United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands 

and Forests, Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

WILDLAND FIRE 

SUPPRESSION 

Better Guidance Needed to 

Clarify Sharing of Costs 

between Federal and 

Nonfederal Entities 

Statement of Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 

 

GAO-06-896T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

i l

t

June 21, 2006

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

Better Guidance Needed to Clarify 

Sharing of Costs between Federal and

Nonfederal Entities 

Highlights of GAO-06-896T, a testimony

before the Subcommittee on Public Lands

and Forests, Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

Wildland fires can burn or threaten

both federal and nonfederal lands 

and resources, including homes in 

or near wildlands, an area 

commonly called the wildlandurban 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 

F re Suppression: Lack of C ear

Guidance Raises Concerns about

Cost Sharing be ween Federal and 

Nonfederal Entities (GAO-06-570).

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. 

Federal and nonfederal entities used a variety of methods to share the costs 

of fighting wildland fires affecting both of their lands and resources. 

Cooperative agreements between federal and nonfederal firefighting 

entities—which are developed and agreed to by the entities involved—

provide the framework for cost sharing and typically list several cost-sharing

methods available to the entities. The agreements GAO reviewed, however, 

often lacked clear guidance for federal and nonfederal officials to use in

deciding which method to apply to a specific fire. As a result, cost-sharing 

methods were applied inconsistently within and among states, even for fires 

with similar characteristics. For example, GAO found that in one state, the 

costs for suppressing a large fire that threatened homes were shared solely

according to the proportion of acres burned within each entity’s area of fire 

protection responsibility, a method that traditionally has been used. Yet,

costs for a similar fire within the same state were shared differently. For this

fire, the state agreed to pay for certain aircraft and fire engines used to 

protect the wildland-urban interface, while the remaining costs were shared

on the basis of acres burned. In contrast to the two methods used in this

state, officials in another state used yet a different cost-sharing method for 

two similar large fires that threatened homes, apportioning costs each day 

for personnel, aircraft, and equipment deployed on particular lands, such as 

the wildland-urban interface. The type of cost-sharing method ultimately

used is important because it can have significant financial consequences for 

the entities involved, potentially amounting to millions of dollars. 

Both federal and nonfederal agency officials raised a number of concerns 

about the current cost-sharing framework. First, some federal officials were 

concerned that because guidance is unclear about which cost-sharing 

methods are most appropriate in particular circumstances, it can be difficult

to reach agreement with nonfederal officials on a method that all parties 

believe distributes suppression costs equitably. Second, some nonfederal

officials expressed concerns that the emergence of alternative cost-sharing 

methods is causing nonfederal entities to bear a greater share of fire 

suppression costs than in the past. In addition, both federal and nonfederal

officials believed that the inconsistent application of these cost-sharing 

methods has led to inequities among states in the proportion of costs borne

by federal and nonfederal entities. Finally, some federal officials also 

expressed concern that the current framework for sharing costs insulates 

state and local governments from the increasing costs of protecting the 

wildland-urban interface. Therefore, nonfederal entities may have a reduced 

incentive to take steps that could help mitigate fire risks, such as requiring 

homeowners to use fire-resistant materials and landscaping. On the basis of 

a review of previous federal reports and interviews with federal and 

nonfederal officials, GAO believes that these concerns may reflect a more

fundamental issue—that federal and nonfederal entities have not clearly

defined their basic financial responsibilities for wildland fire suppression, 

particularly those for protecting the wildland-urban interface. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-896T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Robert A.

Robinson at (202) 512-3841 or 

robinsonr@gao.gov.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss how federal and nonfederal 

entities share the costs of suppressing wildland fires that burn or threaten 

both federal and nonfederal lands and resources. As you know, fighting 

wildland fires—which can burn across federal, state, and local 

jurisdictions—requires significant investments of firefighting personnel, 

aircraft, equipment, and supplies, resulting in substantial and increasing 

fire suppression expenditures. Since 2000, federal suppression

expenditures alone have averaged more than $1 billion annually. 

Firefighting efforts are mobilized through an interagency incident 

management system, which depends on the close cooperation and 

coordination of federal, state, tribal, and local fire protection entities. At 

the federal level, five principal agencies are involved in firefighting 

efforts—the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and National Park Service within the Department of the Interior. 

Federal and nonfederal firefighting entities share their personnel, 

equipment, and supplies and work together to fight fires, regardless of 

which entity has jurisdiction over the burning lands. Agreements between 

cooperating entities, commonly referred to as master agreements, govern 

these cooperative fire protection efforts and include general provisions for 

sharing firefighting costs.

My testimony today summarizes the findings of our report1

 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 

 1

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

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

2006). 

2

The 12 states selected were Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Although wildland fires 

can affect all states, we selected these western states because they have substantial federal 

lands and often experience wildland fires.

Page 1 GAO-06-896T 
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

 

Federal and nonfederal entities used a variety of methods to share the 

costs of fighting wildland fires affecting both of their lands and resources, 

but they applied these varied methods inconsistently to fires with similar 

characteristics. Master agreements between firefighting entities provide 

the framework for cost sharing and, typically, list several cost-sharing 

methods available to the entities. The agreements we reviewed, however, 

often lacked clear guidance for federal and nonfederal officials to use in 

deciding which method to apply to a specific fire. As a result, cost-sharing 

methods were applied inconsistently within and among states, even for 

fires with similar characteristics. For example 

Summary 

• In one state, the costs for suppressing a large fire that threatened homes 

were shared solely according to the proportion of acres burned within 

each entity’s area of fire protection responsibility. 

• In the same state, costs for a similar fire were shared differently—the state 

paid for certain aircraft and fire engines used to protect homes, while the 

remaining costs were shared on the basis of acres burned. 

• In another state, officials used yet a different cost-sharing method for two 

similar large fires that threatened homes, apportioning costs each day for

personnel, aircraft, and equipment deployed on particular lands, such as 

the wildland-urban interface, an area where homes and other structures 

are located in or near wildlands. 

The type of cost-sharing method ultimately used is important because it 

can have significant financial consequences for the entities involved,

potentially amounting to millions of dollars. 

Federal and nonfederal agency officials we interviewed raised a number of 

concerns about the current cost-sharing framework. 

 3

The 12 master agreements reviewed, 4 states visited, and two wildland fires reviewed 

within each visited state are all nonprobability samples. Therefore, the results from these 

samples cannot be used to make inferences about all master agreements, states, or

wildland fires. 

Page 2 GAO-06-896T 
• First, some federal officials said that because master agreements and 

other policies do not provide clear guidance about which cost-sharing 

methods to use, it has sometimes been difficult to obtain a cost-sharing 

agreement that they believe shares suppression costs equitably. 

• Second, nonfederal officials were concerned that the emergence of 

alternative cost-sharing methods has caused nonfederal entities to bear a 

greater share of fire suppression costs than in the past. In addition, these

officials, as well as some federal officials, were concerned that the federal 

government was treating nonfederal entities in different states differently,

thereby creating inequities. 

• Finally, some federal officials expressed concern that the current 

framework for sharing costs insulates state and local governments from 

the cost of protecting the wildland-urban interface, thereby reducing their 

incentive to take steps that could help mitigate fire risks and reduce 

suppression costs in the wildland-urban interface.

On the basis of our review of previous federal reports and interviews with 

federal and nonfederal officials, we believe these concerns may reflect a 

more fundamental issue—that federal and nonfederal entities have not 

clearly defined their financial responsibilities for wildland fire 

suppression, particularly for the wildland-urban interface. 

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 

Background 

 4

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

index, with fiscal year 2005 as the base year. 

Page 3 GAO-06-896T 
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 costsharing methods has been increasing in recent years. 

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 costsharing 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 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: 

Unclear Guidance and 

Inconsistent 

Application of CostSharing Methods Can 

Have Significant 

Financial 

Consequences for 

Entities Involved 

Master Agreements 

Provided Cost-Sharing 

Framework, but Those We

Reviewed Lacked Clear 

Guidance 

Page 4 GAO-06-896T 
• The master agreement for 1 state (Idaho) did not identify any specific costsharing method to use.

• The master agreements for 3 states (Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico) listed

the acres-burned method as the primary or only method to be used. 

Although two of these agreements allowed the use of alternative costsharing methods, they did not explicitly state under what circumstances 

an alternative method would be appropriate. 

• The master agreements for 8 remaining states listed multiple, alternative 

cost-sharing methods but did not provide clear guidance on when each 

method should be used.

Page 5 GAO-06-896T 
Cost-Sharing Methods 

Were Inconsistently

Applied for the Eight Fires 

We Reviewed 

Federal and nonfederal entities used varied cost-sharing methods for the 

eight fires we reviewed, although the fires had similar characteristics. As 

shown in figure 1, the cost-sharing methods used sometimes varied within 

a state or from state to state. 

Figure 1: The Varied Cost-Sharing Methods Used for Eight Similar Fires We Reviewed

a

A complex consists of two or more individual fires located in the same general area and managed by

a single incident commander. 

Page 6 GAO-06-896T 
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 

 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. 

Page 7 GAO-06-896T 
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 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. 

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 

The Cost-Sharing Method 

Used Can Lead to 

Significantly Different 

Financial Outcomes 

 6

Specifically, the state official said that under Arizona law, the state had no responsibility to 

protect the private lands and resources in the wildland-urban interface threatened by the

Florida Fire because the fire did not threaten state lands, and the private properties that 

the fire threatened were not covered by cooperative fire agreements with the state. 

Page 8 GAO-06-896T 
used had been acres burned. We found that the distribution of costs 

between federal and nonfederal entities differed, sometimes substantially,

depending on the cost-sharing method used. The largest differences 

occurred in California, which used the cost apportionment method. 

• For the Deep Fire, using the cost-apportionment method, federal entities 

paid $6.2 million, and nonfederal entities paid $2.2 million. Had the costs 

been shared on the basis of acres burned, federal entities would have paid 

an additional $1.7 million, and nonfederal entities would have paid that 

much less because most of the acres burned were on federal land. 

According to federal and state officials, the nonfederal entities bore a 

larger share of the cost than they would have under an acres-burned 

method because of the efforts to protect nonfederal lands and resources. 

• For the Pine Fire, using cost apportionment, federal entities paid $5.2 

million, and nonfederal entities paid $8.1 million. Had an acres-burned 

method been used, federal entities would have paid about $2 million less, 

and nonfederal entities would have paid that much more. According to a 

federal official who worked on apportioning costs for that fire, the higher

costs that the federal entities paid under cost apportionment were largely

due to extensive firefighting efforts on federal land to ensure that the fire 

was extinguished. 

In Colorado and Utah, the differences in federal and state entities’ shares 

between the methods used and the acres-burned method were less 

pronounced, likely because the cost-sharing methods used still relied 

heavily on acres burned. In each case, federal entities’ shares would have 

been more and nonfederal shares less had an acres-burned method been

used, due to the efforts to protect the wildland-urban interface. For 

example, the federal share of costs for the Blue Springs Fire in Utah would 

have been about $400,000 more and the nonfederal share that much less if 

an acres-burned method had been used for the whole fire. In Colorado, we 

estimated that the federal share of costs for the Mason Gulch Fire would 

have been about $200,000 more and the nonfederal share that much less 

under an acres-burned method. 

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 

Current Cost-Sharing 

Framework Raises 

Several Concerns 

Page 9 GAO-06-896T 
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. 

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

Lack of Clear Guidance 

Can Lead to Difficulties in 

Sharing Costs 

Page 10 GAO-06-896T 
that the template might not provide additional clarity about when each 

cost-sharing method should be used.

While federal officials expressed the need for further guidance on how to 

share costs, nonfederal officials were concerned that the emergence of 

alternative cost-sharing methods was leading state and local entities to 

bear a greater share of suppression costs than in the past, and they 

questioned whether such an increase was appropriate. Nonfederal officials 

also said that wildland fire suppression costs already posed budgetary 

challenges for state and local entities and that using alternative costsharing 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. 

Nonfederal Officials Were 

Concerned about 

Increased Costs and Equity 

among States 

 7

Some states have provisions whereby wildland fires exceeding the logistic and financial 

capabilities of local entities can be managed and paid for by the state, but officials said that

state funds to do so are also limited. 

Page 11 GAO-06-896T 
Federal officials said that the current cost-sharing framework insulates 

state and local governments from the cost of protecting the wildlandurban interface. As we have previously reported, a variety of protective 

measures are available to help protect structures from wildland fire 

including (1) reducing vegetation and flammable objects within an area of 

30 to 100 feet around a structure and (2) using fire-resistant roofing 

materials and covering attic vents with mesh screens.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 

Cost-Sharing Framework 

May Reduce Incentives to 

Mitigate Fire Risks in the 

Wildland-Urban Interface 

 8

GAO, Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications 

during Wildland Fires, GAO-05-380 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2005). 

Page 12 GAO-06-896T 
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. 

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 

Officials’ Concerns May 

Reflect Ambiguity over 

Financial Responsibilities 

Page 13 GAO-06-896T 
wildland fires. If, however, homes and other structures are located 

between a fire and such natural firebreaks, firefighters may have to 

construct other firebreaks and rely more than they otherwise would on 

aircraft to drop fire retardant to protect the structures, thereby increasing

suppression costs. Nonfederal officials in several states, however, 

questioned the appropriateness of assigning to nonfederal entities the 

costs for suppression actions taken on federal lands. These officials, as 

well as officials from the National Association of State Foresters, said that 

accumulated fuels on federal lands is resulting in more severe wildland 

fires and contributing to the increased cost of fire suppression. They also 

said that federal agencies are responsible for keeping wildland fires from 

burning off federal land and should, therefore, bear the costs of doing so.

Federal officials in the states we visited recognized this responsibility, but 

some also said that with the growing awareness that wildland fires are 

inevitable in many parts of the country, policy should recognize that 

wildland fires will occur and are likely to burn across jurisdictional 

boundaries. In their view, those who own property in areas at risk of 

wildland fires share a portion of the financial responsibility for protecting 

it. Previous federal agency reports also have recognized this issue and 

have called for clarifying financial responsibility for such actions. 

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 

Conclusions 

Page 14 GAO-06-896T 
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. 

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

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

nazzaror@gao.gov. David P. Bixler, Assistant Director; Jonathan Dent; 

Janet Frisch; and Richard Johnson made key contributions to this 

statement. 

Page 15 GAO-06-896T 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360732) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

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

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER