<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:30471.wais]
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
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-471 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
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 RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 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
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
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 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.
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 constructive 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 cost-sharing 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 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 wildland-urban 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).
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 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, 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises
Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities,
GAO-06-570 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006).
\2\ The 12 states selected were Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming. Although wildland fires can affect all states, we selected
these western states because they have substantial federal lands and
often experience wildland fires.
\3\ The 12 master agreements reviewed, 4 states visited, and two
wildland fires reviewed within each visited state are all
nonprobability samples. Therefore, the results from these samples
cannot be used to make inferences about all master agreements, states,
or wildland fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
Federal and nonfederal entities used a variety of methods to share
the costs of fighting wildland fires affecting both of their lands and
resources, but they applied these varied methods inconsistently to
fires with similar characteristics. Master agreements between
firefighting entities provide the framework for cost sharing and,
typically, list several cost-sharing methods available to the entities.
The agreements we reviewed, however, often lacked clear guidance for
federal and nonfederal officials to use in deciding which method to
apply to a specific fire. As a result, cost-sharing methods were
applied inconsistently within and among states, even for fires with
similar characteristics. For example
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Finally, some federal officials expressed concern that the
current framework for sharing costs insulates state and local
governments from the cost of protecting the wildland-urban
interface, thereby reducing their incentive to take steps that
could help mitigate fire risks and reduce suppression costs in
the wildland-urban interface.
On the basis of our review of previous federal reports and
interviews with federal and nonfederal officials, we believe these
concerns may reflect a more fundamental issue--that federal and
nonfederal entities have not clearly defined their financial
responsibilities for wildland fire suppression, particularly for the
wildland-urban interface.
BACKGROUND
Although wildland fires triggered by lightning are a natural,
inevitable, and in many cases a necessary ecological process, past
federal fire suppression policies have led to an accumulation of fuels
and contributed to larger and more severe wildland fires. In recent
years, both the number of acres burned by wildland fires and the costs
to suppress fires have been increasing. From 1995 through 1999,
wildland fires burned an average of 4.1 million acres each year; from
2000 through 2004, the fires burned an average of 6.1 million acres
each year--an increase of almost 50 percent. During the same periods,
the costs incurred by federal firefighting entities to suppress
wildland fires more than doubled, from an average of $500 million
annually to about $1.3 billion annually.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These dollars have been adjusted for inflation using the gross
domestic product price index, with fiscal year 2005 as the base year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
<bullet> The master agreement for 1 state (Idaho) did not identify
any specific cost-sharing method to use.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> The master agreements for 8 remaining states listed
multiple, alternative cost-sharing methods but did not provide
clear guidance on when each method should be used.
Cost-sharing methods were inconsistently applied for the eight fires we
reviewed
Federal and nonfederal entities used varied cost-sharing methods
for the eight fires we reviewed, although the fires had similar
characteristics. As shown in figure 1,* the cost-sharing methods used
sometimes varied within a state or from state to state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure 1 has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs for the two fires that we reviewed in Utah were shared
using two different methods, although both fires had similar
characteristics.
<bullet> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> For the Pine Fire, using cost apportionment, federal
entities paid $5.2 million, and nonfederal entities paid $8.1
million. Had an acres-burned method been used, federal entities
would have paid about $2 million less, and nonfederal entities
would have paid that much more. According to a federal official
who worked on apportioning costs for that fire, the higher
costs that the federal entities paid under cost apportionment
were largely due to extensive firefighting efforts on federal
land to ensure that the fire was extinguished.
In Colorado and Utah, the differences in federal and state
entities' shares between the methods used and the acres-burned method
were less pronounced, likely because the cost-sharing methods used
still relied heavily on acres burned. In each case, federal entities'
shares would have been more and nonfederal shares less had an acres-
burned method been used, due to the efforts to protect the wildland-
urban interface. For example, the federal share of costs for the Blue
Springs Fire in Utah would have been about $400,000 more and the
nonfederal share that much less if an acres-burned method had been used
for the whole fire. In Colorado, we estimated that the federal share of
costs for the Mason Gulch Fire would have been about $200,000 more and
the nonfederal share that much less under an acres-burned method.
CURRENT COST-SHARING FRAMEWORK RAISES SEVERAL CONCERNS
Federal and nonfederal agency officials we interviewed raised a
number of concerns about the current cost-sharing framework. First,
some federal officials said that because master agreements and other
policies do not provide clear guidance about which cost-sharing methods
to use, it has sometimes been difficult to obtain a cost-sharing
agreement that they believe shares suppression costs equitably. Second,
nonfederal officials were concerned that the emergence of alternative
cost sharing methods has caused nonfederal entities to bear a greater
share of fire suppression costs than in the past. Finally, some federal
officials expressed concern that the current framework for sharing
costs insulates state and local governments from the cost of protecting
the wildland-urban interface, thereby reducing their incentive to take
steps that could help mitigate fire risks and reduce suppression costs
in the wildland-urban interface. We believe these concerns may reflect
a more fundamental issue--that is, that federal and nonfederal entities
have not clearly defined their financial responsibilities for wildland
fire suppression, particularly for the wildland-urban interface.
Lack of clear guidance can lead to difficulties in sharing costs
Some federal officials said that the lack of clear guidance can
make it difficult to agree to use a cost-sharing method that they
believe equitably distributes suppression costs between federal and
nonfederal entities, particularly for fires that threaten the wildland-
urban interface. As discussed, different cost-sharing methods were used
for the two fires we reviewed in Utah, even though both fires required
substantial suppression efforts to protect the wildland-urban
interface. A federal official said that because of the state officials'
unwillingness to use a method other than acres burned on one of the
fires and because of the lack of clear guidance about which cost-
sharing method should be used, he agreed to use an acres-burned method
and did not seek a cost-sharing agreement that would have assigned more
of the costs to the nonfederal entities. Some federal officials in
Arizona expressed similar views, saying that the lack of clear guidance
on sharing costs can make it difficult to reach agreement with
nonfederal officials. For example, federal and state officials in
Arizona did not agree on whether to share costs for one fire we
reviewed in that state.
Officials from the Forest Service's and the Department of the
Interior's national offices agreed that interagency policies for cost
sharing could be clarified to indicate under what circumstances
particular cost-sharing methods are most appropriate. They said that
the acres-burned method, for example, is likely not the most equitable
method to share costs in cases where fires threaten the wildland-urban
interface. Officials noted that the National Fire and Aviation
Executive Board--made up of the fire directors from the five federal
land management agencies and a representative from the National
Association of State Foresters--was developing a template for both
master and cost-sharing agreements. As of May 2006, this template had
not been finalized, but our review of a draft version indicated that
the template might not provide additional clarity about when each cost-
sharing method should be used.
Nonfederal officials were concerned about increased costs and equity
among States
While federal officials expressed the need for further guidance on
how to share costs, nonfederal officials were concerned that the
emergence of alternative cost-sharing methods was leading state and
local entities to bear a greater share of suppression costs than in the
past, and they questioned whether such an increase was appropriate.
Nonfederal officials also said that wildland fire suppression costs
already posed budgetary challenges for state and local entities and
that using alternative cost-sharing methods more often could exacerbate
the situation. State officials said that if a state's suppression costs
in a given year exceed the funds budgeted, they must seek additional
state funds, which can be difficult. Moreover, they said, in many
states, protecting structures is primarily a local responsibility, and
many local entities are unable to pay the costs of fighting a large
fire that threatens the wildland-urban interface.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to their concerns about increased costs, nonfederal as
well as federal officials were concerned that the federal government
was treating nonfederal entities in different states differently,
thereby creating inequities. Federal and nonfederal officials said that
because some states use particular cost-sharing methods more often than
other states, the proportion of costs borne by federal and nonfederal
entities likely varies from state to state, resulting in nonfederal
entities' paying a higher proportion of costs in some states and a
lower proportion in other states. Clarifying which cost-sharing methods
should be used in particular situations could increase nonfederal
officials' assurance that the federal government is treating them
equitably relative to other states.
Cost-sharing framework may reduce incentives to mitigate fire risks in
the wildland-urban interface
Federal officials said that the current cost-sharing framework
insulates state and local governments from the cost of protecting the
wildland-urban interface. As. we have previously reported, a variety of
protective measures are available to help protect structures from
wildland fire including (1) reducing vegetation and flammable objects
within an area of 30 to 100 feet around a structure and (2) using fire-
resistant roofing materials and covering attic vents with mesh
screens.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GAO, Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving
Communications during Wildland Fires, GAO-05-330 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 26, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal officials expressed concern--and some nonfederal officials
acknowledged--that the use of cost-sharing methods that assign more
costs to federal entities, and the availability of federal emergency
assistance, insulate state and local governments from the cost of
providing wildland fire protection. These federal officials pointed out
that wildland fires threatening structures often require added
suppression efforts. Under some cost-sharing methods, such as acres
burned, federal entities often end up paying a large proportion of the
costs for these efforts. Some federal and nonfederal officials also
noted that the availability of FEMA assistance to nonfederal entities--
which can amount to 75 percent of allowable fire suppression costs for
eligible fires--further insulates state and local governments from the
cost of protecting the wildland-urban interface. Of the eight fires
included in our review, nonfederal officials were seeking reimbursement
for the allowable costs of the five fires that FEMA determined met
eligibility requirements. Federal officials suggested that to the
extent that state and local governments are insulated from the cost of
protecting the wildland-urban interface, these governments may have a
reduced incentive to adopt laws requiring homeowners and homebuilders
to use protective measures that could help mitigate fire risks. Some
officials said that by requiring homeowners and homebuilders to take
such measures, more of the cost of protecting the wildland-urban
interface would then be borne by those who chose to live there.
Officials' concerns may reflect ambiguity over financial
responsibilities
On the basis of our review of previous federal reports and
interviews with federal and nonfederal officials, we believe that the
concerns we identified may reflect a more fundamental issue--that
federal and nonfederal firefighting entities have not clearly defined
their fundamental financial responsibilities for wildland fire
suppression, particularly those for protecting the wildland-urban
interface. Federal officials said that the continuing expansion of the
wildland urban interface and rising fire suppression-costs for
protecting these areas have increased the importance of resolving these
issues. Federal wildland fire management policy states that protecting
structures is the responsibility of state, tribal, and local entities;
but the policy also says that, under a formal fire protection agreement
specifying the financial responsibilities of each entity, federal
agencies can assist nonfederal entities in protecting the exterior of
structures threatened by wildland fire. Federal and nonfederal
officials agreed that federal agencies can assist with such actions,
but they did not agree on which entities are responsible for bearing
the costs of these actions. Federal officials told us that the purpose
of this policy is to allow federal agencies to use their personnel and
equipment to help protect homes but not to bear the financial
responsibility of providing that protection. Nonfederal officials,
however, said that these actions are intended to keep a wildland fire
from reaching structures, and financial responsibility should therefore
be shared between both federal and nonfederal entities.
Further, the presence of structures adjacent to federal lands can
substantially alter fire suppression strategies and raise costs. A
previous federal report and federal officials have questioned which
entities are financially responsible for suppression actions taken on
federal lands but intended primarily or exclusively to protect adjacent
wildland-urban interface. Fire managers typically use existing roads
and geographic features, such as rivers and ridgelines, as firebreaks
to help contain wildland fires. If, however, homes and other structures
are located between a fire and such natural firebreaks, firefighters
may have to construct other firebreaks and rely more than they
otherwise would on aircraft to drop fire retardant to protect the
structures, thereby increasing suppression costs. Nonfederal officials
in several states, however, questioned the appropriateness of assigning
to nonfederal entities the costs for suppression actions taken on
federal lands. These officials, as well as officials from the National
Association of State Foresters, said that accumulated fuels on federal
lands is resulting in more severe wildland fires and contributing to
the increased cost of fire suppression. They also said that federal
agencies are responsible for keeping wildland fires from burning off
federal land and should, therefore, bear the costs of doing so. Federal
officials in the states we visited recognized this responsibility, but
some also said that with the growing awareness that wildland fires are
inevitable in many parts of the country, policy should recognize that
wildland fires will occur and are likely to burn across jurisdictional
boundaries. In their view, those who own property in areas at risk of
wildland fires share a portion of the financial responsibility for
protecting it. Previous federal agency reports also have recognized
this issue and have called for clarifying financial responsibility for
such actions.
CONCLUSIONS
Wildland fires are inevitable and will continue to affect both
federal and nonfederal lands and resources. Federal, state, and local
firefighting entities have taken great strides to develop a cooperative
fire protection system so that these entities can effectively work
together to respond to these fires. Efforts are now needed to address
how to best share the costs of these cooperative fire protection
efforts when the fires burn or threaten multiple jurisdictions,
particularly when suppression efforts may focus more heavily on one
entity's lands and resources. The need for clear guidance on when to
use a particular cost-sharing method is becoming more acute as the
wildland-urban interface continues to grow and wildland fire
suppression costs continue to increase. Before such guidance can be
developed, however, federal and nonfederal entities must agree on which
entity is responsible for the costs of protecting areas where federal
and nonfederal lands and resources are adjacent or intermingled,
particularly in the wildland-urban interface. Without explicit
delineation of financial responsibilities, federal and nonfederal
entities' concerns about how these costs are shared are likely to
continue.
Thus, to strengthen the framework for sharing wildland fire
suppression costs, we recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior, working in conjunction with relevant state entities,
provide more specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing
methods should be used and clarify the financial responsibilities for
suppressing fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple
jurisdictions.
In responding to our report, the Forest Service and the Department
of the Interior generally agreed with the findings and recommendations.
The National Association of State Foresters did not agree, stating that
developing national guidance would not provide the flexibility needed
to address the variability in local circumstances and state laws.
Although we agree that a certain amount of flexibility is needed,
without more explicit guidance to assist local federal and nonfederal
officials responsible for developing cost-sharing agreements for
individual fires, the inconsistencies in how suppression costs are
shared within and among states are likely to continue, along with
concerns about perceived inequities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have at this time.
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.
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 wildland-urban 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.
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.'' *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The article has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
cost-sharing.
The GAO report identifies the inconsistent application of
cost-sharing, 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 cost-
sharing 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 guidance 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 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.
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
cost-sharing. 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
cost-share 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 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 short-term inequities between
parties would eventually balance out over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The report has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 cost-share
agreements. As the GAO report notes, this draft template identifies the
requirement 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-
by-state 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 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.
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 implications 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 wildland-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, 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:]
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. 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 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.
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 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 develop 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.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The report has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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?
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.
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 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.]
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.
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 cost-sharing 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 non-federal entity's ability to pay should be a
consideration in formulating a cost-sharing agreement?
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?
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?