Wildland Fire Suppression
Better Guidance Needed to Clarify Sharing of Costs between Federal and Nonfederal Entities Gao ID: GAO-06-896T June 21, 2006Wildland fires can burn or threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources, including homes in or near wildlands, an area commonly called the wildland-urban interface. Agreements between federal and nonfederal firefighting entities provide the framework for working together and sharing the costs of fire suppression efforts. GAO was asked to (1) review how federal and nonfederal entities share the costs of suppressing fires that burn or threaten both of their lands and resources and (2) identify any concerns that these entities may have with the existing cost-sharing framework. This testimony is based on GAO's May 2006 report Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities (GAO-06-570).
Federal and nonfederal entities used a variety of methods to share the costs of fighting wildland fires affecting both of their lands and resources. Cooperative agreements between federal and nonfederal firefighting entities--which are developed and agreed to by the entities involved--provide the framework for cost sharing and typically list several cost-sharing methods available to the entities. The agreements GAO reviewed, however, often lacked clear guidance for federal and nonfederal officials to use in deciding which method to apply to a specific fire. As a result, cost-sharing methods were applied inconsistently within and among states, even for fires with similar characteristics. For example, GAO found that in one state, the costs for suppressing a large fire that threatened homes were shared solely according to the proportion of acres burned within each entity's area of fire protection responsibility, a method that traditionally has been used. Yet, costs for a similar fire within the same state were shared differently. For this fire, the state agreed to pay for certain aircraft and fire engines used to protect the wildland-urban interface, while the remaining costs were shared on the basis of acres burned. In contrast to the two methods used in this state, officials in another state used yet a different cost-sharing method for two similar large fires that threatened homes, apportioning costs each day for personnel, aircraft, and equipment deployed on particular lands, such as the wildland-urban interface. The type of cost-sharing method ultimately used is important because it can have significant financial consequences for the entities involved, potentially amounting to millions of dollars. Both federal and nonfederal agency officials raised a number of concerns about the current cost-sharing framework. First, some federal officials were concerned that because guidance is unclear about which cost-sharing methods are most appropriate in particular circumstances, it can be difficult to reach agreement with nonfederal officials on a method that all parties believe distributes suppression costs equitably. Second, some nonfederal officials expressed concerns that the emergence of alternative cost-sharing methods is causing nonfederal entities to bear a greater share of fire suppression costs than in the past. In addition, both federal and nonfederal officials believed that the inconsistent application of these cost-sharing methods has led to inequities among states in the proportion of costs borne by federal and nonfederal entities. Finally, some federal officials also expressed concern that the current framework for sharing costs insulates state and local governments from the increasing costs of protecting the wildland-urban interface. Therefore, nonfederal entities may have a reduced incentive to take steps that could help mitigate fire risks, such as requiring homeowners to use fire-resistant materials and landscaping. On the basis of a review of previous federal reports and interviews with federal and nonfederal officials, GAO believes that these concerns may reflect a more fundamental issue--that federal and nonfederal entities have not clearly defined their basic financial responsibilities for wildland fire suppression, particularly those for protecting the wildland-urban interface.
GAO-06-896T, Wildland Fire Suppression: Better Guidance Needed to Clarify Sharing of Costs between Federal and Nonfederal Entities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-896T
entitled 'Wildland Fire Suppression: Better Guidance Needed to Clarify
Sharing of Costs between Federal and Nonfederal Entities' which was
released on June 22, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, June 21, 2006:
Wildland Fire Suppression:
Better Guidance Needed to Clarify Sharing of Costs between Federal and
Nonfederal Entities:
Statement of Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-06-896T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-896T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Wildland fires can burn or threaten both federal and nonfederal lands
and resources, including homes in or near wildlands, an area commonly
called the wildland-urban interface. Agreements between federal and
nonfederal firefighting entities provide the framework for working
together and sharing the costs of fire suppression efforts. GAO was
asked to (1) review how federal and nonfederal entities share the costs
of suppressing fires that burn or threaten both of their lands and
resources and (2) identify any concerns that these entities may have
with the existing cost-sharing framework. This testimony is based on
GAO‘s May 2006 report Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance
Raises Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal
Entities (GAO-06-570).
What GAO Found:
Federal and nonfederal entities used a variety of methods to share the
costs of fighting wildland fires affecting both of their lands and
resources. Cooperative agreements between federal and nonfederal
firefighting entities”which are developed and agreed to by the entities
involved”provide the framework for cost sharing and typically list
several cost-sharing methods available to the entities. The agreements
GAO reviewed, however, often lacked clear guidance for federal and
nonfederal officials to use in deciding which method to apply to a
specific fire. As a result, cost-sharing methods were applied
inconsistently within and among states, even for fires with similar
characteristics. For example, GAO found that in one state, the costs
for suppressing a large fire that threatened homes were shared solely
according to the proportion of acres burned within each entity‘s area
of fire protection responsibility, a method that traditionally has been
used. Yet, costs for a similar fire within the same state were shared
differently. For this fire, the state agreed to pay for certain
aircraft and fire engines used to protect the wildland-urban interface,
while the remaining costs were shared on the basis of acres burned. In
contrast to the two methods used in this state, officials in another
state used yet a different cost-sharing method for two similar large
fires that threatened homes, apportioning costs each day for personnel,
aircraft, and equipment deployed on particular lands, such as the
wildland-urban interface. The type of cost-sharing method ultimately
used is important because it can have significant financial
consequences for the entities involved, potentially amounting to
millions of dollars.
Both federal and nonfederal agency officials raised a number of
concerns about the current cost-sharing framework. First, some federal
officials were concerned that because guidance is unclear about which
cost-sharing methods are most appropriate in particular circumstances,
it can be difficult to reach agreement with nonfederal officials on a
method that all parties believe distributes suppression costs
equitably. Second, some nonfederal officials expressed concerns that
the emergence of alternative cost-sharing methods is causing nonfederal
entities to bear a greater share of fire suppression costs than in the
past. In addition, both federal and nonfederal officials believed that
the inconsistent application of these cost-sharing methods has led to
inequities among states in the proportion of costs borne by federal and
nonfederal entities. Finally, some federal officials also expressed
concern that the current framework for sharing costs insulates state
and local governments from the increasing costs of protecting the
wildland-urban interface. Therefore, nonfederal entities may have a
reduced incentive to take steps that could help mitigate fire risks,
such as requiring homeowners to use fire-resistant materials and
landscaping. On the basis of a review of previous federal reports and
interviews with federal and nonfederal officials, GAO believes that
these concerns may reflect a more fundamental issue”that federal and
nonfederal entities have not clearly defined their basic financial
responsibilities for wildland fire suppression, particularly those for
protecting the wildland-urban interface.
What GAO Recommends:
In its report, GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior, working with relevant state entities, provide more
specific guidance on when to use particular cost-sharing methods and
clarify the financial responsibilities for fires that burn or threaten
to burn across multiple jurisdictions. The Forest Service and Interior
generally agreed with the recommendations but the National Association
of State Foresters disagreed, stating that the recommendations would
not provide the flexibility needed to address the variability in local
circumstances and state laws.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-896T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robert A. Robinson at
(202) 512-3841 or robinsonr@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss how federal and nonfederal
entities share the costs of suppressing wildland fires that burn or
threaten both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. As you know,
fighting wildland fires--which can burn across federal, state, and
local jurisdictions--requires significant investments of firefighting
personnel, aircraft, equipment, and supplies, resulting in substantial
and increasing fire suppression expenditures. Since 2000, federal
suppression expenditures alone have averaged more than $1 billion
annually. Firefighting efforts are mobilized through an interagency
incident management system, which depends on the close cooperation and
coordination of federal, state, tribal, and local fire protection
entities. At the federal level, five principal agencies are involved in
firefighting efforts--the Forest Service within the Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service within
the Department of the Interior. Federal and nonfederal firefighting
entities share their personnel, equipment, and supplies and work
together to fight fires, regardless of which entity has jurisdiction
over the burning lands. Agreements between cooperating entities,
commonly referred to as master agreements, govern these cooperative
fire protection efforts and include general provisions for sharing
firefighting costs.
My testimony today summarizes the findings of our report[Footnote 1]
released on June 13, 2006, which discusses (1) how federal and
nonfederal entities share the costs of suppressing wildland fires that
burn or threaten both of their lands and resources and (2) concerns
federal and nonfederal entities have with the existing cost-sharing
framework. To address these objectives, we reviewed applicable federal
statutes, policies, and procedures; and federal and nonfederal studies
related to wildland fire suppression costs. We reviewed master
agreements between federal and nonfederal entities governing
cooperative fire protection in 12 western states that frequently
experience wildland fires.[Footnote 2] We also reviewed fire records
and interviewed federal and nonfederal firefighting officials to
discuss methods chosen to share suppression costs for eight recent
fires--two each in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Utah--which
burned or threatened both federal and nonfederal lands and
resources.[Footnote 3]
Summary:
Federal and nonfederal entities used a variety of methods to share the
costs of fighting wildland fires affecting both of their lands and
resources, but they applied these varied methods inconsistently to
fires with similar characteristics. Master agreements between
firefighting entities provide the framework for cost sharing and,
typically, list several cost-sharing methods available to the entities.
The agreements we reviewed, however, often lacked clear guidance for
federal and nonfederal officials to use in deciding which method to
apply to a specific fire. As a result, cost-sharing methods were
applied inconsistently within and among states, even for fires with
similar characteristics. For example:
* In one state, the costs for suppressing a large fire that threatened
homes were shared solely according to the proportion of acres burned
within each entity's area of fire protection responsibility.
* In the same state, costs for a similar fire were shared differently-
-the state paid for certain aircraft and fire engines used to protect
homes, while the remaining costs were shared on the basis of acres
burned.
* In another state, officials used yet a different cost-sharing method
for two similar large fires that threatened homes, apportioning costs
each day for personnel, aircraft, and equipment deployed on particular
lands, such as the wildland-urban interface, an area where homes and
other structures are located in or near wildlands.
* The type of cost-sharing method ultimately used is important because
it can have significant financial consequences for the entities
involved, potentially amounting to millions of dollars.
* Federal and nonfederal agency officials we interviewed raised a
number of concerns about the current cost-sharing framework.
* First, some federal officials said that because master agreements and
other policies do not provide clear guidance about which cost-sharing
methods to use, it has sometimes been difficult to obtain a cost-
sharing agreement that they believe shares suppression costs equitably.
* Second, nonfederal officials were concerned that the emergence of
alternative cost-sharing methods has caused nonfederal entities to bear
a greater share of fire suppression costs than in the past. In
addition, these officials, as well as some federal officials, were
concerned that the federal government was treating nonfederal entities
in different states differently, thereby creating inequities.
* Finally, some federal officials expressed concern that the current
framework for sharing costs insulates state and local governments from
the cost of protecting the wildland-urban interface, thereby reducing
their incentive to take steps that could help mitigate fire risks and
reduce suppression costs in the wildland-urban interface.
On the basis of our review of previous federal reports and interviews
with federal and nonfederal officials, we believe these concerns may
reflect a more fundamental issue--that federal and nonfederal entities
have not clearly defined their financial responsibilities for wildland
fire suppression, particularly for the wildland-urban interface.
Background:
Although wildland fires triggered by lightning are a natural,
inevitable, and in many cases a necessary ecological process, past
federal fire suppression policies have led to an accumulation of fuels
and contributed to larger and more severe wildland fires. In recent
years, both the number of acres burned by wildland fires and the costs
to suppress fires have been increasing. From 1995 through 1999,
wildland fires burned an average of 4.1 million acres each year;
from 2000 through 2004, the fires burned an average of 6.1 million
acres each year--an increase of almost 50 percent. During the same
periods, the costs incurred by federal firefighting entities to
suppress wildland fires more than doubled, from an average of $500
million annually to about $1.3 billion annually.[Footnote 4] Although
efforts to fight these larger, more severe fires have accounted for
much of the increase in suppression costs, the continuing development
of homes and communities in areas at risk from wildland fires and the
efforts to protect these structures also contribute to the increasing
costs. Forest Service and university researchers estimate that about 44
million homes in the lower 48 states are located in the wildland-urban
interface. When fire threatens the wildland-urban interface,
firefighting entities often need to use substantial resources--
including firefighters, fire engines, and aircraft to drop retardant--
to fight the fire and protect homes.
As wildland fire suppression costs have continued to rise, increasing
attention has focused on how suppression costs for multijurisdictional
fires are shared. To share suppression costs for a specific fire, local
representatives of federal and nonfederal firefighting entities
responsible for protecting lands and resources affected by the fire--
guided by the terms of the master agreement--decide which costs will be
shared and for what period. They document their decisions in a cost-
sharing agreement for that fire. According to federal officials,
cooperating entities traditionally shared suppression costs on the
basis of the proportion of acres burned in each entity's protection
area because the method was relatively easy to apply and works well
when the lands affected by a wildland fire are similar. Officials said
that the use of alternative cost-sharing methods has been increasing in
recent years.
Unclear Guidance and Inconsistent Application of Cost-Sharing Methods
Can Have Significant Financial Consequences for Entities Involved:
Federal and nonfederal entities included in our review used a variety
of methods to share the costs of fighting fires that burned or
threatened both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. Although
master agreements between federal and nonfederal entities typically
listed several cost-sharing methods, the agreements often lacked clear
guidance for officials to follow in deciding which cost-sharing method
to apply to a specific fire. Consequently, for eight fires we reviewed
in four states, we found varied cost-sharing methods used and an
inconsistent application of these methods within and among states,
although the fires had similar characteristics. The type of cost-
sharing method chosen is important because it can have significant
financial consequences for the federal and nonfederal entities
involved.
Master Agreements Provided Cost-Sharing Framework, but Those We
Reviewed Lacked Clear Guidance:
Master agreements provide the framework for federal and nonfederal
entities to work together and share the costs of fighting wildland
fires. The master agreements we reviewed for 12 western states all
directed federal and nonfederal entities to develop a separate
agreement, documenting how costs were to be shared for each fire that
burned--or, in some cases, threatened to burn--across multiple
jurisdictions. The master agreements varied in the cost-sharing methods
specified:
* The master agreement for 1 state (Idaho) did not identify any
specific cost-sharing method to use.
* The master agreements for 3 states (Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico)
listed the acres-burned method as the primary or only method to be
used. Although two of these agreements allowed the use of alternative
cost-sharing methods, they did not explicitly state under what
circumstances an alternative method would be appropriate.
* The master agreements for 8 remaining states listed multiple,
alternative cost-sharing methods but did not provide clear guidance on
when each method should be used.
Cost-Sharing Methods Were Inconsistently Applied for the Eight Fires We
Reviewed:
Federal and nonfederal entities used varied cost-sharing methods for
the eight fires we reviewed, although the fires had similar
characteristics. As shown in figure 1, the cost-sharing methods used
sometimes varied within a state or from state to state.
Figure 1: The Varied Cost-Sharing Methods Used for Eight Similar Fires
We Reviewed:
[See PDF for image]
[A] A complex consists of two or more individual fires located in the
same general area and managed by a single incident commander.
[End of figure]
The costs for the two fires that we reviewed in Utah were shared using
two different methods, although both fires had similar characteristics.
* For the Blue Springs Fire, federal and nonfederal officials agreed
that aircraft and engine costs of protecting an area in the wildland-
urban interface during a 2-day period would be assigned to the state
and the remaining costs would be shared on the basis of acres burned.
Federal and state officials explained that, because the Blue Springs
Fire qualified for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), state officials agreed to bear a larger portion of the
total fire suppression costs.[Footnote 5]
* For the Sunrise Complex of fires, in contrast, state officials were
reluctant to share costs in the same manner. Although these fires also
threatened the wildland-urban interface, they did not meet the
eligibility requirements for FEMA reimbursement of nonfederal costs.
Consequently, federal and nonfederal officials agreed to share costs
for the Sunrise Complex on the basis of acres burned.
* The costs for the two fires we reviewed in Arizona were also treated
differently from each other.
* For the Cave Creek Complex of fires, federal and state officials
agreed to share suppression costs using an acres-burned method for the
southern portion of the complex, which encompassed federal, state, and
city lands and required substantial efforts to protect the wildland-
urban interface. The federal government paid the full costs for the
northern portion of the fire.
* For the Florida Fire, federal and nonfederal officials were unable to
reach an agreement on how to share costs. Officials from the affected
national forest proposed a cost-sharing agreement, whereby the state
would pay the costs of firefighting personnel, equipment, and aircraft
used to protect the wildland-urban interface, and all other fire
suppression costs would be paid by the federal government. The state
official, however, did not agree with this proposal. He believed that
the Forest Service, not the state, was responsible for protecting areas
of the wildland-urban interface threatened by the Florida Fire and that
he was not authorized to agree to the terms of the proposed
agreement.[Footnote 6]
* Methods used to share suppression costs for fires with similar
characteristics also varied among states. For example, costs for the
fires we reviewed in California and Colorado were shared using methods
different from those used for similar fires we reviewed in Arizona and
Utah.
* In California, federal and nonfederal officials agreed to share the
costs of two fires using the cost-apportionment method--that is, costs
were apportioned on the basis of where firefighting personnel and
equipment were deployed. Officials said that they had often used this
method since the mid-1980s because they believed that the benefit it
provides in more equitable cost sharing among affected firefighting
entities outweighs the additional time required to apportion the costs.
* In Colorado, federal and nonfederal officials agreed to share
suppression costs for both of the fires we reviewed in that state using
guidance they had developed and officially adopted in 2005, called
"fire cost share principles." Under these principles, aviation costs
for fires burning in the wildland-urban interface are shared equally
for 72 hours, and other fire suppression costs, such as firefighting
personnel and equipment, are shared on the basis of acres burned.
The Cost-Sharing Method Used Can Lead to Significantly Different
Financial Outcomes:
Having clear guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should
be used is important because the type of method ultimately agreed upon
for any particular fire can have significant financial consequences for
the firefighting entities involved. To illustrate the effect of the
method chosen, we compared the distribution of federal and nonfederal
costs for the five fires we reviewed in which the actual cost-sharing
method used was not acres burned with what the distribution would have
been if the method used had been acres burned. We found that the
distribution of costs between federal and nonfederal entities differed,
sometimes substantially, depending on the cost-sharing method used. The
largest differences occurred in California, which used the cost
apportionment method.
* For the Deep Fire, using the cost-apportionment method, federal
entities paid $6.2 million, and nonfederal entities paid $2.2 million.
Had the costs been shared on the basis of acres burned, federal
entities would have paid an additional $1.7 million, and nonfederal
entities would have paid that much less because most of the acres
burned were on federal land. According to federal and state officials,
the nonfederal entities bore a larger share of the cost than they would
have under an acres-burned method because of the efforts to protect
nonfederal lands and resources.
* For the Pine Fire, using cost apportionment, federal entities paid
$5.2 million, and nonfederal entities paid $8.1 million. Had an acres-
burned method been used, federal entities would have paid about $2
million less, and nonfederal entities would have paid that much more.
According to a federal official who worked on apportioning costs for
that fire, the higher costs that the federal entities paid under cost
apportionment were largely due to extensive firefighting efforts on
federal land to ensure that the fire was extinguished.
* In Colorado and Utah, the differences in federal and state entities'
shares between the methods used and the acres-burned method were less
pronounced, likely because the cost-sharing methods used still relied
heavily on acres burned. In each case, federal entities' shares would
have been more and nonfederal shares less had an acres-burned method
been used, due to the efforts to protect the wildland-urban interface.
For example, the federal share of costs for the Blue Springs Fire in
Utah would have been about $400,000 more and the nonfederal share that
much less if an acres-burned method had been used for the whole fire.
In Colorado, we estimated that the federal share of costs for the Mason
Gulch Fire would have been about $200,000 more and the nonfederal share
that much less under an acres-burned method.
Current Cost-Sharing Framework Raises Several Concerns:
Federal and nonfederal agency officials we interviewed raised a number
of concerns about the current cost-sharing framework. First, some
federal officials said that because master agreements and other
policies do not provide clear guidance about which cost-sharing methods
to use, it has sometimes been difficult to obtain a cost-sharing
agreement that they believe shares suppression costs equitably. Second,
nonfederal officials were concerned that the emergence of alternative
cost-sharing methods has caused nonfederal entities to bear a greater
share of fire suppression costs than in the past. Finally, some federal
officials expressed concern that the current framework for sharing
costs insulates state and local governments from the cost of protecting
the wildland-urban interface, thereby reducing their incentive to take
steps that could help mitigate fire risks and reduce suppression costs
in the wildland-urban interface. We believe these concerns may reflect
a more fundamental issue--that is, that federal and nonfederal entities
have not clearly defined their financial responsibilities for wildland
fire suppression, particularly for the wildland-urban interface.
Lack of Clear Guidance Can Lead to Difficulties in Sharing Costs:
Some federal officials said that the lack of clear guidance can make it
difficult to agree to use a cost-sharing method that they believe
equitably distributes suppression costs between federal and nonfederal
entities, particularly for fires that threaten the wildland-urban
interface. As discussed, different cost-sharing methods were used for
the two fires we reviewed in Utah, even though both fires required
substantial suppression efforts to protect the wildland-urban
interface. A federal official said that because of the state officials'
unwillingness to use a method other than acres burned on one of the
fires and because of the lack of clear guidance about which cost-
sharing method should be used, he agreed to use an acres-burned method
and did not seek a cost-sharing agreement that would have assigned more
of the costs to the nonfederal entities. Some federal officials in
Arizona expressed similar views, saying that the lack of clear guidance
on sharing costs can make it difficult to reach agreement with
nonfederal officials. For example, federal and state officials in
Arizona did not agree on whether to share costs for one fire we
reviewed in that state.
Officials from the Forest Service's and the Department of the
Interior's national offices agreed that interagency policies for cost
sharing could be clarified to indicate under what circumstances
particular cost-sharing methods are most appropriate. They said that
the acres-burned method, for example, is likely not the most equitable
method to share costs in cases where fires threaten the wildland-urban
interface. Officials noted that the National Fire and Aviation
Executive Board--made up of the fire directors from the five federal
land management agencies and a representative from the National
Association of State Foresters--was developing a template for both
master and cost-sharing agreements. As of May 2006, this template had
not been finalized, but our review of a draft version indicated that
the template might not provide additional clarity about when each cost-
sharing method should be used.
Nonfederal Officials Were Concerned about Increased Costs and Equity
among States:
While federal officials expressed the need for further guidance on how
to share costs, nonfederal officials were concerned that the emergence
of alternative cost-sharing methods was leading state and local
entities to bear a greater share of suppression costs than in the past,
and they questioned whether such an increase was appropriate.
Nonfederal officials also said that wildland fire suppression costs
already posed budgetary challenges for state and local entities and
that using alternative cost-sharing methods more often could exacerbate
the situation. State officials said that if a state's suppression costs
in a given year exceed the funds budgeted, they must seek additional
state funds, which can be difficult. Moreover, they said, in many
states, protecting structures is primarily a local responsibility, and
many local entities are unable to pay the costs of fighting a large
fire that threatens the wildland-urban interface.[Footnote 7] Although
clarifying guidance about which cost-sharing methods are most
appropriate for particular circumstances could cause nonfederal
entities to bear more wildland fire suppression costs, over the long
term, such clarification would also allow each entity to better
determine its budgetary needs and take steps to meet them.
In addition to their concerns about increased costs, nonfederal as well
as federal officials were concerned that the federal government was
treating nonfederal entities in different states differently, thereby
creating inequities. Federal and nonfederal officials said that because
some states use particular cost-sharing methods more often than other
states, the proportion of costs borne by federal and nonfederal
entities likely varies from state to state, resulting in nonfederal
entities' paying a higher proportion of costs in some states and a
lower proportion in other states. Clarifying which cost-sharing methods
should be used in particular situations could increase nonfederal
officials' assurance that the federal government is treating them
equitably relative to other states.
Cost-Sharing Framework May Reduce Incentives to Mitigate Fire Risks in
the Wildland-Urban Interface:
Federal officials said that the current cost-sharing framework
insulates state and local governments from the cost of protecting the
wildland-urban interface. As we have previously reported, a variety of
protective measures are available to help protect structures from
wildland fire including (1) reducing vegetation and flammable objects
within an area of 30 to 100 feet around a structure and (2) using fire-
resistant roofing materials and covering attic vents with mesh
screens.[Footnote 8] However, some homeowners and homebuilders resist
using these protective measures because they are concerned about
aesthetics, time, or cost. As a result, federal and nonfederal
officials said, it can be politically difficult for state and local
governments to adopt--and enforce--laws requiring such measures, and
many at-risk areas have not done so. The states and communities we
visited exhibited various degrees of progress in adopting laws
requiring protective measures. For example, California requires
homeowners in the wildland-urban interface to maintain 100 feet of
defensible space and, in areas at particularly high risk from wildland
fires, also requires new structures to be constructed with fire-
resistant roofing materials and vents. The other states we visited do
not have such statewide requirements, but they are taking a variety of
steps to require or encourage protective measures. For example, Utah
passed a law in 2004 requiring its counties to adopt standards for
landscaping and building materials if they want to be eligible to
receive state funds to assist with fire suppression costs. Other
counties had efforts underway to educate homeowners about measures they
could use to reduce their risk without requiring that such measures be
used.
Federal officials expressed concern--and some nonfederal officials
acknowledged--that the use of cost-sharing methods that assign more
costs to federal entities, and the availability of federal emergency
assistance, insulate state and local governments from the cost of
providing wildland fire protection. These federal officials pointed out
that wildland fires threatening structures often require added
suppression efforts. Under some cost-sharing methods, such as acres
burned, federal entities often end up paying a large proportion of the
costs for these efforts. Some federal and nonfederal officials also
noted that the availability of FEMA assistance to nonfederal entities-
-which can amount to 75 percent of allowable fire suppression costs for
eligible fires--further insulates state and local governments from the
cost of protecting the wildland-urban interface. Of the eight fires
included in our review, nonfederal officials were seeking reimbursement
for the allowable costs of the five fires that FEMA determined met
eligibility requirements. Federal officials suggested that to the
extent that state and local governments are insulated from the cost of
protecting the wildland-urban interface, these governments may have a
reduced incentive to adopt laws requiring homeowners and homebuilders
to use protective measures that could help mitigate fire risks. Some
officials said that by requiring homeowners and homebuilders to take
such measures, more of the cost of protecting the wildland-urban
interface would then be borne by those who chose to live there.
Officials' Concerns May Reflect Ambiguity over Financial
Responsibilities:
On the basis of our review of previous federal reports and interviews
with federal and nonfederal officials, we believe that the concerns we
identified may reflect a more fundamental issue--that federal and
nonfederal firefighting entities have not clearly defined their
fundamental financial responsibilities for wildland fire suppression,
particularly those for protecting the wildland-urban interface. Federal
officials said that the continuing expansion of the wildland-urban
interface and rising fire suppression costs for protecting these areas
have increased the importance of resolving these issues. Federal
wildland fire management policy states that protecting structures is
the responsibility of state, tribal, and local entities;
but the policy also says that, under a formal fire protection agreement
specifying the financial responsibilities of each entity, federal
agencies can assist nonfederal entities in protecting the exterior of
structures threatened by wildland fire. Federal and nonfederal
officials agreed that federal agencies can assist with such actions,
but they did not agree on which entities are responsible for bearing
the costs of these actions. Federal officials told us that the purpose
of this policy is to allow federal agencies to use their personnel and
equipment to help protect homes but not to bear the financial
responsibility of providing that protection. Nonfederal officials,
however, said that these actions are intended to keep a wildland fire
from reaching structures, and financial responsibility should therefore
be shared between both federal and nonfederal entities.
Further, the presence of structures adjacent to federal lands can
substantially alter fire suppression strategies and raise costs. A
previous federal report and federal officials have questioned which
entities are financially responsible for suppression actions taken on
federal lands but intended primarily or exclusively to protect adjacent
wildland-urban interface. Fire managers typically use existing roads
and geographic features, such as rivers and ridgelines, as firebreaks
to help contain wildland fires. If, however, homes and other structures
are located between a fire and such natural firebreaks, firefighters
may have to construct other firebreaks and rely more than they
otherwise would on aircraft to drop fire retardant to protect the
structures, thereby increasing suppression costs. Nonfederal officials
in several states, however, questioned the appropriateness of assigning
to nonfederal entities the costs for suppression actions taken on
federal lands. These officials, as well as officials from the National
Association of State Foresters, said that accumulated fuels on federal
lands is resulting in more severe wildland fires and contributing to
the increased cost of fire suppression. They also said that federal
agencies are responsible for keeping wildland fires from burning off
federal land and should, therefore, bear the costs of doing so. Federal
officials in the states we visited recognized this responsibility, but
some also said that with the growing awareness that wildland fires are
inevitable in many parts of the country, policy should recognize that
wildland fires will occur and are likely to burn across jurisdictional
boundaries. In their view, those who own property in areas at risk of
wildland fires share a portion of the financial responsibility for
protecting it. Previous federal agency reports also have recognized
this issue and have called for clarifying financial responsibility for
such actions.
Conclusions:
Wildland fires are inevitable and will continue to affect both federal
and nonfederal lands and resources. Federal, state, and local
firefighting entities have taken great strides to develop a cooperative
fire protection system so that these entities can effectively work
together to respond to these fires. Efforts are now needed to address
how to best share the costs of these cooperative fire protection
efforts when the fires burn or threaten multiple jurisdictions,
particularly when suppression efforts may focus more heavily on one
entity's lands and resources. The need for clear guidance on when to
use a particular cost-sharing method is becoming more acute as the
wildland-urban interface continues to grow and wildland fire
suppression costs continue to increase. Before such guidance can be
developed, however, federal and nonfederal entities must agree on which
entity is responsible for the costs of protecting areas where federal
and nonfederal lands and resources are adjacent or intermingled,
particularly in the wildland-urban interface. Without explicit
delineation of financial responsibilities, federal and nonfederal
entities' concerns about how these costs are shared are likely to
continue.
Thus, to strengthen the framework for sharing wildland fire suppression
costs, we recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior, working in conjunction with relevant state entities, provide
more specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods
should be used and clarify the financial responsibilities for
suppressing fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple
jurisdictions.
In responding to our report, the Forest Service and the Department of
the Interior generally agreed with the findings and recommendations.
The National Association of State Foresters did not agree, stating that
developing national guidance would not provide the flexibility needed
to address the variability in local circumstances and state laws.
Although we agree that a certain amount of flexibility is needed,
without more explicit guidance to assist local federal and nonfederal
officials responsible for developing cost-sharing agreements for
individual fires, the inconsistencies in how suppression costs are
shared within and among states are likely to continue, along with
concerns about perceived inequities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or robinsonr@gao.gov, or Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-
3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Jonathan
Dent; Janet Frisch; and Richard Johnson made key contributions to this
statement.
FOOTNOTES
[1] 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).
[2] The 12 states selected were Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. Although wildland fires can affect all states, we selected
these western states because they have substantial federal lands and
often experience wildland fires.
[3] The 12 master agreements reviewed, 4 states visited, and two
wildland fires reviewed within each visited state are all
nonprobability samples. Therefore, the results from these samples
cannot be used to make inferences about all master agreements, states,
or wildland fires.
[4] These dollars have been adjusted for inflation using the gross
domestic product price index, with fiscal year 2005 as the base year.
[5] Under its Fire Management Assistance Grant Program, FEMA provides
financial assistance to nonfederal entities for the mitigation,
management, and control of any fire on public or private forest land or
grassland that would constitute a major disaster. Under this program,
nonfederal entities can be reimbursed for 75 percent of the allowable
fire suppression costs. FEMA evaluates the threat posed by a fire or
fire complex according to the following criteria: (1) threat to lives
and improved property, including threats to critical facilities/
infrastructure, and critical watershed areas;
(2) availability of state and local firefighting resources;
(3) high fire danger conditions, as indicated by nationally accepted
indexes such as the national fire danger ratings system;
and (4) potential major economic impact.
[6] Specifically, the state official said that under Arizona law, the
state had no responsibility to protect the private lands and resources
in the wildland-urban interface threatened by the Florida Fire because
the fire did not threaten state lands, and the private properties that
the fire threatened were not covered by cooperative fire agreements
with the state.
[7] Some states have provisions whereby wildland fires exceeding the
logistic and financial capabilities of local entities can be managed
and paid for by the state, but officials said that state funds to do so
are also limited.
[8] GAO, Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving
Communications during Wildland Fires, GAO-05-380 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 26, 2005).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
