Between 1999 and 2003, the  Congress reimbursed the agencies for about 80 percent of the funds that  were transferred on average. From 1999 through 2003, Agencies Transferred over $2.7 Billion from Numerous Programs

For each of the last 5 years, wildfire suppression costs have been  substantially greater than the amount of funds appropriated for  suppression, necessitating the Forest Service and Interior to transfer over  $2.7 billion from other agency programs to help fund wildfire suppression  activities. As  illustrated in figure 1, suppression costs have exceeded suppression  appropriations almost every year since 1990. Interior transferred funds  mostly from its construction and land acquisition programs, with about  two-thirds of the funds coming from construction. Transfers Caused Project Cancellations and Delays, Strained Relationships with Agency Partners, and Created Difficulties in Program Management

The Forest Service and Interior canceled or delayed numerous projects,  failed to fulfill certain commitments to partners, and faced difficulties in  managing their programs when funds were transferred for fire suppression. Further, agency relationships with state agencies, nonprofit  organizations, and communities became strained when the agencies could  not fulfill commitments, such as awarding grants on time. The $100 million was intended to last for 5 years. Agencies’ Management Efforts Were Disrupted

When funds were transferred for fire suppression, the agencies’ efforts to  manage their programs—including budgeting and planning for annual and  long-term programs of work—were disrupted. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help minimize the impacts of wildfire funding transfers on other agency  programs and to improve the agencies’ budget estimates for wildfire  suppression costs, we are recommending that the Secretaries of  Agriculture and the Interior direct the Forest Service and Interior agencies  to work together to   improve their methods for estimating annual wildfire suppression costs  by more effectively accounting for annual changes in costs and the  uncertainties associated with wildfires in making these estimates, so  that funding needs for wildfire suppression can be predicted with  greater accuracy;  annually conduct a formal assessment of how the agencies’ methods for  estimating annual suppression costs and their monthly forecasting  models performed in estimating wildfire suppression costs relative to  actual costs, to determine if additional improvements are needed; and  consistently track accomplishment shortfalls caused by funding  transfers across all programs and include this information in annual  accomplishment reports to provide agency decision makers and the  Congress with better information for making wildfire suppression  transfer and funding decisions. Matters for Congressional Consideration

To reduce the potential need for the Forest Service and Interior to rely on  transferring funds from other programs to pay for wildfire suppression on  public lands, the Congress could consider alternative funding approaches  for wildfire suppression, such as, but not limited to, establishing a  governmentwide or agency-specific emergency reserve account. Scope and Methodology

To determine the amount and the programs from which the U.S. Forest  Service and the Department of the Interior transferred funds from 1999  through 2003, we collected data from the agencies’ headquarters on funds  transferred and reimbursed by agency, program, and year.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2003, wildfires burned roughly 4 million acres, destroyed over 5,000 structures, took the lives of 30 firefighters, and cost over $1 billion to suppress. The substantial expense of fighting wildfires has exceeded the funds appropriated for wildfire suppression nearly every year since 1990. To pay for wildfire suppression costs when the funds appropriated are insufficient, the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have transferred funds from their other programs. GAO was asked to identify (1) the amount of funds transferred and reimbursed for wildfire suppression since 1999, and the programs from which agencies transferred funds; (2) the effects on agency programs from which funds were taken; and (3) alternative approaches that could be considered for estimating annual suppression costs and funding wildfire suppression.

What GAO Found

The Forest Service and Interior transferred over $2.7 billion from other agency programs to help fund wildfire suppression over the last 5 years. On average, the Congress reimbursed agencies about 80 percent of the amounts transferred. Interior primarily used funds from its construction and land acquisition accounts. In recent years, the Forest Service used funds from many different programs; while before 2001, it transferred funds from a single reforestation program/timber sale area restoration trust fund. Transferring funds for wildfire suppression resulted in canceled and delayed projects, strained relationships with state and local agency partners, and difficulties in managing programs. These impacts affected numerous activities, including fuels reduction and land acquisition. Although transfers were intended to aid fire suppression, some projects that could improve agency capabilities to fight fires, such as purchasing additional equipment, were canceled or delayed. Further, agencies' relationships with states, nonprofit groups, and communities were negatively impacted because agency officials could not fulfill commitments, such as awarding grants. Transfers also disrupted the agencies' ability to manage programs, including annual and long-term budgeting and planning. Although the agencies took some steps to mitigate the impacts of transfers, the effects were widespread and will likely increase if transfers continue. To better manage the wildfire suppression funding shortfall, the agencies should improve their methods for estimating suppression costs by factoring in recent changes in the costs and uncertainties of fighting wildfires. Also, the Congress could consider alternative funding approaches, such as establishing a governmentwide or agency-specific reserve account.