 

Unless Management Addresses Key Challenges. GAO-03-503. Washington, 

D.C.: May 1, 2003. 

Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies 

Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. GAO-02-158. 

Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002. 

Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce

Risks to Communities and Resources. GAO-02-259. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2002. 

GAO Products 

Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix II: Selected GAO Products and 

Other Reports Reviewed 

Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address 

Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. GAO/RCED-99-65. Washington, D.C.: April 

2, 1999. 

Secretary of Agriculture Independent Cost-Control Review Panel. FY 2005

Large Cost Wildfires Report. Washington, D.C.: April 2006. 

System Planning Corporation. Prioritizing Wildland Fire Cost 

Containment Strategies. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Arlington, VA: March 2006. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the 

Interior; and the National Association of State Foresters. Quadrennial 

Fire and Fuel Review Report. Washington, D.C.: June 2005. 

Secretary of Agriculture Independent Cost-Control Review Panel. FY 2004

Large Cost Wildfires Report. Washington, D.C.: March 2005.

Wildland Fire Leadership Council. Large Fire Suppression Costs: 

Strategies for Cost Management. Washington, D.C.: August 2004. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of 

the Interior. Developing an Interagency, Landscape-Scale Fire Planning

Analysis and Budget Tool. Washington, D.C.: November 2001.

National Association of State Foresters. Cost Containment on Large 

Fires: Efficient Utilization of Wildland Fire Suppression Resources. 

Washington, D.C.: July 2000. 

Audit Report: Forest Service Large Fire Suppression Costs. Report No. 

08601-44-SF. Washington, D.C.: November 2006. 

Audit Report: Implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative. Report 

No. 08601-6-AT. Washington, D.C.: September 2006. 

Management Challenges. Washington, D.C.: August 2006. 

Audit Report: Forest Service Emergency Equipment Rental Agreements. 

Report No. 08601-40-SF. Washington, D.C.: July 2005. 

Federal or State 

Firefighting Entity 

Reports 

Department of 

Agriculture’s Office of 

Inspector General 

Reports 

Page 38 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix II: Selected GAO Products and 

Other Reports Reviewed 

Containing Wildland Fire Costs: Enhancing Hazard Mitigation 

Capacity. Washington, D.C.: January 2004. 

Containing Wildland Fire Costs: Utilizing Local Firefighting Forces. 

Washington, D.C.: December 2003. 

Containing Wildland Fire Costs: Improving Equipment and Services 

Acquisition. Washington, D.C.: September 2003. 

Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for Containing Costs. Washington, D.C.:

September 2002. 

Managing Wildland Fire: Enhancing Capacity to Implement the Federal 

Interagency Policy. Washington, D.C.: December 2001. 

National Academy of 

Public Administration 

Reports 

Page 39 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix III: Comme

Serv

nts from the Forest 

ice and the Department of the Interior 

Page 40 GAO-07-655

See comment 2. 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1 

Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior 

Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

See comment 5. 

Page 41 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior 

See comment 6. 

See comment 7. 

See comment 8. 

Page 42 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior 

Page 43 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior 

1. Our draft report stated that the effects of the steps the agencies are 

taking to contain costs, not the steps themselves, are unknown. We 

recognized that the agencies established—in several documents, 

including the federal wildland fire management policy—a broad goal

of suppressing fires at minimum cost, considering firefighter and 

public safety and resources to be protected. However, because the 

different components of this broad goal often compete, our review 

suggests that it is also important for the agencies to establish clear 

criteria by which to weigh the relative importance of the components, 

as well as to establish clear objectives to measure their progress. We 

therefore recommended that the agencies take these steps. We believe 

that the importance of establishing clear goals and objectives will 

increase as the agencies continue their transition to using less 

aggressive firefighting strategies under their “appropriate management 

response” policy. 

GAO’s Comments 

2. We fully considered the agencies’ comments and clarified our draft 

report as appropriate to address the four key areas raised (see 

comments 3 through 6). 

3. Our draft report discussed the agencies’ transition to using less 

aggressive firefighting strategies in appropriate circumstances, 

although it did not use the phrase “appropriate management response.” 

We have added this phrase to the report. Our review, however, found 

that several agency policies limit the agencies’ use of such strategies, a 

finding also recently reported by the Department of Agriculture Office 

of Inspector General. 

4. We continue to believe that the modifications may not allow the 

agencies to meet key FPA goals. As we noted in our draft report, the 

agencies believe that the modifications will achieve key FPA goals, but 

because they provided no analysis, we also stated that it is possible 

that the modifications may not do so. The paragraph that the agencies 

cite in their comments clearly acknowledges a difference between the 

two designs. However, this paragraph consists of summary, general 

assertions about the benefits of the modifications, and the agencies 

provided no detailed, comparative supporting analysis. Thus, it 

remains unclear how or how much the designs differ in identifying the 

most cost-effective alternatives, either locally or nationally. We remain 

concerned because, as officials told us, the agencies have not yet done 

a formal comparison of the differences between the modified and the 

original design. 

5. We removed from the report the statement questioning the agencies’ 

ability to complete the LANDFIRE system. Our draft report stated that 

Page 44 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior 

the agencies recognized the importance of updating LANDFIRE data 

and expected to submit a plan for doing so in June 2007 to the 

Wildland Fire Leadership Council for approval. The plan, however, is 

not yet final, and it is therefore not clear how data will be updated. 

6. We acknowledge that the stratified cost index is an improvement over 

the agencies’ previous performance measures, but our report also 

raises several concerns about the index. The Forest Service and 

Interior seem to have misinterpreted our concern about the agencies’ 

lack of goals. Our concern does not pertain to the stratified cost index 

performance measure itself. Rather, we believe that in general, for 

performance measures to be useful, they must accurately measure 

progress toward established goals and objectives, and we found that 

the agencies had not established clear cost-containment goals and 

objectives. We agree with the Forest Service and Interior that the 

index was not intended to precisely estimate suppression costs and 

have removed the word precisely from the report. The Forest Service 

and Interior also disagree with our statements that Interior had not 

adopted a performance measure related to containing costs in its 

strategic plan and that it would be several years before Interior would 

have sufficient data for the stratified cost index to be useful. Our 

review of Interior’s strategic plans for 2003 through 2008 and for 2007 

through 2012, the most recent plan available, did not identify any 

performance measure related to cost containment, including the 

stratified cost index. We do acknowledge that Interior is developing a 

stratified cost index, but our discussions with a key official developing

this index indicates that to date it is based on data from few fires and 

that it will be several years for sufficient data to be available to refine 

the index’s underlying models. 

7. We acknowledge that the agencies have clarified their guidance, as we 

previously recommended. The guidance is an important first step in 

ensuring that suppression costs are shared equitably between federal 

and nonfederal entities. We agree that the agencies need to work with 

their nonfederal partners and that there may be disagreement about 

which cost-sharing method is appropriate in a given situation.

Nonetheless, we believe that it is important that the federal agencies 

provide sufficient oversight of, and support to, their officials in the 

field as this guidance is implemented. Without such oversight and 

support, we believe that the guidance they have adopted may not 

address a concern our May 2006 review identified—that inconsistent 

application of cost-sharing methods was leading to inequities in how 

the federal government was treating nonfederal entities in different 

states. 

Page 45 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix III: Comments from the Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior 

8. Our draft report acknowledged several of the actions the agencies cite 

to enhance their oversight of wildland fire costs but also found that the 

agencies had not established a clear measure to evaluate the benefits 

and costs of alternative firefighting strategies, a key shortcoming 

identified by previous studies. As the agencies continue the transition 

to appropriate management response, such a measure is critical if—as 

the agencies state in their comments—appropriate management 

response is to be a performance-based approach. We continue to 

believe that such a measure is needed to help the agencies evaluate 

decisions about firefighting strategies and to hold officials accountable 

for those decisions. 

Page 46 GAO-07-655 Containing Wildland Fire Costs
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 47 GAO-07-655

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov

In addition to the contact person named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant 

Director; Ellen W. Chu; Brian Chung; Elizabeth Curda; Jonathan Dent; 

Janet Frisch; Timothy Guinane; Carol Henn; Kevin Jackson; Richard 

Johnson; Chester Joy; and John Warner made key contributions to this 

report. 

Containing Wildland Fire Costs

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360717) 
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