PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES

Shortcomings in Oversight 

and Implementation of Key 

Parts of the Secure Rural 

Schools Act May Be 

Addressed by Recent 

Agency Guidance 

Statement of Anne-Marie Fennell, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

GAO-13-475T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-475T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, U.S. Senate 

March 19, 2013 

PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES

Shortcomings in Oversight and Implementation of

Key Parts of the Secure Rural Schools Act May Be 

Addressed by Recent Agency Guidance

Why GAO Did This Study

Under the Secure Rural Schools Act, 

counties with federal lands may elect 

to receive payments to help stabilize 

revenues lost because of declining 

federal timber sales. Under Title III of 

the act, counties are authorized to use 

these funds for certain projects related 

to wildland fire and emergency 

services on federal lands. The act 

provides oversight roles for the Forest 

Service and BLM, requiring them to 

review counties’ certification of their 

Title III expenditures as the agencies

determine to be appropriate and to 

issue regulations to carry out the act’s 

purposes. GAO reported to this 

committee in July 2012 that the

agencies had provided limited 

oversight of county spending under 

Title III and that, although the projects 

for which counties reported using Title 

III funds were generally aligned with 

the broad purposes of Title III, county 

spending did not in all cases appear 

consistent with specific provisions of 

the act. 

This testimony describes (1) key 

findings of GAO’s July 2012 report on

oversight and implementation of the 

act (GAO-12-775) and (2) actions the 

agencies have taken to strengthen 

oversight of county spending since the 

July 2012 report was issued. The 

testimony is based primarily on GAO’s 

2012 report and includes selected 

updates conducted in March 2013 on 

actions the agency has taken in

response to that report.

GAO is making no recommendations in 

this testimony. In July 2012 GAO 

recommended that the agencies 

strengthen their oversight by issuing 

regulations or clear guidance. The 

agencies concurred, and took action to 

implement this recommendation.

What GAO Found

In July 2012 GAO reported that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) had taken few actions to oversee county spending under 

Title III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, and 

that the guidance they provided was limited and in some cases did not appear 

consistent with the act. GAO also reported that some expenditures by selected 

counties may have been inconsistent with the act—which may have resulted in 

part from the limited guidance available from the agencies—and that reviewed 

counties did not consistently follow Title III’s administrative requirements.

Specifically, GAO found the following: 

• Neither the Forest Service nor BLM had issued regulations under the act, 

and the guidance the agencies had issued was limited and sometimes 

unclear. Forest Service guidance, for example, did little to clarify language in 

the act, neither defining terms from the act nor specifying which types of 

expenditures were allowed under the act and which were not. The absence 

of clear guidance or regulations was of particular concern to GAO because 

the act itself does not define key terms. For example, the act authorizes 

counties to use Title III funds for “emergency services” but does not specify 

the types of activities covered by this term. Moreover, the agencies did not 

have assurance that they had an accurate accounting of the amounts of Title 

III funding spent and unspent by the counties, which is important because the 

act requires unobligated funds to be returned to the U.S. Treasury upon the 

act’s expiration. 

• The counties GAO reviewed reported using Title III funds for projects that 

were generally aligned with the three broad purposes of Title III—wildland fire 

preparedness, emergency services on federal land, and community wildfire 

protection planning—but GAO identified certain expenditures by some 

counties that may not be consistent with specific requirements of the act. 

Such expenditures included funding for activities such as clearing vegetation 

along evacuation routes, updating 9-1-1 systems, and conducting routine law 

enforcement patrols on federal land. Some counties GAO reviewed reported 

using funds to purchase equipment, such as radios and GPS equipment, 

sonar equipment, watercraft, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and trucks for 

patrols. 

• Counties also did not consistently follow Title III’s administrative 

requirements, which include annual certification of expenditures, 45-day 

notification periods to the public and others before spending funds, and 

deadlines for project initiation. For example, some counties did not submit a 

certification for certain years when they spent funds, some counties 

submitted their certifications late, and some counties did not consistently 

follow notification and project initiation requirements. 

Since GAO’s report was issued, the Forest Service and BLM have provided 

additional guidance to counties, which clarifies allowable uses of Title III funds. In 

addition, the agencies reported that they plan to change their requirements for 

annual reporting of expenditures to obtain additional information regarding the 

extent to which counties have obligated their Title III funds. The additional 

guidance addresses the recommendation in GAO’s July 2012 report.

View GAO-13-475T. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov
Page 1 GAO-13-475T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.1 As you know, the act 

was a response to the steep decline in federal timber sales during the 

1990s, which significantly decreased revenues from national forests 

managed by the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and from 

some public lands managed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). Counties containing federal lands have 

historically received a percentage of the revenues generated by the sale 

or use of natural resources on these lands, and the act was enacted in 

part to stabilize payments to counties dependent on revenues from 

federal timber sales. The act, which covers all National Forest lands and 

certain BLM lands in western Oregon, was initially enacted in 2000 and 

has been reauthorized several times, most recently for a 1-year extension 

in 2012.2

In 2011, at the request of this committee, we undertook a review of the 

oversight and implementation of the 2008 reauthorization of Title III. We 

examined the actions the Forest Service and BLM had taken to oversee 

county spending under Title III and the extent to which county 

expenditures were consistent with the provisions of the act. In July 2012 

we reported that the agencies had provided limited oversight of county 

spending under Title III and that, although the projects for which counties 

reported using Title III funds were generally aligned with the purposes of 

Under the act, each county may continue to receive a portion of 

the revenues generated from the sale or use of resources from federal 

lands or can choose instead to receive annual payments based in part on 

historical revenue payments to the county. Title III of the act authorizes 

counties to use a portion of the payments for certain purposes related to 

wildland fire and emergency services on federal lands.

 

1

Pub. L. No. 106-393 (2000), as amended.

2

Pub. L. No. 106-393 (2000) covered the period from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 

2006. Pub. L. No. 110-28, Title V, § 5401 (c) (2007), reauthorized the act for fiscal year 

2007. Pub. L. No. 110-343, Div. C, Title VI, § 601 (2008), reauthorized the act from fiscal 

year 2008 though fiscal year 2011. Pub. L. No. 112-141, Div. F, Title I, § 100101 (2012), 

reauthorized the act through fiscal year 2012. In this testimony, we refer to the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 as the Secure Rural 

Schools Act.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-475T 

Title III, county spending did not in all cases appear consistent with the 

act.3

My testimony today will describe (1) key findings of our 2012 report 

related to oversight and implementation of the act and (2) actions the 

agencies have taken to strengthen oversight of county spending since our 

report was issued. This statement is based on our July 2012 report, and 

includes selected updates conducted in March 2013 on actions the 

agencies have taken in response to our report’s recommendation. To 

conduct the updates, we reviewed additional guidance issued by the 

agencies and interviewed agency officials. Detailed information about 

scope and methodology can be found in our July 2012 report. We 

conducted the performance audit work that supports this testimony in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform audits to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We recommended that the Forest Service and BLM strengthen their 

oversight by issuing regulations or clear guidance specifying the types of 

allowable county uses of Title III funds. The agencies concurred with this 

recommendation and have taken action to do so. We also suggested that 

Congress, if it chooses to extend Title III beyond the 1-year 

reauthorization enacted in 2012, consider revising and clarifying the 

language of Title III to make explicit which types of expenditures are and 

are not allowable under the act.

The Secure Rural Schools Act was enacted to help address fiscal 

difficulties confronting rural counties having substantial federal lands and 

a history of federal timber harvesting. The act, as reauthorized, comprises 

three principal titles. Under Title I, counties are to use the majority of 

payments they receive for the same purposes for which they used federal 

receipts, in most cases for the benefit of roads and schools. Under Title II, 

counties may reserve a portion of the payments to fund certain land 

management projects that benefit federal lands. Title III authorizes the 

use of a portion of the payments for certain purposes related to wildland 

 

3

GAO, Payments to Counties: More Clarity Could Help Ensure County Expenditures Are 

Consistent with Key Parts of the Secure Rural Schools Act, GAO-12-775 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 16, 2012).

Background
 

Page 3 GAO-13-475T 

fire and emergency services on federal lands.4 These authorized uses 

include carrying out certain activities to increase the protection of people 

and property from wildland fires under the Firewise Communities 

program,5 reimbursing the county for search and rescue and other 

emergency services performed on federal land, and developing 

community wildfire protection plans to help protect homes and 

neighborhoods. Title III requires counties to follow certain administrative 

requirements, including publishing public notices of proposed uses for the 

payments and submitting annual certifications of Title III expenditures to 

either the Forest Service or BLM, as appropriate, stating that any Title III 

funds spent in the previous year went toward authorized uses. For fiscal 

years 2008 through 2011, 358 counties received a total of $108 million for 

Title III projects, and individual counties received from about $3,600 to 

over $2 million in a single fiscal year for such projects.6

The Forest Service and BLM are responsible for carrying out certain parts 

of the Secure Rural Schools Act. Both agencies calculate the amounts 

that counties are to receive each year, and both agencies are required by 

the act to review the counties’ certification of Title III expenditures as the 

agencies determine to be appropriate. The act also requires the agencies 

to issue regulations to implement the act, although it does not describe 

what the regulations are to address or establish a deadline for issuing 

them.

 

4

Counties receiving $100,000 or less in payments may allocate all of their payments to 

uses authorized under Title I. Counties receiving more than $100,000 must allocate from 

15 to 20 percent of their payments to Title II and Title III projects or give the funds back to 

the federal government. Counties choose how to divide this percentage among Title II and 

Title III, although counties receiving $350,000 or more in payments may allocate no more 

than 7 percent of the payments to Title III projects.

5

The Firewise Communities program is a nonregulatory program administered by the 

National Fire Protection Association and sponsored by the Forest Service, Interior, and 

state forestry organizations. It is designed to involve homeowners, community leaders, 

planners, developers, and others in efforts to protect people, property, and natural 

resources from the risk of wildland fire.

6

Payments under all three titles of the act totaled over $2 billion for fiscal years 2008 

through 2011.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-475T 

In our July 2012 report, we found that the Forest Service and BLM had 

taken few actions to oversee county spending under Title III of the Secure 

Rural Schools Act and that the guidance they provided was limited and, in 

some cases, did not appear consistent with the act.7 We also found that 

some expenditures by selected counties we contacted may have been 

inconsistent with the act—which may have resulted in part from the 

limited guidance available from the agencies—and that counties we 

reviewed did not consistently follow Title III’s administrative requirements.

In July 2012, we reported that neither the Forest Service nor BLM had 

issued regulations under the act and that the guidance the agencies had 

issued was limited and sometimes unclear. We expressed particular 

concern that the agencies had not developed regulations or clear 

guidance because the act itself does not define key terms. For example, 

the act authorizes counties to use Title III funds for “search and rescue 

and other emergency services, including firefighting, that are performed 

on federal land” but does not specify the types of activities covered by this 

phrase.8

To provide guidance, the Forest Service had developed a brief overview 

of Title III, which generally echoed wording in the act, and a “frequently 

asked questions” document responding to questions on authorized uses 

of Title III funds. At the time of our report, agency officials told us they 

believed the frequently asked questions document provided sufficient 

clarity for counties to use when considering how to spend Title III funds. 

We concluded that because the language of the law leaves 

certain provisions open to varying interpretations, and available guidance 

from the agencies had done little to clarify this language, counties had 

generally been left to make their own interpretations about which types of 

expenditures are allowable under Title III and which are not.

 

7

GAO-12-775. 

8

The legislative history of Title III contains almost no information that clarifies the phrase 

“emergency services.” 

Federal Agencies Had 

Provided Limited 

Oversight of County 

Spending at the Time 

of Our Report, and 

Some County 

Expenditures May 

Have Been 

Inconsistent with the 

Provisions of the Act

Oversight by Federal 

Agencies
 

Page 5 GAO-13-475T 

Officials from several counties we contacted, however, told us they found 

these documents to be of little help, and our review of these documents 

found that they did not clearly define terms from the act or specify which 

types of expenditures were allowed under the act and which were not. For 

example, the act authorizes counties to use Title III funds for “search and 

rescue and other emergency services, including firefighting, that are 

performed on federal land” but does not define the types of activities 

covered by this phrase. Neither of the Forest Service documents defined 

such activities. In addition, in the frequently asked questions document, 

the Forest Service listed eight specific uses of Title III funds—including 

purchase of capital equipment, capital improvements, purchase of land, 

and training for emergency response—and asked, “Are Title III funds 

authorized for the following uses?” Instead of answering the question 

directly, the documents stated that for certain uses—such as construction 

of facilities, purchase of real property, and purchase of vehicles and other 

capital equipment—the act does not explicitly authorize these uses. It 

then further stated that reimbursement for certain uses—such as the 

purchase of replacement equipment damaged or destroyed during an 

emergency response or maintenance of vehicles and equipment in 

proportion to their actual use for emergency services performed on 

federal land—may be allowable. We concluded that such statements 

were confusing and unclear.

Further, our review showed that, in addition to being unclear, the Forest 

Service’s frequently asked questions document appeared to be 

inconsistent with certain provisions of the act. For example, the act

authorizes counties to use Title III funds to carry out activities under the 

Firewise Communities program to educate homeowners about, and assist 

them with, techniques in home siting, construction, and landscaping. 

Forest Service guidance documents, however, defined Firewise 

Communities as an approach that, among other things, “emphasizes 

community responsibility for planning in the design of a safe community 

as well as effective emergency response.” The documents did not 

emphasize the act’s requirement that counties’ Firewise activities with 

Title III funds must be limited to providing fire-related education or 

assistance to homeowners. Moreover, the frequently asked questions 

document stated that developing emergency 9-1-1 systems under 

Firewise—which is not an activity clearly authorized under the act—may 

also be an authorized use of Title III funds. We raised concerns that 

including emergency response in a definition of Firewise and suggesting 

that developing 9-1-1 systems may be an authorized activity under the act 

could lead some counties to interpret the act as allowing expenditures 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-475T 

that improve the county’s emergency response—a use not clearly 

authorized under the act.

Our report also raised issues related to counties’ certification that any 

Title III funds spent in the previous year went toward uses authorized 

under the act. For example, we found that the Forest Service and BLM 

had jointly developed a process to assist counties in certifying their Title 

III expenditures but that the information the agencies directed the 

counties to submit—typically the amount spent in each of the three 

allowable Title III spending categories but without further details regarding 

actual activities—did not allow either agency to determine whether 

counties spent their Title III funds appropriately. In addition, the act 

requires counties to submit certifications only for the years they have 

spent funds, and we found that neither the Forest Service nor BLM had a 

process to contact counties that did not submit a certification to determine 

if these counties spent no Title III funds that year or had simply not 

submitted the required certification. Some county officials we interviewed 

said they had not submitted certifications even when their counties had 

Title III expenditures the previous year. Overall, we found that of the 

$108 million in Title III payments provided to 358 counties for fiscal years 

2008 through 2011, the counties had certified having spent about 

$46 million—or less than half the total amount—by the end of calendar 

year 2011. However, because the agencies did not have a process to 

ensure an accurate accounting of the amounts of Title III funds spent and 

unspent, we concluded that it was unclear whether the amounts were 

accurate and that it would be difficult to ensure that counties return to the 

U.S. Treasury any funds that remain unobligated upon the act’s 

expiration, as the act requires.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-475T 

We also found that expenditures by counties we contacted for our 2012 

report did not in all cases appear consistent with the act.9

• Wildland fire preparedness. Title III authorizes counties to spend 

funds for activities carried out under the Firewise Communities 

program but specifies that these activities are to involve educating or 

assisting homeowners with home siting, home construction, or home 

landscaping to help protect people and property from wildfires. Some 

counties we reviewed used Title III funds on broad emergency 

preparedness activities that may not be consistent with the 2008 act. 

For example, two counties we reviewed told us they spent part of their 

Title III funds to clear vegetation along roads, some of which are 

potential emergency evacuation routes, and others said they removed 

vegetation from county lands, parks, schools, or cemeteries or from 

larger swaths of land to create fuel breaks—locations not directly 

associated with home siting, home construction, or home landscaping. 

In addition, four counties used Title III funds to update their 9-1-1 

telephone systems, according to county officials—an activity not 

clearly authorized by Title III (although, as noted, agency guidance 

stated that such an activity may be allowable).

These counties 

reported using Title III funds for projects that were generally aligned with 

the three broad purposes of Title III—wildland fire preparedness, 

emergency services on federal land, and community wildfire protection 

planning— and some counties reported expenditures that were clearly 

authorized by the act. Nevertheless, we identified various expenditures by 

some counties that may not have been consistent with specific 

requirements of the act, such as the following examples:

• Emergency services on federal land. Title III authorizes counties to 

use funds as reimbursement for search and rescue and other 

emergency services, including firefighting, that they perform on 

federal lands. Some counties we reviewed spent Title III funds on 

activities that may not have been consistent with this requirement. For 

 

9

For our 2012 review, to obtain information about the projects and activities on which 

counties spent Title III funds, and their administrative practices related to Title III, we 

interviewed, in person or by telephone, officials from 42 selected counties of the 

358 counties receiving Title III funds since the act was reauthorized in 2008. These 

42 counties make up a nonprobability sample of counties selected for variation in both the 

amounts of Title III funds received and in geographic location. Because the 42 counties 

we selected are a nonprobability sample, the information we obtained from these counties 

cannot be generalized beyond these counties; the information did, however, provide us 

with an understanding of how the selected counties spent Title III funds and the actions 

taken to follow Title III’s administrative requirements.

Consistency of County 

Expenditures
 

Page 8 GAO-13-475T 

example, instead of reimbursements for specific incidents, a number 

of counties used Title III funds to pay a portion of their fire or 

emergency services departments’ salary and administrative costs, 

including office supplies, utility costs, or insurance. As justification for 

this approach, these counties cited the high percentage of federal 

land in their counties or the difficulty in breaking out the costs of 

emergency services on federal versus nonfederal land. Some 

counties we reviewed also used the funds to carry out routine law 

enforcement patrols on federal land; officials from one of these 

counties told us that these patrols help reduce and deter criminal 

activity and enhance visitor safety on federal lands. In addition, some 

counties reported that, to maintain access to federal lands, they used 

Title III funds to help rebuild flood-damaged roads, and some reported 

using funds to purchase equipment, such as radios and GPS 

equipment, sonar equipment, watercraft, all-terrain vehicles, 

snowmobiles, and trucks for patrols.

• Community wildfire protection planning. The act authorizes counties to 

use Title III funds “to develop community wildfire protection plans in 

coordination with the appropriate Secretary concerned.” Some 

counties we reviewed reported Title III expenditures for wildfire 

protection planning activities that may not be consistent with this 

provision. For example, one county used Title III funds to purchase 

vehicles having firefighting capabilities, as well as other equipment 

associated with emergency response. Another county used Title III 

funds to contract for firefighter dispatch and suppression services. 

Officials from this county explained that county emergency service 

units cannot reach certain remote areas quickly, so they contract with 

a state agency to provide dispatch and suppression services during 

the heavy wildland fire season, and because the area served is 

largely federal land, the county pays for a portion of the contract costs 

with Title III funds.

We also found that counties we reviewed did not consistently follow Title 

III’s administrative requirements. Title III requires counties to certify 

expenditures to the Forest Service or BLM annually and provide 45-day 

notification to the public and any applicable resource advisory committee 

before spending funds.10

 

10Resource advisory committees are established primarily under Title II of the act and are 

to contain 15 members representing diverse local interests. For more information on these 

committees and Title II in general, see GAO, Update on the Status of the Merchantable 

Timber Contracting Pilot Program, 

The 2008 act also required projects to be 

GAO-10-379R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 4, 2010).

Administrative 

Requirements
 

Page 9 GAO-13-475T 

initiated by September 30, 2011. Our review identified instances where 

counties did not follow the requirements, including:

• Certification. Some counties did not submit certifications at all or 

submitted their certifications late, some certified expenditures for 

multiple years simultaneously, and some acknowledged putting 

incorrect information on the certification form. We found various 

reasons for counties’ not complying with the certification requirements 

in the act. Three counties, according to county officials we 

interviewed, did not submit their certifications to the Forest Service for 

the years they spent funds because they were unaware of the 

requirement to do so. Two other counties submitted certification forms 

for some but not all years in which they spent funds, and many 

counties submitted their certification forms after the deadline specified 

in the act, in some cases because they were initially unaware of or 

overlooked the requirement to do so.

• Public notification. The act directs each county, before moving forward 

with Title III projects, to publish a proposal describing its planned use 

of Title III funds in local newspapers or other publications, after which 

the county must allow a 45-day comment period before using the 

funds. Some counties in our review followed only part of the public 

notification requirement. For example, some counties published 

notices in their local newspapers but did not allow for a 45-day 

comment period before moving ahead with projects or activities, 

according to county officials and documents, while other counties 

issued public notices in some years but not in others. We also found 

four counties that did not issue any public notices on their Title III 

project proposals; officials from these counties told us that they were 

unaware of the requirement to do so.

• Notice to resource advisory committees. Some counties in our review 

did not notify the relevant resource advisory committees of their Title 

III projects, as required under the act. County officials cited a number 

of reasons for the lack of notification, including (1) they were unaware 

of the requirement to do so; (2) the committee meets only once a year 

in the summer, which does not coincide with the county’s timeline for 

the Title III budgeting process; and (3) the county planned to notify the 

resource advisory committee but did not because a local Forest 

Service official stated that resource advisory committees were 

involved only in Title II, not Title III projects—even with a specific 

reference to such committees in Title III of the act.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-475T 

• Project initiation. Some counties did not initiate projects by September 

30, 2011, as required by the 2008 act.11

The 2008 act also required Title III funds to be obligated by September 

30, 2012, and officials from nearly all counties in our review that had 

spent funds told us they anticipated doing so.

County officials we 

interviewed provided a number of reasons why they missed this 

deadline. For example, counties did not receive their Title III funds for 

fiscal year 2011 until 2012, and officials in one county told us that their 

county’s guidelines prohibit starting projects before funding is actually 

received. Another county had not initiated all of its Title III projects 

because some of its previous projects had cost less than estimated, 

unexpectedly leaving the county more Title III funds to spend; county 

officials told us that they were selecting additional Title III projects on 

which to use the extra funding.

12 However, as noted, the 

agencies did not have a process to ensure an accurate accounting of the 

amount of Title III funds spent and unspent, making it difficult to ensure 

that unobligated funds are returned to the U.S. Treasury when the act 

expires.

In response to our recommendation that the agencies strengthen their 

oversight by issuing regulations or clear guidance specifying the types of 

allowable county uses of Title III funds, the Forest Service and BLM 

provided additional guidance to counties, which clarifies the types of 

allowable uses of county funds. In addition, the agencies reported that 

they plan to update their expenditure reporting requirements for Title III 

funds, so that counties report not only funds expended the previous year 

but also amounts remaining unobligated.

Regarding guidance, soon after our report was issued in July 2012,13

 

11The 2012 reauthorization of the act extended the deadline for initiating such projects to 

September 30, 2012. 

the 

agencies updated their websites to provide substantial additional 

information on allowable expenditures under the act. Given that this 

information includes specific discussion about, and numerous examples 

of, expenditures that are and are not authorized by the act, we believe 

12The 2012 reauthorization of the act extended the deadline for funds to be obligated to 

September 30, 2013.

13GAO-12-775. 

The Forest Service 

and BLM Have Taken 

Action to Strengthen 

Oversight
 

Page 11 GAO-13-475T 

that this additional guidance addresses our recommendation. The

guidance addressed each of the three main areas of allowable spending 

under Title III, as follows:

• Wildland fire preparedness. As we noted, several counties reported 

expending funds for broad emergency preparedness activities under 

the Firewise Communities program that did not appear consistent with 

the act because they did not involve providing fire-related education or 

assistance to homeowners. This issue is specifically addressed in the 

guidance, which now states that Title III authorizes funds to be “spent 

on Firewise Communities program activities that (1) educate 

homeowners in fire-sensitive ecosystems about techniques in siting 

(positioning or locating) a home, constructing a home, landscaping 

and maintenance around a home. . .or (2) assist homeowners in 

implementing these techniques” (emphasis in original). The guidance 

goes on to list examples of activities that are authorized—such as 

disseminating Firewise information or assisting with “clean-up days”—

and those that are not—such as updating 9-1-1 systems or clearing 

vegetation along emergency evacuation routes or from county lands, 

parks, schools, cemeteries, or other larger swaths of land not directly 

associated with home siting.

• Emergency services on federal land. Likewise, the guidance 

addresses concerns we raised about whether certain projects related 

to emergency services on federal land were clearly consistent with the 

act. The guidance, among other things, clarifies the definition of 

emergency services and provides lists of expenses that are 

authorized (e.g., salary or wages of emergency response personnel 

deployed during an emergency response) and those that are not (e.g., 

routine sheriff’s patrols of national forest roads and campgrounds, 

cleanup after a flood event, and purchase of capital equipment or real 

property).

• Community wildfire protection planning. The guidance also addresses 

concerns we raised about development of community wildfire 

protection plans by clarifying authorized uses and illustrating those 

that are not authorized, including the implementation of activities 

described in such plans.

Regarding annual reporting requirements on the part of counties, both 

agencies updated the certification form for counties to use in certifying 

Title III expenditures, so that counties must report not only on the funds 

expended the previous year but also on the amount of their Title III funds 

that remain unobligated. Such an update is consistent with guidance 

provided by Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel in response to a 

Forest Service request for legal advice on its role in counties’ return of 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-475T 

unobligated Title III funds. The update is likely to allow the agencies a 

more accurate accounting of the overall amounts of Title III funds spent 

and unspent—a need we noted in our report.

In our July 2012 report, we also suggested that if Congress chooses to 

extend Title III beyond the 1-year reauthorization enacted in 2012, it 

should consider revising and clarifying the language of Title III to make 

explicit which types of expenditures are and are not allowable under the 

act. Given that the agencies have issued guidance that we believe 

clarifies the allowable uses of Title III funds, there may be less need for 

changes to the language of the act itself. Nevertheless, it will be important 

to monitor counties’ Title III expenditures to observe whether the 

incidence of expenditures that appear inconsistent with the act diminishes 

in the wake of the additional guidance the agencies have issued.

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony include 

Steve Gaty (Assistant Director), Ellen W. Chu, Jonathan Dent, Richard P. 

Johnson, Lesley Rinner, and Leigh McCaskill White.

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361479)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.