United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

WILDLAND FIRE 

Management Improvements 

Could Enhance Federal 

Agencies’ Efforts to Contain 

the Costs of Fighting Fires 

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

 

GAO-07-922T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 26, 2007

WILDLAND FIRE

Management Improvements Could 

Enhance Federal Agencies’ Efforts to 

Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires 

Highlights of GAO-07-922T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

Annual appropriations to prepare 

for and respond to wildland fires 

have increased substantially over 

the past decade, in recent years

totaling about $3 billion. The Forest 

Service within the Department of

Agriculture and four agencies 

within the Department of the 

Interior (Interior) are responsible 

for responding to wildland fires on 

federal lands. GAO determined

what steps federal agencies have

taken to (1) address key 

operational areas that could help

contain the costs of preparing for 

and responding to wildland fires 

and (2) improve their management 

of their cost-containment efforts. 

This testimony is based on GAO’s 

June 2007 report, Wildland Fire 

Management: Lack of Clear Goals 

or a Strategy Hinders Federal 

Agencies’ Efforts to Contain the 

Costs of Fighting Fires (GAO-07-

655).

What GAO Recommends

In its report, GAO recommended

that the Secretaries of Agriculture

and the Interior take several steps 

to improve their management of

cost-containment efforts in

preparation for the 2008 fire

season. The Forest Service and

Interior generally disagreed with

the report’s findings, stating that 

GAO did not accurately portray 

some of the agencies’ actions to 

contain wildland fire costs; they

neither agreed nor disagreed with

the report’s recommendations. 

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

address key operational areas previously identified as needing improvement 

to help federal agencies contain wildland fire costs, but the effects on 

containing costs are unknown, in part because many of these steps are not 

yet complete. First, federal firefighting agencies are developing a system to 

help them better identify and set priorities for lands needing treatment to 

reduce fuels, but they have yet to decide how they will keep data in the 

system current. Second, federal agencies have taken some steps to improve 

how they acquire and use personnel, equipment, and other firefighting 

assets—such as implementing a computerized system to more efficiently 

dispatch and track available firefighting assets—but have not yet completed 

the more fundamental step of determining the appropriate type and quantity 

of firefighting assets needed for the fire season. Third, the agencies have

clarified certain policies and are improving analytical tools that assist 

officials in identifying and implementing an appropriate response to a given 

fire, but several other policies limit the agencies’ use of less aggressive

firefighting strategies, which typically cost less. Fourth, federal agencies, 

working with nonfederal entities, have recently taken steps to clarify 

guidance to better ensure that firefighting costs are shared consistently for 

fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources, but it is 

unclear how the agencies will ensure that this guidance is followed. 

The agencies have also taken steps to address previously identified 

weaknesses in their management of cost-containment efforts, but they 

have neither clearly defined their cost-containment goals and objectives 

nor developed a strategy for achieving them—steps that are fundamental 

to sound program management. Although the agencies have established a 

broad goal of suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost—considering 

firefighter and public safety and resources and structures to be 

protected—they have no defined criteria by which to weigh the relative 

importance of these often-competing priorities. As a result, according to 

agency officials and reports, officials in the field lack a clear 

understanding of the relative importance the agencies’ leadership places 

on containing costs and, therefore, are likely to select firefighting 

strategies without due consideration of the costs of suppression. The 

agencies have also yet to develop a vision of how the various costcontainment 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-07-922T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin M. 

Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or 

nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss federal firefighting agencies’

efforts to contain the costs of preparing for and responding to wildland 

fires—costs that have increased substantially over the past decade.

Wildland fire appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires,

including appropriations for reducing fuels, have increased from an 

average of $1.1 billion annually from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to an 

average of more than $2.9 billion annually from fiscal years 2001 through 

2005; adjusted for inflation, these appropriations increased from $1.3 

billion to $3.1 billion.1

 Accumulations of fuels, due in part to past 

suppression policies; severe drought and weather in some areas of the 

country; and continued development in or near wildlands—an area 

commonly known as the wildland-urban interface—have contributed to 

increased costs. Five federal land management agencies—the Forest 

Service within the Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) and the Bureau

of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, and

Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior 

(Interior)—are responsible for managing wildland fires on federal lands. 

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

and others have expressed concerns about the mounting federal wildland 

fire expenditures. These concerns have led federal agencies (including the 

Forest Service, Interior, the Agriculture Office of Inspector General, and 

GAO) and others to conduct numerous reviews of the federal wildland fire 

program. 

My testimony is based on our report, released today, that discusses steps 

the Forest Service and Interior agencies have taken to (1) address key 

operational areas that could help contain the costs of preparing for and 

responding to wildland fires and (2) improve their management of their 

 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. 

Page 1 GAO-07-922T 
cost-containment efforts.2

 I presented the preliminary results of our work 

before this Committee in January 2007.3

In summary, the Forest Service and Interior agencies have initiated a 

number of steps to address key operational areas that past studies 

identified as needing improvement to help federal agencies contain 

wildland fire costs, but the effects on containing costs are unknown, in 

part because many of these steps are not yet complete. For example, 

Summary 

• Federal firefighting agencies are developing a system to help them better 

identify and set priorities for lands needing treatment to reduce fuels. The 

agencies are developing, but have not yet finalized, a plan for keeping data 

in the system current. 

• Federal agencies have also taken some steps to improve how they acquire 

and use personnel, equipment, and other firefighting assets, such as 

implementing a computerized system to more efficiently dispatch and 

track available firefighting assets. The agencies, however, have not 

completed the more fundamental step of determining the appropriate type

and quantity of firefighting assets needed for the fire season. Over the past

several years, the agencies have been developing a system for doing so, 

although we have concerns that recent modifications to the system may 

not allow the agencies to fully meet certain key goals. 

• The agencies have clarified certain policies and are improving analytical 

tools that assist officials in identifying and implementing an appropriate 

response to a given fire. Other policies, however, limit the agencies’ use of

less aggressive firefighting strategies, which typically cost less. 

• Federal agencies, working with nonfederal entities, have recently taken 

steps to clarify guidance to better ensure that firefighting costs are shared 

consistently for fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and 

resources, although it is unclear how the agencies will provide oversight to

ensure that this guidance is followed in the field.

 2

GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals and a Strategy Hinders Federal

Agencies’ Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires, GAO-07-655 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 1, 2007). 

3

GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive Strategy Hinders Agencies’ CostContainment Efforts, GAO-07-427T (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2007). 

Page 2 GAO-07-922T 
Despite steps taken to strengthen the management of their costcontainment efforts, the agencies have neither clearly defined their costcontainment 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 oftencompeting priorities. As a result, according to agency officials and reports, 

officials in the field lack a clear understanding of the relative importance 

the agencies’ leadership places on containing costs and, therefore, are 

likely to select firefighting strategies without due consideration of the 

costs of suppression. The agencies have also yet to develop a vision of 

how the various cost-containment steps they are taking relate to one 

another or to determine the extent to which these steps will be effective. 

The agencies are working to develop a better cost-containment 

performance measure, but the measure may take a number of years to 

fully refine. Finally, the agencies have taken, or are beginning to take, 

steps to improve their oversight and increase accountability—such as 

requiring agency officials to evaluate firefighting teams on how well they 

contain costs—although the extent to which these steps will assist the 

agencies in containing costs is unknown. 

We recommended in our report that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the 

Interior take several steps to improve their management of their costcontainment efforts. The Forest Service and Interior generally disagreed 

with our findings, stating that we had not accurately portrayed some of the 

agencies’ actions to contain costs; they neither agreed nor disagreed with 

our recommendations. We continue to believe that our recommendations, 

if effectively implemented, would help the agencies better manage their 

cost-containment efforts and improve their ability to contain wildland fire 

costs. 

Over the past decade, the number of acres burned annually by wildland 

fires in the United States has substantially increased. Federal 

appropriations to prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including 

appropriations for fuel treatments, have almost tripled. Increases in the 

size and severity of wildland fires, and in the cost of preparing for and 

responding to them, have led federal agencies to fundamentally reexamine 

their approach to wildland fire management. For decades, federal agencies

aggressively suppressed wildland fires and were generally successful in 

decreasing the number of acres burned. In some parts of the country, 

Background 

Page 3 GAO-07-922T 
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 2000.4

 To align their policies and to ensure a consistent and coordinated 

effort to implement the federal wildland fire policy and National Fire Plan, 

Agriculture and Interior established the Wildland Fire Leadership Council 

in 2002.5

 In addition to noting the negative effects of past successes in 

suppressing wildland fires, the policy and plan also recognized that 

continued development in the wildland-urban interface has placed more 

structures at risk from wildland fire at the same time that it has increased 

the complexity and cost of wildland fire suppression. Forest Service and 

university researchers estimated in 2005 that about 44 million homes in the 

lower 48 states are located in the wildland-urban interface. 

To help address these trends, current federal policy directs agencies to 

consider land management objectives—identified in land and fire 

management plans developed by each local unit, such as a national forest 

or a Bureau of Land Management district—and the structures and 

resources at risk when determining whether or how to suppress a wildland 

fire. When a fire starts, the land manager at the affected local unit is 

 4

The National Fire Plan is a joint interagency effort to respond to wildland fires. Its core

comprises several strategic documents, including (1) a September 2000 report from the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to the President in response to the wildland fires 

of 2000, (2) congressional direction accompanying substantial new appropriations in fiscal 

year 2001, and (3) several approved and draft strategies to implement all or parts of the 

plan. 

5

The Wildland Fire Leadership Council is composed of senior Agriculture and Interior 

officials, including the Agriculture Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment;

the Interior Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget; the Interior Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Business Management and Wildland Fire; and the heads of the five

federal firefighting agencies. Other members include representatives of the Intertribal 

Timber Council, the National Association of State Foresters, and the Western Governors’ 

Association. 

Page 4 GAO-07-922T 
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.” 

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

to address issues that we and others have identified as needing 

improvement to help federal agencies contain wildland fire costs, but the 

effects of these steps on containing costs are unknown, in part because 

many of the steps are not yet complete. Dozens of studies by federal 

agencies and other organizations examining federal agencies’ management 

of wildland fire have repeatedly identified a number of similar issues 

needing improvement to help contain wildland fire costs. These issues 

generally fall into one of three operational areas—reducing accumulated 

fuels, acquiring and using firefighting assets, and selecting firefighting 

strategies. Recent studies have also raised concerns about the framework 

used to share the cost of fighting fires between federal and nonfederal 

entities. 

First, federal firefighting agencies have made progress in developing a

system to help them better identify and set priorities for lands needing 

treatment to reduce accumulated fuels. Many past studies have identified

fuel reduction as important for containing wildland fire costs because 

accumulated fuels can contribute to more-severe and more costly fires. 

The agencies are developing a geospatial data and modeling system, called 

LANDFIRE, intended to produce consistent and comprehensive maps and

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

United States.

6

 The agencies will be able to use this information to help 

identify fuel accumulations and fire hazards across the nation, help set 

nationwide priorities for fuel-reduction projects, and assist in determining 

an appropriate response when wildland fires do occur. According to 

Federal Agencies Are 

Taking Some Steps to 

Contain Wildland Fire 

Costs, but Results Are 

Unknown 

 6

A fire regime generally classifies the role that wildland fire plays in a particular ecosystem 

on the basis of certain characteristics, such as the average number of years between fires 

and the typical severity of fire under historic conditions. 

Page 5 GAO-07-922T 
Forest Service and Interior officials, the agencies completed mapping the

western United States in April 2007; mapping of the eastern states is 

scheduled to be completed by 2008 and of Alaska and Hawaii by 2009. The 

agencies, however, have not yet finalized their plan for ensuring that 

collected data are routinely updated to reflect changes to fuels, including 

those from landscape-altering events, such as hurricanes, disease, or 

wildland fires themselves. Forest Service and Interior officials told us that 

they recognize the importance of ensuring that data are periodically 

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

including determining how often data will be updated. The agencies 

expect to submit this plan to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council for 

approval in June 2007. 

Second, the agencies have also taken some steps to improve how they 

acquire and use firefighting personnel, aviation resources, and

equipment—assets that constitute a major cost of responding to wildland 

fires—but much remains to be done. The agencies have improved their 

systems for dispatching and monitoring firefighting assets and for 

gathering and analyzing cost data. However, they have yet to complete the 

more fundamental step of determining the appropriate type and quantity 

of firefighting assets needed for the fire season. Over the past several 

years, the agencies have been developing a Fire Program Analysis (FPA) 

system, which was proposed and funded to help the agencies 

• determine national budget needs by analyzing budget alternatives at the 

local level—using a common, interagency process for fire management 

planning and budgeting—and aggregating the results; 

• determine the relative costs and benefits for the full scope of fire 

management activities, including potential trade-offs among investments 

in fuel reduction, fire preparedness, and fire suppression activities; and 

• identify, for a given budget level, the most cost-effective mix of personnel 

and equipment to carry out these activities. 

We have said for several years—and the agencies have concurred—that 

FPA is critical to helping the agencies contain wildland fire costs and plan 

and budget effectively. Recent design modifications to the system, 

however, raise questions about the agencies’ ability to fully achieve these 

key goals. A midcourse review of the developing system resulted in the 

Wildland Fire Leadership Council’s approving in December 2006 

modifications to the system’s design. FPA and senior Forest Service and 

Interior officials told us in April 2007 they believed the modifications will 

Page 6 GAO-07-922T 
allow the agencies to meet the key goals. The officials said they expected

to have a prototype developed for the council’s review in June 2007 and to 

substantially complete the system by June 2008. We have yet to 

systematically review the modifications, but after reviewing agency

reports on the modifications and interviewing knowledgeable officials, we

have concerns that the modifications may not allow the agencies to meet 

FPA’s key goals. For example, under the redesigned system, local land

managers will use a different method to analyze and select various budget 

alternatives, and it is unclear whether this method will identify the most 

cost-effective allocation of resources. In addition, it is unclear how the 

budget alternatives for local units will be meaningfully aggregated on a 

nationwide basis, a key FPA goal. 

Third, the agencies have clarified certain policies and are improving 

analytical tools to assist agency officials in identifying and implementing 

an appropriate response to a given fire. Officials have a wide spectrum of 

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

which can be significantly more costly than others. For individual fires, 

past studies have found that officials may not always consider the full 

range of available strategies and may not select the most appropriate one, 

which would consider the cost of suppression; value of structures and 

other resources threatened by the fire; and, where appropriate, any

benefits the fire may provide to natural resources. The agencies call a 

strategy that considers these factors the “appropriate management 

response.” The agencies updated their policies in 2004 to require officials 

to consider the full spectrum of available strategies when selecting one to 

use. Nevertheless, other policies limit the agencies’ use of less aggressive 

strategies, which typically cost less. The Forest Service and Interior 

agencies are working together to revise these policies—revisions that 

could, for example, allow different areas of the same fire to be managed 

for suppression and wildland fire use concurrently or allow a fire that was 

previously being suppressed to be managed instead for wildland fire use. 

The agencies are also continuing to refine existing tools, and to develop

new ones, for analyzing both fuel and predicted weather conditions to 

model expected fire behavior, information that officials can use to identify 

appropriate suppression strategies; these tools are still being designed and 

tested. It is still too early to tell, however, to what extent the policy 

changes being considered or the new tools being developed will help to 

contain costs. 

Finally, we and others have also reported that the existing framework for 

sharing firefighting costs between federal and nonfederal entities insulates 

state and local governments from the cost of protecting homes and 

Page 7 GAO-07-922T 
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.7

 Federal agencies, 

working with nonfederal entities, have recently taken steps to clarify 

guidance and better ensure that firefighting costs are shared consistently 

for fires that threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. In 

early 2007, the Forest Service and Interior agencies approved an updated

template that land managers can use when developing master 

agreements—which establish the framework for sharing costs between 

federal and nonfederal entities—as well as agreements on how to share 

costs for a specific fire. Because master agreements are normally updated 

every 5 years, however, it may take several years to fully incorporate this 

new guidance. Although the new guidance states that managers must 

document their rationale for selecting a particular cost-sharing method, 

officials told us that the agencies have no clear plan for how they will 

provide oversight to ensure that appropriate cost-sharing methods are 

used. 

Despite steps taken to strengthen their management of cost-containment 

efforts, the agencies have neither clearly defined their cost-containment 

goals and objectives nor developed a strategy for achieving them—steps 

that are fundamental to sound program management. To manage their 

cost-containment efforts effectively, the Forest Service and Interior 

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

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

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

holding appropriate agency officials accountable for achieving the goals.8

First, although the agencies have established a broad goal of suppressing 

wildland fires at minimum cost considering firefighter and public safety 

and the resources and structures to be protected, they have established 

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

often-competing priorities nor measurable objectives by which to 

Lack of Clear Goals or 

a Strategy Hinders 

Federal Agencies’ 

Management of 

Wildland Fire CostContainment Efforts 

 7

GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns about Cost 

Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities, GAO-06-570 (Washington, D.C.: May 30,

2006). 

8

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

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

for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 1999). 

Page 8 GAO-07-922T 
determine if they are meeting their goal. Without such criteria and 

objectives, according to agency officials we interviewed and reports we 

reviewed, officials in the field lack a clear understanding of the relative 

importance that the agencies’ leadership places on containing costs and, 

therefore, are likely to select firefighting strategies without due 

consideration of costs. 

Second, the agencies have yet to establish an overall cost-containment 

strategy. Without a strategy designed to achieve clear cost-containment 

goals, the agencies (1) have no assurance that the variety of steps they are 

taking to help contain wildland fire costs are prioritized so that the most 

important steps are undertaken first and (2) are unable to determine to 

what extent these steps will help contain costs and if a different approach 

may therefore be needed. 

Third, the agencies recently adopted a new performance measure—known

as the stratified cost index—that may improve the agencies’ ability to 

evaluate their progress in containing costs, but the measure may take a

number of years to fully refine. Also, although the agencies have in recent 

years improved their data on suppression costs and fire characteristics, 

additional improvement is needed. In particular, cost data for “fire 

complexes”—that is, two or more fires burning in proximity that are 

managed as a single incident—are particularly difficult to identify. Thus,

the costs of many of the largest fires are not included in the index, limiting

its effectiveness. Further, to date, the index is based solely on fires 

managed by the Forest Service. Forest Service researchers are currently 

developing, at Interior’s request, a similar index for fires managed by the 

Interior agencies, but it will be several years, at the earliest, before enough 

data have been collected for the index to be useful. In addition, because 

the stratified cost index is based on costs from previous fires—and 

because the agencies have only recently begun to emphasize the 

importance of using less aggressive suppression strategies—we are 

concerned that the index does not include data from many fires where less 

costly firefighting strategies were used. As a result, the index may not 

accurately identify fires where more, or more-expensive, resources were 

used than needed. According to Forest Service officials, data from recent 

fires will be added annually; over time, the index should therefore include 

more fires where less aggressive firefighting strategies were used. 

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

improve their oversight and accountability framework, although the extent

to which these steps will assist the agencies in containing costs is 

unknown. For example, the agencies have issued guidance clarifying that 

Page 9 GAO-07-922T 
land managers, not fire managers, have primary responsibility for 

containing wildland fire costs, but they have not yet determined how the 

land managers are to be held accountable for doing so. Rather, the 

agencies have taken several incremental steps intended to assist land 

managers in carrying out this responsibility—such as assigning “incident 

business advisors” to observe firefighting operations and work with fire 

managers to identify ways those operations could be more cost-effective,

and requiring land managers to evaluate fire managers for how well they 

achieve cost-containment goals. The utility of these steps, however, may 

be limited because the agencies have yet to establish a clear measure to 

evaluate the benefits and costs of alternative firefighting strategies. Some 

past studies have concluded that the absence of such a measure 

fundamentally weakens the agencies’ ability to provide effective oversight. 

Continuing concerns about the cost of preparing for and responding to 

wildland fires have spurred numerous studies and actions by federal 

wildland fire agencies, but little in the way of a coordinated and focused 

effort to rein in these costs. Although the agencies have taken—and 

continue to take—steps intended to contain wildland fire costs, the effect

of these steps on containing costs is unknown, in part because the 

agencies lack a clear vision for what they want to achieve. Without clearly 

defined cost-containment goals and objectives, federal land and fire 

managers in the field are more likely to select strategies and tactics that 

favor suppressing fires quickly over those that seek to balance the benefits

of protecting the resources at risk and the costs of protecting them. 

Further, without clear goals, the agencies will be unable to develop 

consistent standards by which to measure their performance. Perhaps 

most important, without a clear vision of what they are trying to achieve 

and a systematic approach for achieving it, the agencies—and Congress 

and the American people—have little assurance that cost-containment 

efforts will lead to substantial improvement. 

Thus, to help the agencies manage their ongoing efforts to contain 

wildland fire costs effectively and efficiently, and to assist Congress in its 

oversight role, we recommended in our report that the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and the Interior work together to direct their respective

agencies to (1) establish clearly defined goals and measurable objectives 

for containing wildland fire costs, (2) develop a strategy to achieve these 

goals and objectives, (3) establish performance measures that are aligned 

with these goals and objectives, and (4) establish a framework to ensure 

that officials are held accountable for achieving the goals and objectives. 

Because of the importance of these actions and continuing concerns about 

Conclusions 

Page 10 GAO-07-922T 
the agencies’ response to the increasing cost of wildland fires—and so that 

the agencies can use the results of these actions to prepare for the 2008 

fire season—the agencies should provide Congress with this information 

no later than November 2007. 

In commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service and Interior 

generally disagreed with the characterization of many of our findings; they 

neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. In particular, the 

Forest Service and Interior stated that they did not believe we had 

accurately portrayed some of the significant actions they had taken to 

contain wildland fire costs, and they identified several agency documents 

that they believe provide clearly defined goals and objectives that make up

their strategy to contain costs. Although documents cited by the agencies

provide overarching goals and objectives, we believe that they lack the 

clarity and specificity needed by their land management and firefighting 

officials in the field to help manage and contain wildland fire costs. 

Therefore, we believe that our recommendations, if effectively 

implemented, would help the agencies better manage their costcontainment efforts and improve their ability to contain wildland fire 

costs. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be please to

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

have at this time. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Ellen W. Chu; 

Jonathan Dent; Janet Frisch; Chester Joy; and Richard Johnson made key 

contributions to this statement. 

Page 11 GAO-07-922T 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360847) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER