U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–471 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–629

GAO REPORT ON WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO

REVIEW THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT ENTITLED ‘‘WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION—LACK OF CLEAR GUIDANCE 

RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT COST SHARING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND 

NONFEDERAL ENTITIES’’

JUNE 21, 2006

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BRUCE M. EVANS, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

FRANK GLADICS, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT MILLER, Democratic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 1

Heissenbuttel, Anne, Executive Director, National Association of State Foresters ..................................................................................................................... 18

Rey, Mark, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 14

Robinson, Robert A., Managing Director for Natural Resources and the Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................. 3

Rowdabaugh, Krik, State Forester of Arizona, on behalf of the National 

Association of State Foresters ............................................................................. 20

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 26

Scarlett, Lynn, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior ........................... 15

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 2

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 37

(1)

GAO REPORT ON WILDLAND FIRE 

SUPPRESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the 

Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee hearing to learn more 

about fire suppression cost-sharing agreements between the Federal land firefighting agencies and State and local governments. I 

requested the Government Accountability Office to examine these 

fire suppression cost agreements and I am pleased that they are 

here today to testify. 

We will begin with Bob Robinson, the Managing Director of 

GAO’s Natural Resource and the Environment Group, followed by 

Under Secretary for the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Mark Rey; and then Lynn Scarlett, the Deputy Secretary 

for the Department of the Interior. We will finish with Anne 

Heissenbuttel——

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. HAI-senn-BUTT-tle. 

Senator CRAIG. HAI-senn-BUTT-tle, got it, thank you. Executive 

director for the National Association of State Foresters. 

I would observe that any time people are left with an impression 

that fees are changing and that could result in how much they will 

have to pay, blood pressures rise. I think here is some common 

ground that we all agree on before the psychological response 

manifests itself in our witnesses today. First, there is no doubt that 

the cost of aviation is increasing and will continue to increase. To 

the extent that firefighters are forced to utilize those assets for 

fighting wildland-urban fires, the more the fires are going to cost. 

Second, there is no doubt that more people are moving out into 

the wildland-urban interface, which complicates firefighting and increases the cost of these fires. It also suggests more work is needed 

to help these homeowners understand that they have some responsibility to maintain a fire-safe community. 

Third, I think we can all agree that the local communities and 

States have the primary responsibility to fight structure fires and 

2

to provide fire protection in the private land portion of the 

wildland-urban interface. But the management that does or does 

not occur on adjacent Federal lands can complicate the ability of 

the State and local governments to accomplish the work needed to 

provide the fire protection the public expects. 

Finally, I think we can all agree the problem is not going away 

soon and costs will continue to increase. 

I believe that GAO’s report does a very good job in helping us 

understand the issues, concerns, and positions of the Federal land 

managers as well as the concerns and frustrations of the State and 

local managers. Rather than continue to argue those positions, I 

would hope that today you will help me and my colleague, our 

ranking member understand, if there are steps this committee and 

Congress can take to reduce the cost of fighting these fires in the 

wildland-urban interface. 

Also, help me to better understand how to ensure that States 

and local governments receive similar treatment from fire to fire 

and State to State in these cost-sharing formulas. 

I will close by reminding you that this is a period of very tight 

budgets. We all know that. So please resist your urge to suggest 

more funding as an answer. Please limit your oral testimony to 5 

minutes if you can. I have given GAO a bit more time so they can 

get out the full response to the request we made. Of course, the 

testimony can be received in additional forms for 10 working days 

of the hearing. 

Now let me turn to the ranking member of our subcommittee, 

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Ron and I work closely and in a bipartisan way on most all of these critical public land natural resource issues. I am proud to have him as a partner in this, and I 

must tell Ron, when I look at the numbers today—and I did yesterday and again today—I am astounded that we are already past the 

3 million acre mark in this fire season, and it will not get better. 

It will simply get worse as the character of our Western lands begins to dry out. Fire costs are going up and budgets are tight. 

My colleague, Ron Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As is invariably 

the case, I very much share your view on these kind of key points 

and would just make a couple of comments in addition. 

I think what concerns us particularly is we are seeing such a serious problem this summer and how this fits into a pattern. We 

have seen this year after year, and somehow it just appears that 

the administration is perpetually behind the curve on these firefighting issues. Senator Craig and I always try to work in a bipartisan way. I would like to do that with the administration, and 

here are a couple ones to start with. I mean, the State of Oregon, 

which has experienced serious problems, is still waiting to be paid 

for last summer’s Blossom fire. So you talk about the growing problem as Senator Craig has just pointed out. We are still trying to 

get the bills paid from last year, and this is at a time when our 

State is having to resort, as I think a variety of others, to loan arrangements, working with insurance funds, that sort of thing. 

3

On the cost-sharing issue—and I am not going to be able to stay. 

We are all juggling a lot of issues this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to try and stay for a little bit. I am really pleased that 

you have scheduled this hearing on cost-sharing because we need 

to work something out with the States. My State in particular 

wants some flexibility, and I think the chairman has made that 

point, that fires are different. 

But what is unfortunate is the last statement that is made from 

the joint panel of our officials, and that is: It is our intent to finalize this guidance before the beginning of the next fire season. So 

here we are, Chairman Craig, to his credit, has scheduled this 

hearing. We want to work on a bipartisan basis. We could have had 

some leadership from the Executive Branch so we would have had 

this in place for this fire season. 

Now we are talking about having a timely hearing so as to get 

at it for the next fire season. I read these comments, templates are 

being reviewed. I am not even sure what a ‘‘template’’ is, but it is 

certainly mentioned a whole lot in Washington, D.C., so I guess 

that is an encouraging sign, that something is being developed that 

is called a template. 

But I know in my State what they want are some actual strategies for dealing with a huge problem, a problem that is growing, 

costs that are spiraling out of control. It seems to me we should 

have had this some time ago, and to hear that it is going to be finalized before the next fire season sort of reminds me of the marquee at the old movie house, where the marquee always says ‘‘Coming Soon’’ and then the movie never quite gets to you. Somebody 

just puts it off and puts it off and puts it off. 

So, Mr. Chairman, as usual I am looking forward to working 

with you. I think this is an important hearing, and I know you and 

I will work in a bipartisan way and we want to make the administration partners in the effort. 

Senator CRAIG. Ron, thank you very much. 

I think all of us, including this administration and our agencies, 

are frustrated in clear recognition of a problem at hand out there. 

One of those difficulties are those relationships between multiple 

authorities and when these authorities overlap how we work out 

the differences. That is why we wanted GAO to look at it. So we 

are extremely pleased that Robert Robinson is here, Managing Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, for GAO, and his 

report is before us. 

So Bob, if we will get you to summarize that and make your salient points before we move on to our other testifiers. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR 

FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. I think you need to push the button on the base. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. There you go. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for this opportunity to discuss our recent report on wildland fire suppression 

cost-sharing and hope that today’s hearing, like you, will be a conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:00 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 109629 PO 30471 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\30471.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
4

structive dialogue aimed at developing solutions to an issue of 

growing importance. Based on our report and the generally favorable reaction to it, it seems like there is a solid base of common 

ground to build on, while also recognizing that there is principled 

disagreement among affected parties on the specific pathways 

going forward. 

With that as a backdrop, let me quickly highlight several major 

observations from our report that we hope can set the scene for the 

discussions that follow. First, as you note, the bill for fighting 

wildland fires is substantial and getting bigger over time as accumulation of fuels, compounded by persistent drought, results in 

larger, more catastrophic fires and the complexities and costs associated with fighting fires in the expanding wildland-urban interface 

increasingly enter the mix. 

To this end, Federal costs of fighting wildland fires between 2000 

and 2004 more than doubled from the previous 5-year period to 

more than $1.3 billion annually. As the firefighting bill increases, 

the importance of and the concerns about arriving at a consistent 

and equitable approach for sharing costs among the affected entities grow as well. 

In this regard, however, we found that Federal and non-Federal 

entities often lacked clear guidance for sharing costs, making planning and budgeting more difficult, and often ending up with costsharing methods being applied inconsistently, even for fires with 

similar characteristics. 

On the ground, there is uncertainty and confusion about how 

costs should be shared. Inconsistency is not just bothersome to the 

accountant’s craving for financial order; it has real practical consequences. With inconsistency comes inequity as some States and 

localities are more successful at negotiating their respective firefighting bills than others. To this end, we are concerned about a 

‘‘race to the bottom’’ as word gets out among those States getting 

a great cost-sharing deal, in turn leading other States to seek as 

good or better deal for themselves, with the end result being an increased and inequitable burden being borne by the Federal agencies. 

A number of Federal managers we spoke with already feel that 

they have a relatively weak bargaining position as it is and sense 

that their ability to negotiate fair and equitable cost-sharing deals 

will only get harder in the future. 

We are also concerned that without equitable cost-sharing the incentive to take often politically difficult actions aimed at lessening 

fire risks to structures in the wildland-urban interface, such as requiring flammable vegetation to be cleared around homes or requiring fire-resistant building materials, will be lessened as well. 

Finally, without equitable cost-sharing, there is an increased 

likelihood that firefighting resources will be used indiscriminately. 

As one quick sidebar on this issue, I do want to point out that 

a Federal agency outside the usual array of land management 

agencies is playing a significant role in this cost-sharing equation. 

FEMA has spent about $250 million in recent years reimbursing 

States and localities for allowable firefighting expenses incurred 

during major disasters. As Federal-State cost-sharing arrangements are negotiated, it is important to keep in mind that a not 

5

insignificant portion of the non-Federal share is actually often 

being picked up out of the Federal budget, albeit by a different 

agency. 

Based on our work, the root of the inconsistency and the inequity 

we identified is the absence of a clearly defined, commonly accepted 

understanding of the basic financial responsibilities of all the entities involved with wildland firefighting, particularly those protecting the wildland-urban interface. Accordingly, in our report, we 

recommended that Federal land management agencies work in conjunction with—and I emphasize, in conjunction with—relevant 

State agencies to develop more specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should be used and to clarify the financial responsibilities for fires burning across multiple jurisdictions. 

In responding to our report, the responsible Federal agencies 

generally supported such an effort, while of course recognizing the 

difficulty of the task and understanding that the devil is truly in 

the details. While I believe we developed a mutually respectful 

working relationship with the State foresters in conducting our review, and I am sure we share a mutual desire to achieve fair and 

equitable cost-sharing, they expressed a different take on the path 

forward. At the end of the day, we believe that a generally accepted 

and more clearly understood cost-sharing framework, worked out in 

advance of the inherent tensions of the fire season itself, has the 

potential to benefit all sides by: one, enabling better fire suppression planning and budgeting; two, facilitating more cost-effective 

approaches to responding to individual fires; three, encouraging 

proactive steps to mitigate fire risks to structures in the wildlandurban interface; and four, ensuring more consistent and equitable 

sharing of agreed-upon expenses. 

I hope today’s discussions contribute to this result as we continue 

our work on fire suppression cost issues for you, Mr. Chairman. We 

of course stand ready to provide any appropriate assistance. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION 

BETTER GUIDANCE NEEDED TO CLARIFY SHARING OF COSTS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND

NONFEDERAL ENTITIES

WHY GAO DID THIS STUDY

Wildland firs 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). 

6

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. 

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 wildlandurban 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, anal 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.

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 

7

1GAO, 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). 2The 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. 3The 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. 

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 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.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.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, costsharing 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 wildlandurban 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 

8

4These dollars have been adjusted for inflation using the gross domestic product price index, 

with fiscal year 2005 as the base year. 

could help mitigate fire risks and reduce suppression costs in the wildlandurban 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.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 ENTITLES 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. 

9

* Figure 1 has been retained in subcommittee files. 

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. 6Specifically, 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.

• 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 costsharing 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. 

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.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.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 

10

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 acresburned 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 acresburned 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 wildlandurban interface. 

11

7Some 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. 

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 costsharing 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.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 wildlandurban 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-resistVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:00 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 109629 PO 30471 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30471.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
12

8GAO, Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during 

Wildland Fires, GAO-05-330 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2005). 

ant roofing materials and covering attic vents with mesh screens.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 

13

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.

Senator CRAIG. Bob, thank you very much. 

Now we turn to two of our key agencies involved certainly in this 

fire issue, that of the the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the Interior. I say to both of you 

before you start your testimony, the reality of what we are dealing 

with here is that the one segment of your budget that is truly out 

of control or unpredictable in many respects is this issue. That is 

obviously why we are focusing on it at the moment and why we feel 

it is so critically necessary that you do that. 

With that, let me turn to the Honorable Mark Rey, the Under 

Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment of the Department of Agriculture. Mark, it has been a few months since we have 

had you here. Welcome back. 

14

STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Mr. REY. It seems just like yesterday. 

Senator CRAIG. I bet it does. 

Mr. REY. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to provide the administration’s view concerning the aforementioned GAO report. As the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Agriculture work closely together in fire management, we will be providing a joint statement. I will be providing 

some background. Secretary Scarlett will then be giving you the 

administration’s views on the report per se. 

In our previous hearings here this year, we discussed fire preparedness, aviation, hazardous fuels reduction work, partnerships, 

and our efforts to contain the costs of large fires. Large fire events 

are costly and Congress has routinely expressed its concern about 

rising fire suppression costs. We share those concerns and are 

working to address suppression costs. 

Over the last few years we have reported regularly to Congress 

on the steps we have taken to address the hazardous fuel situation, 

which will be a principal response to reducing fire costs. Likewise, 

we have reported on the growth of the wildland-urban interface. 

Our research estimates that 9 percent of the land and 31 percent 

of the homes in the United States are located in the wildlandurban interface, where jurisdictions overlap and fire suppression is 

more expensive. 

The Forest Service, the Department of the Interior agencies, and 

our partners operate the largest wildland fire management program in the world. These agencies and partners pioneered the use 

of the incident command system in the 1970’s in order to respond 

to wildland fires. Wildland firefighters realized that a standard organizational structure would help them communicate, set priorities, and be more effective in rapidly changing situations. 

The incident command system has proven itself to be adaptable 

and it has provided a common system to unify emergency responders from Federal, tribal, State, and local organizations to fight fire 

or respond to other types of emergency situations. Incident command teams use their logistical, organizational, and adaptation 

skills to rapidly deploy people and resources from many areas and 

to respond for a wide variety of tasks needed during emergencies. 

Over the past 15 to 20 years, the wildland firefighting agencies 

have developed relationships with our State cooperators. As time 

evolved, sharing of jurisdictional responsibilities continued to grow 

due to proximity of resources from an agency rather than each 

agency having to staff all areas of ownership. This created the need 

for enhanced cooperative agreements. 

In the mid-1980’s the assistance of these cooperators on Federal 

fires grew, as well as the joint suppression of fires that crossed 

boundaries. Local units would develop individual cost-sharing 

agreements for each incident, but refer back to the master cooperative agreement. The basis for cost-sharing was typically acres 

burned in the end or a combination of acres burned and the costs 

associated with the first 24 hours of support. 

15

* The article has been retained in subcommittee files. 

Since the mid-1990’s, the complexity of responding to joint ownership fires as well as the growth of the wildland-urban interface 

has prompted different bases for cost-sharing. Those were the bases 

that GAO reviewed and by and large we agree with many of their 

recommendations, as Secretary Scarlett will shortly indicate. 

Before I conclude, I would like to submit for the record a recent 

article from the National Journal which commented that: ‘‘The 

wildland firefighting area is the one area where the joint Federal, 

State, and local government entities are most adept at responding 

to national disasters or natural hazards, as opposed to other 

areas.’’ * 

So in what we do in evaluating our cost-sharing allocations here, 

we want to make sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. 

Finally, I would like to respond to two of Senator Wyden’s comments because I thought in some respects they were unfair. What 

we are in the process of doing is amending existing cooperative—

an existing template for cooperative agreements. We have a template for cooperative agreements now. They can be made better. In 

order to be made better, we are going to have to have the involvement of our State partners and that is, as you might suspect, taking some time because there are 50 of them and they operate under 

50 different sets of State laws. So I think that time is better spent 

making sure we get it right and improve on what we have, as opposed to doing it quickly and badly. 

Suffice it to say that for this fire season we will continue to operate and fight fires successfully, achieving a greater than 98 percent 

rate of success on initial attack, under the existing template for the 

master cost-share. Those will be improved for the next fire season. 

Now, about the Blossom fire specifically, it seems that the Blossom fire, after it was reviewed by the congressionally designated 

cost control panel, that panel believed that we overpaid the State 

of Oregon. So we have been negotiating with the State to see what 

their level of agreement is with the recommendations of the congressionally designated cost control panel. Not surprisingly, they 

are taking some issue with some of those recommendations. We 

will work our way through those. 

But Senator, you are in a position today to put a word in with 

the Governor. We could close this out tomorrow if the Governor is 

willing to accept the recommendations of the Congressional panel. 

With that, I turn the podium over to Secretary Scarlett. 

Senator CRAIG. Lynn, welcome. 

Mark, thank you very much. Lynn, welcome to the committee 

again, the Honorable Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary, Department 

of the Interior. 

Lynn. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN SCARLETT, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and Senator Wyden and members of this committee, for holding 

this hearing on a topic that is important to all of us. 

16

The GAO report we believe does accurately highlight the complexities of large multi-jurisdictional fires, especially those that 

occur in the wildland-urban interface. I want to underscore that for 

us safety is unequivocally our top priority and must drive much of 

our decisionmaking. Fires in areas populated by homes and citizens 

generate a larger, more aggressive response that includes the use 

of both structural and wildland engines, aircraft, and additional 

crews and equipment. These lands often fall under a mix of ownership and jurisdictions that typically involve a response from Federal, State, county, and local departments, which adds to the complexity and challenges associated with achieving equitable costsharing. 

The GAO report identifies the inconsistent application of costsharing, which has led to some inequities in the proportion of costs 

borne by Federal and non-Federal entities. It has also resulted in 

some lack of clarity on responsibilities and roles. The Departments 

agree with the GAO report that more guidance is needed as to 

when a particular cost-sharing method should be used in order to 

clarify an entity’s financial responsibilities. We also agree that costsharing should be equitable. 

Experience suggests that the current framework for sharing 

costs, including the availability of funds from FEMA to reimburse 

non-Federal entities, in certain cases may result in higher than 

necessary costs. For example, this year in the State of Oklahoma 

they requested and were receiving funding from FEMA due to the 

severity of the fire season. This funding was based in part on indices of the fire hazard or the likelihood of fire to occur. Once the 

indices reached a benchmark indicating an increased potential for 

fire, FEMA would provide the State with 75 percent cost reimbursement for fire resources. 

The State placed a request to the National Inter-Agency Fire 

Center for a type 2 helicopter. The most cost-efficient aircraft to fill 

this order was a helicopter on an exclusive use contract in Idaho. 

Costs for call-when-needed aircraft are higher than those on exclusive use contracts. Given the lower daily availability cost, the mobilization cost was absorbed over the time of deployment in Oklahoma. When the indices changed and FEMA no longer supported 

the cost of the aircraft’s daily availability, the aircraft was released 

and returned to Idaho. Within a few days, the indices returned to 

the higher threat level and a new request for a similar aircraft was 

placed. Once again, the same aircraft was the most cost-efficient 

choice and it was re-mobilized to Oklahoma. The cost of mobilizing 

the helicopter twice to Oklahoma exceeded the cost of simply daily 

availability had it just remained there. 

We appreciate GAO’s balanced and thorough examination of the 

issues surrounding cost-sharing among Federal, State, and local 

entities. The Departments, as Mark has mentioned, have already 

begun crafting an inter-agency template and update of our current 

practices to assist in addressing a number of cost-sharing issues. 

In 2005 the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board, made 

up of fire managers from Federal agencies, developed a template 

for cost-sharing agreements. This template, as Mark noted, is currently being reviewed. It provides a framework of five different 

kinds of cost-sharing agreements. We will continue to develop guidVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:00 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 109629 PO 30471 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30471.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
17

ance to be used in negotiating cost-share agreements among the 

Federal Government and our various partners. It is our intent to 

finalize this guidance before the beginning of the next fire season, 

and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue. 

Happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared joint statement of Mr. Rey and Ms. Scarlett follows:]

PREPARED JOINT STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND LYNN SCARLETT, 

DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you to provide the Administration’s view concerning the May 2006 

Report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled ‘‘Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities.’’ As the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture work closely together in fire management, the two Departments 

are providing a joint statement. 

In our previous appearances this year before this Subcommittee, we have discussed fire preparedness, fire aviation, hazardous fuels reduction work, partnerships, and our efforts to contain the costs of large fires. Large fire events are costly 

and Congress has routinely expressed its concerns about rising fire suppression 

costs. We share those concerns and are working to address suppression costs. 

Multiple factors contribute to the expense of fighting fires including weather, fuel 

type, terrain, and location with respect to the wildland urban interface and other 

highly valued landscapes as well as managerial decisions made before and during 

fire incidents. Over the last few years, we have reported regularly to Congress on 

the steps we have taken to address the hazardous fuels situation. Likewise, we have 

reported to you on the growth of the wildland urban interface. Forest Service and 

University research estimates that 9 percent of the land area and 39 percent of the 

homes in the United States are located in the wildland urban interface where jurisdictions overlap and fire suppression is more expensive. Programs such as 

FIREWISE help those who live in fire-prone areas learn how to protect their homes 

with a survivable, cleared space and how to build their houses with fire resistant 

materials. 

The Forest Service, the Department of the Interior agencies, and our partners operate the largest wildland fire management program in the world. These agencies 

and partners pioneered the use of the Incident Command System in the 1970s in 

order to respond to wildland fires. Wildland firefighters realized that a standard organizational structure would help them to communicate, set priorities, and be more 

effective in rapidly changing situations. The Incident Command System has proved 

itself to be adaptable and has provided a common system to unify emergency responders from Federal, Tribal, State, and local organizations to fight fire or respond 

to other types of emergency situations. Incident command teams use their logistical, 

organizational, and adaptation skills to rapidly deploy people and resources form 

many areas and respond to a wide variety of tasks needed during emergencies. For 

many cases, the use of unified command is the most efficient means to facilitate 

communications and actions with all first responders. Jurisdictional responsibilities 

can be effectively combined within a unified command structure to address wildland 

fires, particularly within the wildland urban interface. This sharing of jurisdictional 

responsibility in conjunction with the increased incidence of wildland fire within the 

wildland urban interface, has added to the complexity for equitably sharing the 

costs of suppressing a wildland fire. 

Over the past 15 to 20 years the Federal wildland fire agencies have developed 

relationships with state cooperators. As time evolved, sharing of jurisdictional responsibilities continued to grow due to the proximity of resources from an agency, 

rather than each agency having to staff all areas of ownership. This created the 

need for enhancing cooperative agreements. In the mid-1980s, the assistance of 

these cooperators on Federal fires grew, as well as the joint suppression of fires that 

crossed ownership boundaries. Local units developed individual cost sharing agreements for each incident, but referred back to the master cooperative agreement. The 

basis for cost sharing was typically acres burned in the end, or a combination of 

acres burned, and the first 24 hours of support. Since the mid-1990s, the complexity 

of responding to joint ownership fires, as well as the growth in the wildland urban 

18

interface, has prompted a different basis for cost sharing, but no standard has been 

established. 

The GAO report on cost sharing between Federal and non-Federal entities accurately highlights the complexities associated with large, multi jurisdictional fires, 

especially in those that occur in wildland urban interface areas. Given that safety 

is unequivocally the top priority, fires in areas populated by homes and citizens generate a larger, more aggressive response that includes the use of both structural and 

wildland engines, aircraft, and additional crews and equipment. Also, these lands 

tend to fall under a mix of ownership and jurisdictions that typically involve a response from Federal, State, county, and local departments. These factors increase 

the complexity and costs associated with incident response in wildland-urban interface areas. 

The GAO report identifies the inconsistent application of cost-sharing which has 

led to inequities in the proportion of costs borne by federal and nonfederal entities. 

Lack of guidance in determining responsibilities can lead to difficulties in reaching 

agreement for appropriate levels of sharing costs. The report highlighted the need 

to define the financial responsibilities for wildland fire suppression for federal and 

nonfederal entities particularly in the wildland urban interface. The definition of 

these responsibilities needs to occur prior to a wildfire incident, preferably prior to 

fire season. 

The GAO report recommends that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, 

working with relevant state agencies, provide more specific guidance as to when 

particular cost share methods should be used and clarify financial responsibilities. 

Over the years, a number of cost containment reports have also noted the complexity of sharing costs for these multi jurisdictional fires. The Departments agree 

with the GAO report that more guidance is needed as to when a particular cost 

sharing method should be used in order to clarify an entity’s financial responsibilities. We also agree cost sharing should be equitable. 

Experience suggests that the current framework for sharing costs, including the 

availability of funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to 

reimburse non-Federal entities in certain cases, results in additional costs to the 

Federal government. 

We appreciate the GAO’s balanced and through examination of the issues surrounding cost sharing among Federal, State, and local entities. The Departments 

recognize the need to negotiate cost-sharing methods that will take into account the 

multitude of factors that occur in each incident. We have already begun crafting an 

interagency template to assist in addressing a number of cost sharing issues. In 

2005, the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board, made up of fire managers 

from the Federal agencies, developed a template for cost sharing agreements. This 

template is currently being reviewed. We will continue to develop guidance to be 

used in negotiating cost share agreements among the Federal government and our 

various non-Federal partners. 

The GAO report provides thoughtful recommendations that will help guide us in 

our efforts to ensure consistency and equity in cost sharing agreements among the 

Federal government and our various non-Federal partners. It is our intent to finalize this guidance before the beginning of the next fire season. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue. We would be happy to answer 

any questions you might have.

Senator CRAIG. Lynn, thank you very much. 

Now let me introduce to the committee Anne Heissenbuttel—

good, thank you, got it right—executive director, National Association of State Foresters. Welcome to the committee, Anne. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, 

and members of the subcommittee. I wish to extend apologies from 

the State Forester of Arizona, Kirk Rowdabaugh, since he could 

not——

Senator CRAIG. I checked the morning news. I know why he is 

not here. 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. Yes, he is dealing with fires. 

Senator CRAIG. All right. Thank you. 

19

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. You have his written statement for the 

record. I am pleased to summarize his remarks and answer your 

questions on behalf of the National Association of State Foresters. 

We appreciate GAO’s emphasis on equity and fairness in the 

cost-share process. However, we do have several concerns with 

GAO’s conclusions in the report on wildland fire suppression costsharing. First, as the report acknowledges, the review of eight fires 

in four States over 2 years time does not provide a statistically 

valid sample on the effects of various cost-share methodologies. 

Likewise, GAO reviewed agreements in 12 Western States, but did 

not review any agreements or fires in the Eastern half of the country. We believe that if GAO had looked at fires over a number of 

years in a broader geographical area, they may have found that 

any short-term inequities between parties would balance out over 

time. 

We also disagree with GAO that the Secretaries of Agriculture 

and Interior and State forestry agencies need more specific guidance on when particular cost-sharing methods should be used. I am 

referring to the new template that we are hoping to have out in 

place very soon. A cost-share agreement must provide flexibility for 

all parties to address changing situations. It cannot be constructed 

as a contract with hard, inflexible specifications. Variables such as 

response need and capability, fire activity and severity, and State 

legislative authorities all preclude development of specific guidance 

that might be applied under all circumstances across the country. 

Instead, NASF believes that the national template for Master 

Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act response 

agreements, the new draft that is currently being developed by the 

National Fire and Aviation Executive Board, in which State foresters have been involved in the development, that it will provide 

appropriate guidance for cost-share agreements. Although that 

template is not definitive regarding which cost-share option to use 

under specific circumstances, it provides the flexibility needed by 

line officers to address variability in terrain, fuels, values at risk, 

and State and local legal authorities and protection responsibilities. 

Further efforts to find specific circumstances for use of one costshare method or another or to identify the point at which a fire 

crosses an arbitrary threshold we feel would be neither helpful nor 

productive. 

The draft language in the template provides five methods to determine the best cost-share mix, as Secretary Scarlett just mentioned. It specifies that the first three options are typically best 

used on smaller, less complex incidents. The last two methods are 

better used for larger, more complex incidents, and we explain that 

in our written testimony. 

Finally, we disagree with GAO’s conclusion that the Secretaries 

must clarify financial responsibilities for suppressing fires that 

burn or threaten to burn across multiple jurisdictions. The Federal 

wildland policy defines Federal fire protection responsibilities, including operations in the wildland-urban interface. We believe the 

Federal agencies have a clear obligation to keep fires originating on 

their lands from spreading off of Federal lands to other ownerships. 

It is also the responsibility of State and local governments to define 

their financial obligations through State law and local codes and 

20

* The report has been retained in subcommittee files. 

ordinances. Therefore, we believe it is neither feasible nor appropriate to strictly define at the national level the financial responsibilities for suppressing wildfires that burn across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Instead, financial decisions must be determined on a 

State by State basis and even from fire to fire. 

In summary, NASF is committed to working with our Federal 

partners to provide the best wildland fire protection programs possible. We are committed to working to ensure that all levels of government pay their appropriate share of the costs. We believe the 

draft template for master coop agreements will appropriately fill 

this need by providing the guidance and the flexibility that is needed to assure costs are shared in the most equitable way. We hope 

and expect that the template will be finalized in time for use by 

State and Federal agencies when they develop their cost-share 

agreements in advance of next year’s fire season and, as Mark Rey 

has already said, we do have a template in place that is being used 

for this year. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, for the opportunity 

to present our testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowdabaugh follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIRK ROWDABAUGH, STATE FORESTER OF ARIZONA, ON

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Kirk Rowdabaugh 

and I am the State Forester of Arizona. Last year, I represented the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) on the strategic issues panel, chartered by the 

Wildland Fire Leadership Council, which recently completed an in-depth study of 

wildland fire cost containment issues. I am here today representing the National Association State of Foresters, a non-profit organization that represents the directors 

of the fifty state forestry agencies, eight U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. State Foresters manage and protect state and private forests across the U.S. 

On their behalf, I am pleased to offer the following statement for the record. 

NASF has reviewed the GAO report, ‘‘Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear 

Guidance Raises Concerns about Cost Sharing among Federal and Nonfederal Entities’’,* and has several concerns. First, we believe that GAO’s conclusions are not 

adequately supported by their data. As the report acknowledges, the review of eight 

fires in four states over two years does not provide a statistically valid sample. Likewise, GAO only reviewed agreements in 12 western states and did not review any 

agreements or any fires in the eastern half of the country. While we are interested 

in the study results, we believe that if GAO had looked at a series of joint jurisdiction fires over a number of years, they would have found that any perceived shortterm inequities between parties would eventually balance out over time. 

Second, we disagree with the GAO recommendation for executive action, which 

reads: ‘‘To strengthen the framework for sharing wildland fire suppression costs, 

GAO recommends 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.’’ A cost-share agreement must provide the necessary flexibility for all parties 

to adjust to a changing situation. It cannot be constructed as a contract with hard, 

inflexible specifications. Variables such as response need and capability, fire activity 

and severity, and state legislative authorities preclude the ability to develop specific 

guidance that can be applied under all circumstances across the country. 

NASF believes that the national template for Master Cooperative Wildland Fire 

Management and Stafford Act Response Agreements (the template) currently being 

developed by the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board (a board comprised 

of the national fire directors of the USDA Forest Service, four Bureaus within the 

Department of the Interior, and NASF) will provide appropriate guidance for costshare agreements. As the GAO report notes, this draft template identifies the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:00 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 109629 PO 30471 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\30471.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
21

quirement for a cost-share agreement and defines the various options available to 

line officers. Although the guidance in the template is not definitive regarding which 

cost-share option to use under specific sets of circumstances, it provides the necessary flexibility needed by line officers to effectively address local variability in 

terms of terrain, fuels, and values at risk, as well as state and local legal authorities 

and protection responsibilities. We believe that further efforts to define the specific 

circumstances that would warrant the selection of one cost-share method over another, or identify the point at which a fire crosses some arbitrary threshold, will be 

neither productive nor helpful. Federal and state line officers need the flexibility to 

jointly craft cost-share agreements appropriate to the complexity of the incident, 

rather than attempt to apply rigid, national guidelines that may not fit their local 

circumstances. The current, draft language in the template is as follows:

‘‘Fire suppression costs will be determined from the information supplied in 

this section. There are several ways to determine the best cost-share mix. A, 

B, and C are typically used on smaller, less complex incidents; D and E on larger, more complex incidents: 

A. Each Agency pays for their own resources—fire suppression efforts are 

primarily on jurisdictional responsibility lands. 

B. Each Agency pays for their own resources—services rendered approximate the percentage of jurisdictional responsibility, but not necessarily performed on those lands. 

C. Cost share by percentage of ownership or Agency jurisdictional responsibility. 

D. Cost is apportioned by geographic division. Examples of geographic divisions are: Divisions A and B (using a map as an attachment); privately 

owned property with structures; or specific locations such as campgrounds. 

E. Reconciliation of daily estimates (for larger, multi-day incidents). This 

method relies upon daily agreed to cost estimates, using Incident Action 

Plans or other means to determine multi-Agency contributions. Reimbursements can be made upon estimates instead of actual bill receipts.’’

Finally, we disagree with the GAO conclusion that it is the responsibility of the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to ‘‘clarify financial responsibilities for 

suppressing fires that burn or threaten to burn across multiple jurisdictions.’’ The 

Secretaries clearly have the responsibility to clarify federal responsibilities on federal lands which, in fact, they have done. The 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy, 

as revised in 2001, accurately defines federal fire protection responsibilities, including operations in the wildland-urban interface. We believe that federal responsibilities on federal lands are clear: federal agencies have an obligation to keep fires 

originating on their lands from spreading off federal lands on to other ownerships. 

On the other hand, it is the responsibility of state and local government to define 

their financial obligations through state law and local ordinances and codes. As 

states are independent entities, their laws, ordinances, and codes are frequently different from one another. Therefore, we believe that it is neither feasible nor appropriate to attempt to strictly define at the national level the financial responsibilities 

for suppressing wildfires that burn across federal/nonfederal jurisdictional boundaries. Federal agencies must recognize that differences in state laws require that 

financial decisions on sharing suppression costs must be determined on a state-bystate basis. We believe the draft national template for Master Cooperative Agreements will help ensure that such decisions are equitable to all parties while retaining the need for flexibility from state to state and fire to fire. 

NASF is committed to working with our federal partners to provide the best 

wildland fire protection programs possible in order to protect U.S. citizens, their 

property, and our valuable natural resources. We are committed to working to ensure that all levels of government pay their appropriate share of the costs. We believe the draft template for Master Cooperative Agreements will appropriately fill 

this need by providing the necessary guidance and flexibility to ensure that costs 

are shared between federal and state agencies in the most equitable way. We expect 

the template will be finalized in time for use by state and federal agencies when 

they develop their cost share agreements in advance of the 2007 fire season. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity 

to present our testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you all very much. Instead of breaking 

you into two panels, I want all of you at the table at the same time 

because it is obvious there is work in progress, along with a concern about these relationships and the indices of measurement as 

22

it relates to who pays what and in what way. So, as I direct questions at an individual, if an additional input by others you feel is 

appropriate, please involve yourselves so we can have an interactive discussion on this issue. 

Director Robinson, as part of the GAO study you testified both 

that acres burned formula cost-sharing against the actual cost 

method for fighting fires were examined. The data suggest some 

very large swings in which entity would benefit. Unfortunately, 

there was not a consistent pattern that showed which methodology 

would benefit the States and the Federal entities. So I guess my 

question to you is, understanding that you only compared the two 

methodologies on four fires, did your investigators get any sense 

that one methodology might advantage either party if consistently 

applied in all States on all fires? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your premise is correct that, with eight fires in total examined in our methodology, we 

do not have generalizable results. So I will have to speak to the results that we saw in the five fires where an alternative to a pure 

acres-burned methodology was used. In three of those cases, the 

Federal Government turned out to have been better off under the 

alternative. In one case the Federal Government paid more than 

they would have under acres burned and in one case it was essentially a wash. 

So with that, I guess at the end of the day I have to say it depends. We do not have enough evidence to say conclusively, one 

way or the other, that one system or another would benefit the 

States or the Federal Government. 

I would point out, coming back to what I said earlier, that I do 

think that greater clarity and sort of having default options, 

agreed-upon options, have the potential to benefit everybody from 

a variety of angles, including budgetary certainty and potentially 

cost containment and cost reduction. 

Mr. REY. Senator, I think our sense of that is that generally 

speaking allocating costs through apportionment would benefit the 

Federal Government more frequently than allocating costs on the 

basis of acres burned. But that is not to say that that is the best 

approach in every instance. In small fires, we will spend money 

doing the cost apportionment when it might be just as easy and ultimately cheaper to do it on the basis of acres burned. But in specific response to your question, our general feeling is that cost apportionment as a methodology would typically benefit us more 

often. 

Senator CRAIG. In the template that you are at work on, where 

do you think you will come in in relation to how you allocate costs? 

Or will there be a variable or flexibility as to how you allocate and, 

if so, what might trigger that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, the template has five different cost allocation methods proposed. The reason for the five is that, as Mark 

pointed out, you are really balancing on the one hand ease of administration, so that you are not spending more time trying to get 

the cost allocation than you are actually benefiting from that effort—so on the one hand you are balancing that with other factors, 

such as equity and the precision with which the resources are allocated to those that use them. 

23

So what we propose in this template is flexibility, and the factors 

that would determine which one you would use would tend to be, 

if it is a smaller simpler fire you want just the easier method that 

does not require a lot of calculations. If it is one of our large, complex fires, there the cost allocation method, as Mark stated, is likely to be utilized and recommended more frequently. 

Mr. REY. I would add as well, per the legislation that you enacted 2 years ago, you have an independent panel that Congress 

created reviewing both cost containment and cost allocation on any 

fires over $10 million. So there is going to be a second look at that 

independent of either the Federal or the State cooperators. 

Senator CRAIG. My time is about up. But Anne, how do we assure under this method that there is not only the appearance of, 

but the reality of, equity amongst the States as it relates to this 

kind of allocation? If there is a five-option platform from which to 

make these decisions, is the panel the arbiter or do we have States 

that are frustrated because one figures they got better treatment 

than another? 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. I think the template will help because currently some States are using only one or two options, other States 

may be focusing on a different set of options. This template will lay 

out those five options available for everyone, with the clear guidance that some methods are better in simpler scenarios and the 

cost apportionment, for example, is much more suited for the more 

complex and expensive fires. 

So I think it would even things out to the extent that everybody 

would be working with the same set of five options to use and the 

same guidance on which ones to use when. It still provides the 

flexibility that is needed to address different conditions within a 

State or from State to State. 

Senator CRAIG. Before I turn to my colleague Ron Wyden, let me 

recognize that our colleague from Colorado, Ken Salazar, has joined 

us. Colorado escaped largely last year. You are getting dry again 

out there. You had some tremendously difficult fires in what is now 

the forests of Colorado, which is substantially wildland-urban 

interface, along the Rocky Mountain Front, and the difficulties and 

the complexities there. 

Ken, when we turn to you, because you were not here for opening 

statements, if you have some opening statement you would like to 

incorporate with any questions, please feel free to do so. 

Now let me turn to Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rey, let me start with you. I am not going to do too much 

sparring on the issue of what is a template, but I do note that in 

your testimony you say in the third to last graph ‘‘We have already 

begun crafting an inter-agency template to assist in addressing a 

number of cost-sharing issues.’’ Then when you say ‘‘It is our intent 

to finalize this guidance before the beginning of the next fire season,’’ one wonders why it was not done for this fire season. 

But let me ask my question in a different kind of way, rather 

than parsing words about when a template is supposed to arrive. 

What is unquestionable right now is that costs continue to soar to 

the stratosphere. Second, we have a critical report from the Government Accountability Office, a report that says that there are imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:00 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 109629 PO 30471 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30471.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
24

plications for both the Federal Government and the States, and it 

comes from a lack of guidance on all of this. 

Now, I happen to have a difference of opinion with GAO as well 

because my State wants more flexibility in terms of dealing with 

it. I think this is an area where the Federal Government and the 

States can clearly work together. My question to you then, Mr. Rey, 

is why was not more done to have this straightened out for this fire 

season? Set aside the templates and some of this about when it is 

going to come. Why was not more done to straighten out the various issues that are being discussed here for this fire season? 

Mr. REY. Simple reason: Because this is a lower priority than assuring the safety of our firefighters, treating hazardous fuels to reduce fire intensity, maintaining and increasing our effectiveness of 

first response, and engaging in cost containment in large incident 

fires. Fixing this will not affect the overall cost of fires. It will 

merely affect who pays that cost. 

So we established as a higher priority relative to the cost side 

putting measures into effect, in part in response to previous congressional actions, to contain the cost of overall fires. Now it is appropriate to turn to the lower priority, which is cost allocation. But 

it is, I believe, a lower priority because it is not going to affect the 

bottom line. It merely is going to affect whether your Governor or 

we pay what portion of that bottom line. 

The template is a framework that will be used to govern each 

master cost agreement with each State. It is a revision of a template that already exists. It will be used to revise master cost 

agreements that already exist as well. Those revised master cost 

agreements will then affect the individual incident cost-sharing 

agreements that we reach as we deal with each incident. 

Senator WYDEN. I do not disagree in the least with how important those other priorities are and I think none of us would want 

to have a referendum on which one of those critical issues is the 

most important after the safety in protecting the immediate health 

and wellbeing of communities. I just still do not understand, given 

how long the Federal Government and the State governments have 

gone back, have gone back and forth on this issue, why more could 

not have been done to address it. 

I gather from you folks at the GAO that this issue has been 

going on for years and years. Has it not, Mr. Robinson? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, Senator, we have issued reports on this topic 

or some combination or permutation of this topic for at least 6 

years. I want to use this opportunity to say that the conclusions 

and recommendations we have made are not the first time such 

conclusions have been reached. NAPA reached a similar conclusion. 

The agencies in their own independent analyses have reached a 

similar conclusion, and I think the State foresters have acknowledged it in a 2000 report, that this is an issue that needs some attention and greater clarity. 

Mr. REY. Perhaps to put this issue in a more accurate context, 

this is an issue where there will not be a beginning or an end, because circumstances on the ground and in the State legislatures 

and in the Congress are going to continue to change. The nature 

of the fire ground is going to continue to evolve as the wildlandVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:00 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 109629 PO 30471 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30471.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
25

urban interface expands and as, on the positive side, we get more 

acres treated to reduce fuel loads. 

You all are going to continue to give us direction about cost containment. We appreciate that and that is going to change this process. And the State legislatures are going to do the same for our 

partners. 

In this particular instance, one of the things that we elected to 

do was to combine the changes we needed to make to this template 

with changes designed to implement Stafford Act language that is 

relevant to this. So that took a little bit more time and, in addition, 

as I said earlier, this is not something the Federal Government can 

do unilaterally because to do so or to try to do so would simply confound the ultimate resolution that we want to achieve, which is an 

agreed-upon methodology for allocating costs with 50 different sovereign States. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, might I add something to Mark Rey’s 

comments? We applaud your interest in cost containment. Certainly it is a big concern for us. I think we are juggling five different actions at the same time, of which the cost-sharing allocation is one. Several years ago, recognizing the high and growing 

cost of fires, we created a strategic issues panel, the focus of which 

was specifically to identify cost containment measures. That panel 

resulted in seven clusters of recommendations and I am pleased to 

say that on six of the seven we have made very significant 

progress, with the intention of helping to contain and/or bring 

down those costs. 

A second cluster or a second area that we have worked on is 

aviation strategy. A big driver is how we utilize aviation. We have 

worked jointly with the Forest Service on an aviation strategy. 

The third is to apply better business management as a fire actually unfolds and put business managers on site during—in particular—these large fires, and that is well under way and in practice. 

Fourth, we have developed more performance measures so folks 

on the ground have cost as a consideration as they make their deliberations and decisions. 

The fifth is this cost-sharing and allocation and, as Mark said, 

I think it has not been unintended, but rather a work in progress, 

and I think we are going to, as a result of this and working with 

the States, get a product, as Anne noted, that will serve us well 

and better in the future. 

Senator WYDEN. My time is up. I just want to leave this with 

just one last thought, Mr. Rey. Again, no disagreement about the 

fact that things change on the ground. We have certainly wanted 

that with efforts to try to prevent fires and areas where there has 

been bipartisan support. It just seems to me that the fact that 

things are going to change so dramatically on the ground is all the 

more reason why we have got to straighten these relationships out 

between the Federal Government and the States. 

Mr. Robinson points out that this thing has been kicking around 

for over 5 years and I think it is time to straighten things out. 

I appreciate the extra time, Mr. Chairman. I know our colleague 

from Colorado has been waiting and I look forward, of course look 

forward to doing that, look forward to working with you on this, 

26

of course making sure that the county payments legislation is 

passed quickly, a matter of urgent need in Colorado, Oregon, and 

Idaho, and we will be talking to you about a variety of issues. 

I think I wanted to wrap up to let Senator Salazar talk, but I 

think the folks from the States wanted to make a comment. 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. Please, just to add one thing. The State foresters have been working with the Federal agencies on this new 

template and we have believed that it is very near completion and 

ready to go. But it was in the works before GAO began their study, 

and their study was not looking at how the new template would affect cost-sharing. So I think if we just can move forward, if we can 

put this new template in place as quickly as possible, it will help 

address the equity issues that you are concerned about. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Ron, thank you very much. 

Now let us turn to Senator Ken Salazar of the State of Colorado. 

Ken. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Senator Wyden. 

Let me at the outset, since I have the opportunity to address 

both Deputy Secretary Rey and Deputy Secretary Scarlett, just say 

that I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are in the West looking at 

having a Western-type Katrina because of the drought conditions 

that we are facing. Sunday I was driving from the San Luis Valley 

in southern Colorado to Denver and I saw a wisp of smoke over 

Lavita Pass on Highway 160, that has now turned into a fire that 

has burned about 10,000 acres and will continue to spread. With 

1.5 million acres of bark beetle and spruce beetle-infested forests 

in Colorado, along with the drought conditions, which are the most 

severe that we have seen in most parts of the State probably in all 

of the records that we have, with the exception of the year 2002, 

I think this year we are going to see the fires that we are already 

seeing in Colorado, in Arizona and other places probably surpass 

anything that we have ever seen in the past. 

So I am grievous, I am very, very worried about my State of Colorado. I know that there are other Senators that will also be worried about that. 

One thing that I will put again on Under Secretary Ray’s mind 

is that the Forest Service needs additional resources to be able to 

deal with this bark beetle problem. We have about 280,000 acres 

in Colorado that have already been approved after the NEPA process for treatment, but because we only have about 82,000 of those 

acres approved for treatment in 2006 we are not going to be able 

to do as much for prevention as we possibly could. 

I appreciate very much what you have done, Mark, in terms of 

allocating I think an additional $500,000 to Colorado to deal with 

that issue and I want to acknowledge that you have done that. But 

I also know that the hill we have to climb in terms of dealing with 

this issue is a very major hill. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]

27

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Thank you Chairman Craig and Senator Wyden. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to attend this Subcommittee’s hearings on subjects that are critical to Colorado. 

I’d like to thank the committee for the opportunity to review this GAO report. I 

have a few observations on the report that I would like to share with the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. It is common-sense that the Departments, in following the recommendations of the GAO report, should make sure that federal land 

managers and local governments are never put in a position where they are reluctant to order needed resources to fight a wildfire because of a question as to who 

will pay the costs. It also goes without saying that the guidance that is given should 

not be rigid guidelines that take away the flexibility needed to address different 

wildfire scenarios and situations. At the same time, local entities and states want 

to know that they are being treated equitably and not taking on undue, increased 

shares of the cost. 

As we discuss the costs associated with protecting out local communities from 

wildfire, I cannot help but to think of the needs in Colorado when it comes to hazardous fuels. Colorado is suffering a prolonged drought that is adversely impacting 

our forests. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor a majority of Colorado is considered to be in a severe or extreme drought situation. Along with the drought, Colorado is also seeing an extraordinary insect infestation moving through our forests. 

It is estimated that over 7 million trees on over 1.5 million of acres have experienced beetle kill leaving behind even greater hazardous fuel conditions. 

There is a tremendous amount of hazardous fuel work to be done in Colorado. The 

Forest Service reports that 113 projects covering 280,000 acres of hazardous fuels 

treatments have been approved through NEPA and are available for implementation pending funding. 65% of these treatments are located in the wildland-urban 

interface. Another 235,000 acres are being analyzed for approval. Unfortunately, 

The Forest Service only expects to implement, at most, 82,000 acres of treatments 

in 2006. Colorado’s forest health and hazardous fuel conditions are deteriorating 

faster than current funding is able to address. 

What ties all of this together, in my mind, are the cooperative efforts that are 

taking place in Colorado to address this situation. 

Two specific efforts, the Northern Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative and the Front 

Range Fuels Treatment Partnership that feature collaboration between the Forest 

Service, local communities, and state agencies. By working together, these efforts 

are seeking to prioritize areas for treatment, lower the costs of those treatments, 

and to address the associated impacts of this beetle epidemic. The hope of these cooperatives is to lower future suppression costs by investing in forest health today. Mr. Rey, I was heartened to see the Forest Service send an additional $500,000 

to Colorado this spring to address these forest issues. I would like to, again, ask 

the Forest Service for additional funds for hazardous fuels and forest health projects 

in Colorado. 

To conclude, I appreciate the opportunity to briefly comment on the GAO report, 

and I emphasize the need for us to look at the hazardous fuels treatment needs that 

are increasing faster than funding in Colorado due to the drought and insect infestations plaguing our state. Thank you.

Senator SALAZAR. Let me just quickly ask a question of Mr. Robinson relating to the GAO report. I appreciate the work that is 

going on on the part of the Forest Service and the Department of 

the Interior and the State foresters to try to respond to the recommendations that you have made. In your findings, what you essentially find is that we need more guidance, more clear guidance 

in terms of cost-sharing here. 

When you were putting together your GAO report, did you consult with local and State officials? And assuming that the answer 

to that is yes, then I would ask whether you received any information from them that the lack of clear guidance was in any way putting a hindrance on them in terms of asking for assistance from the 

Federal Government when they were dealing with the outbreak of 

fire? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, Senator Salazar, we of course worked very 

closely with all sides, as we do routinely in conducting our work. 

28

In this case, we worked closely with State officials along with Federal officials, and gave the National Association of State Foresters 

the opportunity to officially comment on the report, incorporated 

their comments, and addressed their comments as appropriate. So 

the answer is yes, we did strongly consider their views. 

And yes, during the course of our work relative to the confusion, 

the lack of certainty is not unique to the Federal agents who are 

negotiating the cost-sharing arrangements, but was shared at some 

level by the States as well. 

The point is, and I want to make sure this gets in relative to the 

template that we are discussing so much today, is that, putting 

yourself in the shoes of the people who are trying to negotiate these 

cost-sharing arrangements, when there is confusion about terminology and basic principles, it makes the process relatively unwieldy and difficult to conduct efficiently, effectively and fairly. So 

as we develop this template, which is certainly a very good starting 

point, we think it is vitally important that before it is issued in 

final form it is tested by the folks who have to administer it to 

make sure they understand it and can fairly, equitably, and consistently implement it on the ground. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. 

For Mark and Lynn, if you will respond to this question. I often 

think about these county commissioners in some of the very small 

counties in the southern part of my State where these fires are taking place and I wonder how much they really know about what cost 

allocations are and what kinds of—how they ought to approach the 

Federal Government whenever they are dealing with some of the 

disasters that they are dealing with. 

So my question to Mark and Lynn is, what kind of outreach effort do we have, not only with the State foresters, but also with the 

local officials that many times are the ones who are the first responders on the ground to these fires? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I will begin with a response, Senator. We have 

created a Wildlife Fire Leadership Council that is inter-agency and 

inter-governmental to try and discuss many of the operational challenges with respect to both fuels reduction and fire. On that council 

sits NACO, the National Association of Counties, as well as the 

Inter-Tribal Timber Council, as well as the National Association of 

State Foresters. 

In addition, we have built increasingly strong relations with the 

International Association of Fire Chiefs, which includes many of 

the volunteer firefighting organizations from small counties and/or 

small towns in rural areas. Part of the purpose of that is to have 

a platform for discussing things like communications, interoperability, a better seamlessness when they arrive and then we arrive 

and have the handover and-or the sharing of responsibility. 

So I think we have made significant advances these last several 

years in those relationships, though of course we need to continue 

to work on it. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Lynn. 

Mr. REY. I think in most, if not all, of the master agreements in 

each State there are provisions for the State forestry agencies to 

assist the counties in doing whatever cost allocation needs to be 

done subsequent to the end of a fire. But one of the things I would 

29

like to clarify is there is a difference between confusion and uncertainty and there is a difference between responding to and extinguishing a fire and the task after that of allocating the costs associated with that. 

There is no confusion about how the former task gets done. Everybody knows how to run the incident command system and what 

their responsibilities are under that, and that of course is our highest priority. Now, as to whether what different units of government 

face after the fire is extinguished and when we are put to the task 

of allocating costs is confusion or simply uncertainty because of 

flexibility that we have provided is not a black or white distinction. 

It is rather a spectrum, and the best place to be in that spectrum 

is to provide enough flexibility so that we can allocate costs wisely, 

but enough precision so that we have equity among the States. 

That is the balance we are trying to strike. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator, could I just respond to that? 

Senator CRAIG. Certainly. 

Mr. ROBINSON. One of the reasons for the optimism that you 

heard in my statement is because the level of cooperation that is 

achieved on fighting the fire is a model for the Federal and State 

interaction. Given the fact that such a level of cooperation can be 

achieved in fighting the fires, it does not seem unreasonable that 

we will be able to achieve a level of cooperation in devising a fair 

and equitable cost-sharing arrangement ultimately. 

Senator SALAZAR. I know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, 

but I would make one comment to Interior and to USDA-Forest 

Service here. That is that I think additional outreach perhaps directly through the Colorado—through the county organizations in 

Colorado, it is Colorado Counties Inc.—might be something that 

would be helpful, so that it goes down from the NACO level down 

to the local State level. Because I can tell you, when you get those 

county commissioners in my State it is 64 counties, probably 3 or 

400,000 commissioners coming together every year for their annual 

convention. I would imagine that this would be one of the issues 

that would rank at the top of their radar screen along with issues 

like PILT and other things that you deal with in the West all the 

time. 

There is no State I think in the West that is immune from dealing with these fire issues, and ultimately the cost allocation issue 

is something that they will have to deal with. 

I appreciate your testimony here very much today. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. Ken, thank you very much. I know that—what is 

your State, half green and half brown right now, or something like 

that? 

Senator SALAZAR. We thought in probably February that it would 

be about half green and half red, and what has happened is, because of the high temperatures, Denver in the early part of June 

was getting temperatures that were 100 degrees. So the runoff 

came off very, very quickly, and we are seeing an escalation of fires 

that I have only seen one other time in my life and that was 2002, 

when we had about half the State that seemed to be on fire. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. That is serious stuff. 

30

Mr. Robinson, I wonder if you could give me some example of the 

specific guidance that you believe should be included in a new policy? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Number one, I think we want to make the point 

that the folks that are best able to arrive at the specific arrangements are at the table to my left, and that the template is probably 

a good starting point. I do want to reemphasize that there is some 

confusion on the ground and that confusion needs to be dealt with. 

In large measure, it has to do with uncertainty about how to interpret phrases like ‘‘an unusually complex fire’’ or ‘‘exterior protection of buildings,’’ as to whether—on a practical level, does that 

mean you put your back up against the building and everything 

outside of that is within the Federal domain, or is just what is inside of it the States? 

There is a lot of uncertainty, and when costs are being allocated, 

folks do not know how to conduct their negotiations and the result 

is confusion, uncertainty, and some level of inequity. We believe at 

the end of the day there ought to be some default options. Under 

a given set of circumstances, this would normally be the option you 

would use to allocate costs, the system or method you would use. 

You could certainly build in flexibility. There is no doubt that there 

needs to be flexibility. Even in the face of a default option, if both 

sides agree that a different option makes more sense in a given circumstance, you could revert to that. But there needs to be some solidity under the system so that the folks that are actually trying 

to do these negotiations have some level of certainty and at least 

one foot standing on solid ground. 

The other thing I want to mention here is that these arrangements need to be worked out in advance of the fire, because during 

the fire or after the fire when everybody moves on to some other 

activity, it makes the negotiation process a lot more difficult than 

it would otherwise be. So those are the components and the basic 

principles we would like to see incorporated, while recognizing that 

the folks best suited to derive the specifics are to my left. That 

would be both Federal and State, and that is what we try to emphasize both in our statement and in our report. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mark, it is clear to all of us that fire costs are increasing, as are 

the number of fires that burn throughout the wildland-urban interface. Has the Federal Government made any assessment of how 

much funding is being expended as a result of having to fight more 

fires in the wildland-urban interface zone and if not, could you prepare such an analysis for the committee? 

Mr. REY. We do not have an analysis to date that aggregates all 

of that information. We have done some analyses on a fire by fire 

basis talking about, analyzing how our attack strategy would have 

differed but for the presence of a new subdivision. So we can give 

the committee some qualitative information that illustrates how 

that changes firefighting strategy and influences cost on some specific fires. But we have not attempted to aggregate that to come up 

with that as a whole. 

Senator CRAIG. Because both you and Lynn know as you travel 

across our, especially our forested lands in the West, lines are getting awfully blurred at the moment as the mega-home goes up on 

31

that nice little sanctuary of property that somebody from somewhere else bought for a large sum of money. I have spoken to supervisor after supervisor, especially on the forests, that said: We 

spend the bulk of our time putting out fires in protection of structures than we do in protection of resource. And that seems to be 

the ever-increasing spiral in a Western theme of lifestyle that continues to accelerate. I think we have to be concerned about that. 

Mr. REY. In fact, the situation is even worse than I testified to, 

because staff indicates that they had corrected a number. I said 

that 31 percent of the homes in the United States are located in 

the wildland-urban interface. The correct number is 39 percent of 

the homes in the United States are located in the wildland-urban 

interface. 

Our firefighters tell us that over the last 20 years somewhere in 

the neighborhood of close to 8 million new homes have been built 

in the wildland-urban interface. If you take an average household 

size of three people, that means that—or four people, rather—we 

have moved the equivalent of the population of California into the 

wildland-urban interface during that period. 

Senator CRAIG. As an Idahoan, all I can say is: We know. 

But my point here is if we can take a look at these numbers and 

if they are going like this [indicating] and we are trying to project 

out for 10 years, I think it would be most helpful for Congress to 

have a heads up that in reality these budgets are going to continue 

at an ever-increasing rate in this particular area of concern. And 

no matter how we share the costs, you have already said it is not 

a matter that the costs are coming down; it is a matter that we 

are trying to figure out an equitable way to pay for an ever-increasing cost. I think we need to know that. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, may I add one other observation in this 

context. This growing wildland-urban interface and the presence of 

these residences really underscores also the imperative of 

FIREWISE, that is working with communities and getting that defensible space around those homes. If the homes are there, at the 

very least we can work with landowners and local communities to 

ensure that they are as defensible as possible. 

Everything that we look at with respect to FIREWISE shows 

that it can be successful in significantly reducing risk to those who 

are in that interface. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, if I may add one other point. In 

2005, we did a technology assessment on this very issue. If you 

have not seen, there is a Forest Service researcher, Jack Cohen, 

who has put together this film. 

Senator CRAIG. I have seen it. 

Mr. ROBINSON. It is quite compelling. Some of the pictures we 

have in our report, as well as videoclips in the electronic version, 

are very compelling. 

Senator CRAIG. They are good, that is correct. 

Anne. 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. In addition to FIREWISE, I wanted to mention the importance of the community wildfire protection plan process that was introduced in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 

and States all across the country, whether they are close to Federal 

lands or not, are working with their communities to help them deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:00 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 109629 PO 30471 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\30471.TXT SENERGY1 PsN: RSMIT
32

* The report has been retained in subcommittee files. 

velop plans so that they can reduce their risk, reduce their losses, 

and accordingly that should help reduce some of the costs of fighting fire. 

Just as an example, I have a status report that was prepared by 

the Council of Western State Foresters on the community wildfire 

protection plans that have been developed in the Western States 

and I would be happy to submit that for the record.* 

Senator CRAIG. I appreciate that very much. I think, beyond the 

messages that we are trying to communicate here today and the 

broader picture we are attempting to understand as you deal with 

this—and I think States and local communities ought to become 

phenomenally aggressive in this area. There is no question that 

many who seek the sanctuary of the wildland-urban interface seek 

it with considerable resources. I believe it ought to be a matter of 

zoning that they are required to put in their own fire protection devices along with local fire departments and agencies. I think there 

is a responsibility out there that the Federal Government and 

State governments are assuming that is historically and should 

still be a private responsibility in many instances. And FIREWISE 

and all of those tools, if properly implemented and then monitored, 

should have an index of bringing down the cost borne by the private sector as oftentimes insurance drops if a fire station is stood 

up or something of that nature. 

That is all part of what I think we have got to be looking at, that 

as our population rushes to the hinterland they have got to recognize that they have got to carry some responsibility with them. 

Mark, the National Association of State Foresters contend in 

their comments to the GAO that the Federal land managers should 

bear the burden of the costs of fighting fires in the wildland-urban 

interface because your management policies inhibit your ability to 

fight fires in the most aggressive manner. They point to no mechanized equipment under certain conditions, i.e., wildernesses in this 

instance. I will add the failure to use bulldozers for fear of damaging streams and rivers. 

If we are going to put every fire out by 10 a.m. the next day and 

we are going to allow some fires to burn in some areas and we are 

not willing to use bulldozers in some areas, why should Federal 

land managers not be responsible for fires that escape the Federal 

lands? 

Mr. REY. Well, we are. We accept as a primary obligation to keep 

fires that initiate on Federal lands on Federal ownerships and 

away from spreading to other ownerships. Some of the conditions 

that we place on firefighting that you have described are not conditions that we would impose if the fire has a high probability of 

spreading off of Federal ownership onto non-Federal lands. 

The probably only one that we cannot control ourselves is the restrictions and the location of wilderness areas, because those are 

congressional determinations. But as you probably can recall from 

some of our most recent testimony on pending wilderness bills, we 

often object to congressional proposals to create new wilderness 

where there are non-Federal lands in immediate proximity because 

33

of the complication that that presents for more aggressive opportunities for attacking fires if they ignite within the wilderness. 

So I do not think we have any beef with NASF’s testimony here. 

We accept the obligation to keep Federal fires, fires that ignite on 

Federal lands, from spreading off of Federal lands onto non-Federal 

lands, and where we condition firefighting efforts for environmental 

values it is most commonly areas where we are not worried about 

the spread off of our ownership. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Lynn, in the DOI’s response to the draft GAO report the Department said: ‘‘We have seen this issue arise several times already 

this year when States affected by the early fire season requested 

and then released Federal firefighting resources similarly based 

solely on whether or not a Federal reimbursement was available.’’

I want to make sure I understand this. A State forestry organization has a fire. They order up Federal firefighting assets, say hand 

crews. The Forest Service or the DOI send the crews to the fire. 

Then because the State does not like the cost-sharing agreement 

that is imposed they release the crews to travel back to their home 

forests or districts without having helped to put out the fire. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is not quite the characterization of what we 

wanted to highlight. What we really have seen relates primarily to 

the prepositioning of resources rather than circumstances where 

fire suppression is under way and crews are arriving. In my testimony I referred, for example, to the prepositioning of a helicopter 

in Oklahoma that was done and the State requested that 

prepositioning when the indices showed the probability of high fire, 

and under that level of risk they were eligible for FEMA funding. 

We sent the helicopter, the indices changed, went down, the risk 

of fire went down, sent the helicopter back; the indices went back 

up, they again requested. 

Clearly this is something that none of us, including the State 

itself, want to have as a normal pattern. We are looking at both 

the frequency of that and what we can do to try and address that 

and prevent that from happening. But it only pertains to the 

prepositioning, not to the actual firefighting and the sending of 

crews at an actual fire. 

Senator CRAIG. Has this problem existed in other examples or 

the one you have used being the only one that you are aware of? 

Ms. SCARLETT. We have seen several simple—several similar examples. But as this hearing was impending we began to send out 

and see how frequent this circumstance is and we do not yet have 

the resolution of that inquiry. It is certainly more than a one-time 

event, but how frequent it is we do not yet know. 

Senator CRAIG. Well then, I ask of you and Mark, in your examination of—and certainly Anne can be a part of this in her organization—is that a part of a consideration, the cost of prepositioning, 

of a Federal agency’s responsibility to a resource that does not get 

used or is sent away because, as you have said, an indices changed 

and then changed again? Should there not be an understanding 

that when the indicators are there and a prepositioning is requested that there is a cost involved in it, or only at the time of 

its utilization? 

34

Costs are there. That helicopter is not an inexpensive item. Response? Yes, Anne? 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. I could address that, at least in part. I also 

did some looking into the situation and talked to the State forester 

of Oklahoma and the State forester of Texas because they were the 

ones who had the very busy early fire season this year. There have 

been some examples where the State has called on a resource, 

called in a resource, and due to a change in the weather or other 

circumstances they found they did not need it. 

But as far as I know, the State has covered those costs when 

they have called for the resource to be positioned or to be mobilized, and the demobilization cost as well. 

In the case of the example that Lynn cited, I do not have separate details on that, so I cannot give you any more information 

there. But I imagine that in that case, where FEMA had a share 

or was covering a share of the costs, then that was incurred by the 

Federal Government and the State was paying the other part of it. 

We are going to continue to look into it as well. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you, and you have already responded by saying there is an analysis going on. When that analysis is complete could you make that available for the committee? 

Mr. REY. Sure. 

Senator CRAIG. I think we are curious about that because State 

folks look brilliant when the assets are there to fight the fire. At 

the same time, when they ask for those assets to be brought there 

is a cost, and there ought to be some reality as to how that cost 

gets allocated in which they would share, obviously because of their 

doing the responsible thing, preparing. But in some instances—that 

is the good news, bad news about a fire. You have to prepare for 

it, you have to build up all these assets, in hopes that it will never 

happen. At the same time, that is good insurance when it does. So 

thank you. 

Anne, I get a sense in reading your testimony that you think the 

new National Fire and Aviation Executive Board’s templates will 

be a good deal for the States. In your estimation, what could and 

should the States be doing to decrease the cost of fighting fires in 

the wildland-urban interface? 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. Well, first I would say I think it is a fair 

deal for the States and the Federal agencies to use the new template. So I would change your wording there, as opposed to saying 

it is a ‘‘good deal.’’

Senator CRAIG. All right. 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. But again, as I mentioned earlier, to deal 

with fires in the wildland-urban interface there are a lot of steps 

that States can and are taking to reduce those risks, to work with 

communities so that they will do more on their own to work with 

homeowners. Those are the FIREWISE and the community wildfire 

protection planning process that we have already talked about. 

To the extent that communities reduce their risk and firefighters 

have to spend less effort in protecting structures, I think that will 

help reduce costs. But the overall objective of those programs, 

FIREWISE and the community wildfire protection plans, is really 

to help reduce the losses. 

35

Cost is another issue. The cost containment proposals that the 

WFLC, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, has been working on 

I think will help in the wildland-urban interface and outside the 

interface. 

Senator CRAIG. I would also like to know, given the GAO’s reporting of what the States of Colorado, California, and Utah are 

doing to encourage citizens within the wildland-urban interface to 

manage fuels in those areas, what makes it so difficult for other 

States to take similar steps? 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. Well, I do not think that it is fair to assume 

that other States are not doing that. Those are three examples of 

what States are doing all over the country, and just to offer a few 

other examples, Florida has a very active FIREWISE program, as 

does Texas. In addition, in Florida they have laws, State laws, in 

place that allow the State forestry agency to do prescribed burning 

on lands where fuels have been untreated. 

In the Lake States, to use another example, Minnesota has a 

very aggressive FIREWISE program. In the West, Senator Wyden 

is not here, but Oregon has been a leader in helping communities 

to develop community wildfire protection plans and also to use 

FIREWISE within the State. Those are just examples. I think all 

the States are using those programs. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much. Yes, I do not assume 

that others are not, because we have examples within the State of 

Idaho, although there is not statewide uniformity as it relates to 

these kinds of activities, and they are extremely important and 

they prove very successful. 

Ms. HEISSENBUTTEL. Another difference from one end of the 

country to the other may be the degree to which States have voluntary measures that they are encouraging communities to use 

and States that have zoning measures and codes in place that require actions to be taken. That is something that at the national 

level we cannot control. 

Mr. REY. But one other principal actor in this area is the private 

sector. Some of the larger insurance companies are now refusing to 

write policies unless homebuilders and homeowners are willing to 

apply certain common sense measures to make their dwellings 

more fire-safe. 

Ms. SCARLETT. If I could just add to that, what we are also beginning to see is, in areas where we have done aggressive fuels treatment residents are seeing their insurance bills go down as that risk 

reduction is evident. 

Senator CRAIG. I guess one last question. Where there is a treatment program that has been completed, is there a recognition by 

either of the agencies involved here as to the success of that? Some 

recognition might be, if you will, a seal of approval that would trigger an insurance response, that might cause others to look at it 

and be encouraged to respond accordingly? 

Ms. SCARLETT. That is a good idea. Right now I am not aware 

that the Department of the Interior has such a recognition. 

Senator CRAIG. I am not either. 

Ms. SCARLETT. What we do do is to document each year in our 

annual report to the Congress on our fire plan implementation 

some examples of some successful fuels treatment. But no, I am not 

36

aware that we have a recognition like that. I think that is a good 

idea. 

Senator CRAIG. As you know better than I, we cannot afford to 

continue at the rate of increase that we are moving in. Complications of funding in either of your agencies in these areas are very 

real. Costs to State governments and local governments are very 

real. The only way to solve this problem is to trigger a variety of 

activities, from Healthy Forests to a very aggressive private sector 

initiative, where the private property owner in this new environment bears the costs and the responsibilities and there are rewards 

for doing it appropriately. That is why my thought of recognizing, 

if you will, with a seal of approval a successful activity might draw 

increased attention in the appropriate ways. 

We will continue to work with you and monitor this. We thank 

GAO for their work in the area. It is work in progress. We know 

it, because the environments in which we are working are changing 

pretty rapidly at the moment and it cannot be static. It needs to 

be dynamic. At the same time, it needs very clear indices of all the 

parties who are involved in it to work from and work with. 

So we thank you all very much for your time with the committee 

today. The committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. Are you as comfortable with those draft agreements as Ms. 

Heissenbuttel seems to be? 

Answer. The Federal agencies and the National Association of State Foresters 

(NASF) have worked on many agreements over the years, and history has shown 

repeated success resulting from our efforts in coordinating and collaborating to 

achieve common goals. 

Question 2. When will this template be released? Please provide an approximate 

date. 

Answer. The template and associated Memorandum of Understanding with the 

National Fire and Aviation Executive Board, the entity responsible for guiding implementation of fire management policy, should be released this fall. 

RESPONSES OF ROBIN NAZZARO TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. It is clear from the report that GAO and some federal land managers 

feel local communities should do more to develop landscape rules and zoning rules 

to treat fuels around houses and in the Wildland-Urban Interface. At the same time, 

local and State entities feel the federal government should shoulder more responsibility for paying for the fires because they have failed to treat the hazardous fuels 

on federal lands that contribute to the spread of wildland fires from federal land 

to non-federal land. 

Did your investigators collect any data that might help us understand the added 

expense of fighting these fires due to the inability of the Federal and local communities to effectively manage the fuels within the Wildland-urban interface and on 

nearby federal lands? 

a. If No—would GAO be able to develop a study and collect such data? 

Answer. We did not collect data during our review that specifically addresses the 

effect that hazardous fuel conditions may have on wildland fire suppression costs. 

However, both federal and nonfederal fire officials told us that they believe excessive fuels were contributing to more extreme fire behavior and making it more difficult and expensive to suppress fires. Although we have not conducted any preliminary design work on this issue, based on our current understanding, we believe it 

would be difficult for GAO to conduct a study that isolates the effect of fuel conditions on suppression costs because existing fire cost data are inadequate for this 

purpose. 

While fuel buildup is undoubtedly an important contributor to escalating fire suppression costs, expanding development in the wildland-urban interface is also playing a major role. Also, it is important to note that many fires start on state and 

private lands. In the end, the federal government, state and local governments, and 

private owners all share responsibility for reducing the risk and costs of wildland 

fire suppression. 

Question 2. How did GAO consider state and local government authorities in writing the report? 

Answer. To understand state and local government authorities for the four states 

we visited, we reviewed laws related to wildland fire suppression, building and vegetation codes, and land-use planning. We also interviewed state—and, in some cases, 

local—officials from these four states to gain a better understanding of their laws. 

38

RESPONSE OF ROBIN NAZZARO TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Mr. Rey testified that improving the cost-sharing template has been 

a relatively low priority for the Administration because it does not affect the total 

costs of fire suppression—rather, it only affects how the total costs are allocated. 

Does the GAO agree that more clearly defining federal and nonfederal financial responsibilities is likely to have no affect on the total costs of fire suppression? Have 

any of the previous studies that GAO reviewed addressed whether improving costsharing practices could play a role in over-all cost-containment? 

Answer. Providing more specific guidance on how federal and nonfederal entities 

should share suppression costs directly affects how costs are allocated, but also 

could have an effect on total suppression costs, although quantifying the effect 

would be difficult. For example, a number of federal officials we interviewed said 

that state and local officials sometimes request more resources than federal officials 

believe are needed to effectively fight a fire, particularly if the fire threatens the 

wildland-urban interface. Federal officials believed that state and local officials 

would be less likely to request unneeded resources if they knew that they would 

have to pay for them. In its official comments on our report, the Department of the 

Interior also made a similar observation. None of the previous reports we reviewed 

addressed the effect of cost sharing on overall suppression costs. 

RESPONSES OF ROBIN NAZZARO TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 1. Can you tell me about the participation of local and state governments 

in the formation of GAO’s recommendations? 

Answer. We developed our recommendations based upon findings developed 

through discussions with a wide range of knowledgable officials, including officials 

of state and local governments and organizations. To understand state and local perspectives on how costs are shared, including any concerns that they may have, and 

to better understand differences among states and localities, we interviewed state 

and local officials at various levels of authority in the four states we visited. We 

also interviewed representatives from the National Association of Counties and the 

Western Governors’ Association. Finally, we provided the National Association of 

State Foresters the opportunity to review a draft of our report and included its comments in the final report. Also, as noted in our report, we believe it is important 

that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior work in conjunction with relevant state entities to implement our recommendation that they provide more specific guidance on how costs should be shared and to define financial responsibilities 

for fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple jurisdictions. 

Question 2. In my opening statement I referred to a few principles that I feel are 

common-sense. Those were: don’t place land managers in a position where they are 

reluctant to order needed resource because of a question of who will pay; guidance 

to the field needs to avoid being rigid guideline that take away flexibility and; fairness to local entities. Do these principles differ from GAO’s recommendations or the 

intent of those recommendations? 

Answer. In general, we believe that our recommendations are consistent with your 

principles. The intent of our recommendations is that federal and nonfederal entities 

clarify how they share suppression costs, not that they change the way in which 

they are working together to fight wildland fires. We believe that providing more 

specific guidance on cost sharing and clarifying the financial responsibilities for suppressing fires will help reduce uncertainty about which entities are responsible for 

certain costs. We agree that a certain amount of flexibility is needed; however, we 

also believe that guidance to the field should give a clear indication of the cost-sharing method that should be used for wildland fires with different characteristics. 

Such guidance can provide flexibility, for instance, by including provisions to use a 

different cost-sharing method if all parties agree that the circumstances warrant it. 

Without clearer guidance, the concerns identified in our report—such as the difficulties in reaching cost-sharing agreements that all parties believe are equitable and 

that the federal government may be treating different states differently, thereby creating inequities are likely to continue. Finally, we believe that methods used to 

share costs should be fair to all entities involved local, state, and federal. 

RESPONSE OF ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Does the National Association of State Foresters believe that a nonfederal entity’s ability to pay should be a consideration in formulating a cost-sharing 

agreement? 

39

Answer. No. The unique statutory responsibilities of the respective federal, state, 

and local agencies, and the specific fire suppression strategies and tactics employed 

to control the fire should determine the appropriate cost-share agreement. A ‘‘one 

size fits all’’ national format for cost-share agreements won’t work, precisely because 

there is a great deal of variation in the state and local legal authorities and responsibilities with respect to fire protection, and even greater variation in fire characteristics and suppression actions. 

RESPONSES OF ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 1. In my opening statement I referred to a few principles that I feel are 

common-sense. Those were: don’t place land managers in a position where they are 

reluctant to order needed resources because of a question of who will pay; guidance 

to the field needs to avoid being a rigid guideline that takes away flexibility; and 

fairness to local entities. In your view, do these principles differ from GAO’s recommendations or the intent of those recommendations? 

Answer. Yes. Senator Salazar’s principles are indeed common sense. NASF is concerned that GAO’s recommendations and intent to ‘‘provide more specific guidance 

as to when particular cost sharing methods should be used’’ would not allow sufficient flexibility to field managers to make decisions in advance of a fire or to make 

adjustments to an agreement as needed during a wildland fire. 

In addition, we believe that GAO’s recommendation that the Secretaries should 

‘‘clarify the financial responsibilities for suppressing fires that burn, or threaten to 

burn, across multiple jurisdictions’’ could result in situations where the federal 

agencies establish a requirement that a state or local firefighting entity cannot 

meet, due to state and local laws and regulations. The latter scenario could force 

land managers to refuse to order needed resources because of legal constraints on 

what costs the manager is authorized or obligated to incur. 

The federal responsibility, including the financial responsibility, is clear: to prevent fires that are burning on federal lands from burning onto adjacent non-federal 

lands. Any attempt to redefine or shift these federal responsibilities, and costs, to 

others, now or in the future, would be unfair to local entities. 

Question 2. How does your association envision the application of guidance for 

cost sharing among different entities working in the field? 

Answer. The guidance we have drafted with the federal agencies would be applied 

much as it is today. Local agency administrators, who are familiar with the specific 

fire suppression strategies and tactics used to control a particular fire, and who are 

familiar with their particular responsibilities and authorities, will negotiate mutually agreeable cost-share agreements for each individual fire. The cost-share guidance found in the soon to be completed National Template for Master Agreements 

will provide federal, state, and local agency administrators with several alternative 

procedures to consider when deciding on the most appropriate method for sharing 

fire suppression costs. 

[Responses to the following questions were not received at the 

time this hearing went to press:]

QUESTIONS FOR MARK REY FROM SENATOR CRAIG

I am very interested in the questions of uneven application of the cost-sharing 

methodologies. It seems to be one of the few areas in the study where some federal 

officials seemed to agree with some nonfederal officials. 

Question 1. Has the agency reviewed past billings and final agreements to assess 

whether or not the range of variability found in these billings is within an acceptable range? 

The report mentions that the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board is developing a template for both master and cost-sharing agreements. 

Question 2. So you believe that it will address some, all, or any of the issues surfaced in this report? 

Question 3. When will this template be released? Please provide an approximate 

date. 

In the hearing you indicated that the Forest Service has, and is taking responsibility for fires that burn off federal lands onto private lands. 

Question 4. Does that include taking responsibility for paying for the fire fighting 

that must be undertaken by State and Local agencies as a result of the fires that 

escape containment on the federal lands? 

40

QUESTIONS FOR MARK REY FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 1. Whenever we get the chance to talk, it seems like I am always asking 

what more can the USFS can do to help Colorado address the bark beetle and 

drought situation as it relates to forest health and hazardous fuels. Has the USFS 

identified any additional funding (beyond the $500,000 from earlier this year) that 

could be utilized by the local forests to conduct priority hazardous fuel treatments 

or further the work of local cooperative organizations working on this situation? 

Question 2. In your view, is increasing the amount of funding for forest health 

and hazardous fuel reduction projects an investment that could reduce the expenditure of funds for suppressing fires?

Æ