Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and
Legislation in the 114th Congress
Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Bruce R. Lindsay
Analyst in American National Government
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
July 7, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44082
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Summary
The federal government is responsible for managing wildfires that begin on federal lands—such
as national forests or national parks—while the states are responsible for managing wildfires that
originate on all other lands. The federal government’s wildfire management responsibilities—
provided primarily through the Forest Service (FS) and Department of the Interior (DOI)—
include prevention, detection, response, and recovery. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) may also provide disaster relief for certain nonfederal wildfires.
Congress appropriates wildfire management funding to both FS and DOI. Within their overall
appropriations for wildfire, suppression operations are appropriated through two accounts for
each agency: the Wildland Fire Management (WFM) accounts and the Federal Land Assistance,
Management, and Enhancement Act (FLAME) reserve accounts. If the suppression funding in
both of these accounts is exhausted during any given fiscal year, FS and DOI are authorized to
transfer funds from their other accounts to pay for suppression activities. Congress also may
provide additional funds for suppression activities through emergency or supplemental
appropriations. Thus, for any given year, total suppression appropriations to FS or DOI may be a
combination of three sources: the WFM suppression activity, the FLAME account, and
supplemental appropriations, and the agencies also may access additional funding as needed
through transfers.
Congress is debating the level and direction of federal spending on wildland fire management.
Wildfire spending has more than doubled since the 1990s, going from $1.6 billion in FY1994 to
$3.9 billion in FY2014. A significant portion of that increase is related to rising suppression costs,
even during years of relatively mild wildfire activity, although the costs vary annually and are
difficult to predict in advance. Since FY2005, FS and DOI have required more suppression funds
than had been appropriated to them seven times, leading the agencies to transfer funds from other
accounts and prompting concerns that the increasing suppression spending may be coming at the
expense of other agency programs. In response to each of these seven instances, Congress enacted
supplemental appropriations to repay the transferred funds or to replenish the agency’s
suppression accounts. Further, wildfire spending—as well as all discretionary spending—is
currently subject to certain procedural and budgetary controls. In the past, Congress has
effectively waived some of these controls for certain wildfire spending, but it has not done so in
more recent years. This has prompted some to explore providing certain wildfire spending
effectively outside of those constraints.
To date, four bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress to address wildfire spending issues:
H.R. 167, S. 235, S. 508, and H.R. 2647. All four bills, directly or indirectly, might allow for
some wildfire suppression funds—subject to certain criteria—to be provided outside the statutory
limits on discretionary spending, either through the annual appropriations process or through
supplemental appropriations. Under these proposals, varying levels of wildfire funding would not
need to compete with other programs and activities that are subject to the statutory limits.
However, the amounts that could be provided for wildfire suppression operations under these
proposals—both within and outside of the spending limits—would be subject to future
appropriations decisions that could be made by Congress each fiscal year. These proposals also
could affect certain funding mechanisms that have been used to provide additional spending for
major disasters (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes).
Congressional Research Service
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Contents
Wildfire Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
Wildfire Statistics ...................................................................................................................... 2
Wildland-Urban Interface .................................................................................................... 3
Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Wildfires ............................................................................. 5
Disaster Declarations........................................................................................................... 5
Fire Management Assistance Grants ................................................................................... 6
Disaster Relief Fund ............................................................................................................ 8
Wildfire Management Appropriations ............................................................................................. 9
Suppression Appropriations ..................................................................................................... 10
FLAME ............................................................................................................................. 14
Transfer Authority to Supplement Suppression Funds ...................................................... 16
Supplemental Suppression Appropriations ....................................................................... 18
Forecasting Suppression Spending ................................................................................................ 19
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 22
Appropriation Levels and Forecasts ........................................................................................ 22
Funding Source ........................................................................................................................ 23
Budgetary Constraints ............................................................................................................. 24
Discretionary Spending Limits Background ..................................................................... 24
Legislative Proposals in the 114th Congress .................................................................................. 26
S. 235 and H.R. 167 (The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act) ...................................................... 27
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 27
Potential Implications ........................................................................................................ 28
Legislative Action ............................................................................................................. 29
S. 508 (The FLAME Act Amendments of 2015) ..................................................................... 30
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 30
Potential Implications ........................................................................................................ 31
Legislative Action ............................................................................................................. 33
H.R. 2647 (The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015) .......................................................... 33
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 34
Potential Implications ........................................................................................................ 35
Legislative Action ............................................................................................................. 36
Figures
Figure 1. Annual Trends in Wildfires and Acres Burned, 1994-2014 .............................................. 2
Figure 2. Fire Management Assistance Grants ................................................................................ 7
Figure 3. Fire Management Assistance Grants by State .................................................................. 8
Figure 4. FS and DOI Total Wildfire Management Appropriations, FY1994-FY2014 ................. 10
Figure 5. FS Suppression Appropriations, FY2005-FY2014 ......................................................... 12
Figure 6. DOI Suppression Appropriations, FY2005-FY2014 ...................................................... 13
Figure 7. Distribution of FS Appropriations .................................................................................. 13
Figure 8. FS Suppression Request, Appropriations, Obligations, and FLAME Forecasts ............ 21
Congressional Research Service
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Figure 9. DOI Suppression Request, Appropriations, Obligations, and FLAME Forecasts .......... 21
Tables
Table 1. 2014 Wildfires and Acres Burned by Eastern and Western States ..................................... 3
Table 2. FS and DOI Appropriations, FY2010-FY2015 ................................................................ 11
Table 3. FS Wildfire Suppression Spending, FY2004-FY2015 ..................................................... 15
Table 4. DOI Wildfire Suppression Spending, FY2004-FY2015 .................................................. 16
Table 5. Comparison of Selected Attributes of H.R. 167, S. 235, and S. 508 ................................ 33
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
ederal funding for wildfire management—particularly for suppression operations on federal
lands—raises several interrelated policy questions for Congress to consider. These
F questions include how much funding Congress should provide for suppression purposes—
an activity whose costs are generally rising but vary annually and are difficult to predict. The
federal agencies tasked with suppression activities may deplete their suppression resources
rapidly, so Congress also may consider if, and how, to provide these agencies with quick access to
additional funds to enable continued federal services in response to wildfires. In addition,
Congress may address questions related to the source of the suppression funds, such as if rising
suppression costs should be offset by cuts to other agency programs or if those costs should be
considered outside of certain budgetary and procedural constraints. Further, Congress may
consider options to enact various budgetary controls on suppression spending or other methods to
constrain rising federal costs.
This report first provides background information and analysis of funding for federal wildfire
suppression operations. The report concludes by summarizing relevant legislative proposals
introduced in the 114th Congress and discussing their possible implications.
Wildfire Background
The term wildfire is defined as an unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including lightning-caused
fires, unauthorized human-caused fires, and escaped prescribed fire projects.1 States are
responsible for responding to wildfires that begin on nonfederal (state, local, and private) lands,
except for lands protected by the federal agencies under cooperative agreements. The federal
government is responsible for responding to wildfires that begin on federal lands. The Forest
Service (FS)—within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—carries out wildfire
management and response across the 193 million acres of the national forest system. The
Department of the Interior (DOI) manages the wildfire response for more than 400 million acres
of national parks, wildlife refuges and preserves, Indian reservations, and other public lands.2
The term wildfire suppression covers all of the work associated with extinguishing or confining a
wildfire. Federal policy is generally to suppress wildfires unless a fire management plan identifies
locations and conditions when monitoring or less suppression efforts are appropriate.3 The
primary federal responsibility for wildfire suppression is to protect lives, property, and resources
on federal lands. The federal government has other wildland fire management responsibilities that
include programs to prevent the future risk of catastrophic fires, such as by reducing the
accumulation of hazardous fuels. The federal government also provides technical and financial
assistance to states, local governments, and communities to protect nonfederal (both government
and private) lands from wildfire damages. The federal government—primarily through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—also may provide disaster relief to state and
1 National Wildfire Coordinating Group, “Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology,” October 2014, at
http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/w.htm. For a more comprehensive discussion on wildland fire management,
see CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Kelsi Bracmort.
2 Other federal agencies—such as the Department of Defense—are responsible for wildfire response on their lands.
This report focuses on Forest Service (FS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) wildfire management responsibilities.
3 National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), Fire Executive Council, Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland
Fire Policy, February 13, 2009, p. 10, at http://www.nifc.gov/policies/policies_main.html.
Congressional Research Service
1
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
local governments. In addition, FEMA may provide assistance to individuals and households if a
major disaster declaration is issued as a result of the wildfire.4
Wildfire Statistics
Since 2000, an average of 74,000 wildfires burned an average 6.6 million acres every year (see
Figure 1).5 Over the past 10 years from 2005 to 2014, nearly 6.9 million acres burned annually
on average. This figure is almost double the average annual acreage burned in the 1990s (3.6
million acres), although there were a greater number of fires annually (83,000 wildfires on
average). The last two years have been below that average, with 3.6 million acres burned in 2014
and 4.3 million acres burned in 2013. These figures also were much smaller than the acreage
burned in 2011 (8.7 million acres) and 2012 (9.3 million acres). Although fewer acres burned in
2014, there were more fires (63,606 wildfires) than in 2013 (47,579 wildfires). One percent of the
fires in 2014 was classified as large or significant (666 wildfires), and 9 wildfires exceeded
40,000 acres in size.6
Figure 1. Annual Trends in Wildfires and Acres Burned, 1994-2014
s
120,000
12
ns
Fire
illio
m
100,000
10
d,
ne
s bur
80,000
8
cre
A
60,000
6
40,000
4
20,000
2
0
0
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Acres burned
Fires
Source: CRS based on data from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC).
Notes: Data reflect wildland fires and acres burned nationwide, including wildland fires on federal and
nonfederal lands.
4 For more information, see “Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Wildfires“ in this report, and CRS Report R43738, Fire
Management Assistance Grants: Frequently Asked Questions, coordinated by Bruce R. Lindsay.
5 NIFC, “Wildland Fire Statistics,” at http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html.
6 NIFC National Interagency Coordination Center, Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics, 2014, at
http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2014_Statssumm/2014Stats&Summ.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
In 2014, 60% of the nationwide acreage burned by wildfires was on federal lands (2.1 million
acres; see Table 1). The other 40% of the acreage burned occurred on state, local, or privately
owned lands but also accounted for most of the fires (50,570 wildfires). This suggests that the
fires that occur on federal land are larger in size, although fewer in number, compared with other
landowners. This is particularly true in the West,7 where less than half of the fires burned 71% of
the acreage on federal lands compared to nonfederal lands. In the East, however, where there is
less federal acreage, most of the fires and acreage burned occurred on nonfederal lands. Of the
federal acreage burned nationwide in 2014, 40% burned on each of the FS and DOI’s Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) lands.
Table 1. 2014 Wildfires and Acres Burned by Eastern and Western States
Land Ownership
Fires
Acres Burned
Western States
20,712
2,736,684
Federal
9,718
1,955,657
Forest Service
5,732
824,986
DOI
3,856
1,101,550
Other Federal
130
29,121
Nonfederal 10,994
781,027
Eastern States
42,894
858,928
Federal
3,318
197,359
Forest Service
1,020
46,889
DOI
2,202
139,797
Other Federal
96
10,673
Nonfederal 39,576
661,569
TOTAL 63,606
3,595,612
Source: CRS. Data compiled from NIFC, State and Agency Fires and Acres reports, at http://www.nifc.gov/
fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html.
Notes: Western states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Eastern states are all other states and include Puerto Rico.
Wildland-Urban Interface
Wildfires have been burning more land and threatening more structures in recent years. Nearly
2,000 structures were destroyed by wildfires in 2014. The area where structures (usually homes)
are intermingled with—or adjacent to—vegetated wildlands (forests or rangelands) is called the
wildland-urban interface (WUI).8 More than one-third of all housing developments in the United
States are located within the WUI.9 In the West, nearly 900,000 homes are estimated to be at very
7 The West includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
8 V. C. Radeloff et al., “The Wildland-Urban Interface in the United States,” Ecological Applications, vol. 15, no. 3
(2005), pp. 799-805. For more information on the WUI, see CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-
Urban Interface, by Katie Hoover and Kelsi Bracmort.
9 Forest Service, Wildfire, Wildlands, and People: Understanding and Preparing for Wildfire in the Wildland-Urban
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
high or high risk of wildfire damage in 2015.10 While attention has focused on protecting life,
property, and communities in the WUI, opinions vary over if and how much the federal
government should pay to protect those resources.
U.S. federal wildland fire policy directs that the response to wildfire is to prioritize first the
ecological, social, and legal consequences of the fire and then the economic costs of protection.11
The policy further states that the cost of federal response to wildfire should be commensurate
with the values to be protected (human, natural, historical, or cultural), but economic efficiency is
not necessarily required. Response priorities include managing costs but without compromising
safety.12 While some believe this policy allows the federal land management agencies flexibility
to provide a high-quality emergency response, others believe this is akin to a “blank check”
policy and has removed any incentive for the agencies to control suppression costs.13
Federal wildfire suppression spending is influenced by several factors, including the size and
intensity of the fire and the proximity of the fire to valuable resources (human, natural, historical,
or cultural).14 These resources require protection, which often increases firefighter risks as well as
suppression costs as more personnel or assets are deployed to provide protection.15 Federal
suppression costs—daily, overall, and on a per-acre basis—become higher as the number and
value of homes near a fire increase.16
When wildfire expenditures began to increase in the 2000s, many were concerned that the federal
government was bearing too much of the cost of wildfires and that state, local, and private
landowners lacked incentive to mitigate future fire risk to offset suppression costs.17 The agencies
have since modified their cost-share agreements with many of the states to provide more
(...continued)
Interface, GTR-299, January 2013.
10 CoreLogic, Inc, Wildfire Hazard Risk Report, 2015.
11 NIFC, Guidance, p. 11.
12 NIFC, National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group, NMAC National Strategy, 2013, at http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/
administrative/nmac/index.html.
13 See for example, National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for
Containing Costs, September 2002; Dean Lueck, “Economics and the Organization of Wildfire Suppression,” in
Wildfire Policy: Law and Economics Perspectives, ed. Karen M. Bradshaw and Dean Lueck (New York: RFF Press,
2012); Randal O’Toole, Reforming the Fire Service: An Analysis of Federal Fire Budgets and Incentives, Thoreau
Institute, July 2002; and Timothy Ingalsbee, Getting Burned: A Taxpayer’s Guide to Wildfire Suppression Costs,
Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, & Ecology, August 2010.
14 J. Liang et al., “Factors influencing Large Wildland Fire Suppression Expenditures,” International Journal of
Wildland Fire, vol. 17 (2008), pp. 650-659.
15 USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG), Audit Report: Forest Service Large Fire Suppression Costs, Report No.
08601-44-SF, 2006.
16 P. H. Gude et al., “Evidence for the Effect of Homes on Wildfire Suppression Costs,” International Journal of
Wildland Fire, vol. 22, no. 4 (2013), pp. 537-548; K. M. Gebert, D.E. Calkin, and J. Yoder, “Estimating Suppression
Expenditures for Individual Large Wildland Fires,” Western Journal of Applied Forestry, vol. 22, no. 3 (2007), pp.
188-196.
17 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises
Concerns about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities, GAO-06-570, May 2006; USDA OIG, Audit
Report; NAPA, Wildfire Suppression; O’Toole, Reforming the Fire Service; Ingalsbee, Getting Burned; and
Headwaters Economics, Solutions to the Rising Costs of Firefighting in the Wildland-Urban Interface, September
2009.
Congressional Research Service
4
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
consistent arrangements, although these still may vary by state and by fire.18 The agencies,
particularly FS, also have initiated several technical and financial assistance programs to increase
WUI community preparedness and homeowner protections. The 2006 USDA Office of Inspector
General (OIG) report asked Congress to clarify the federal government’s role in protecting WUI
developments. However, the debate in more recent years seemingly has focused less on
decreasing federal liability for rising suppression costs.
Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Wildfires
The federal government provides assistance for wildfires that begin on nonfederal lands. This
assistance may come in several forms, including technical and financial assistance programs to
mitigate the risk of future wildfire and direct response services under cooperative agreements.
These cooperative fire protection agreements authorize federal and state partners to share
resources—such as aviation equipment and personnel—depending on ongoing need during a
wildfire season, allowing for a coordinated interagency response that deploys resources to areas
of greatest critical need. The cost of these resources is then reimbursed as specified in the master
agreement, which often lists several different methods to apportion costs, each with different
financial impacts. This may include assigning the cost based on the proportion of acres burned
within each agency’s jurisdiction or on resources deployed, among others.19 The National
Interagency Coordination Center, located at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC),
coordinates and allocates resources at a national level, and Geographic Area Coordination Centers
coordinate and allocate resources at nine regional levels.20
Cooperative fire protection and financial and technical assistance programs are provided by the
federal land management agencies—such as FS and DOI—but FEMA also may provide
assistance to states, communities, and individuals during or after a wildfire.
Disaster Declarations
The term fire is included as an eligible event under the “Definitions” section of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act).21 A query of FEMA’s
declarations database for “wildfire” yields 27 major disaster declarations over a 60-year period
(1953-2014).22 That is an especially small subset given that there have been more than 2,200
major disaster declarations during that same period. This is partly because most wildfires are on
federal lands, which make them ineligible for Stafford Act assistance. There are however, several
types of declarations that provide assistance under the Stafford Act when the fires threaten state
and private lands.
18 GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Contain
Costs, GAO-07-655, June 1, 2007.
19 GAO-06-570.
20 For more information, see the National Interagency Coordination Center website at http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/ and the
Geographic Area Coordination Centers website at http://gacc.nifc.gov/.
21 42 U.S.C. §5122(2). For more information on declarations, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster
Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Francis X. McCarthy; CRS Report R43784,
FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis X. McCarthy; and CRS Report R42702, Stafford Act
Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications for Congress, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Francis X.
McCarthy.
22 See http://www.fema.gov/disasters.
Congressional Research Service
5
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
In the event that a wildfire is on state lands and there is a threat of several types of damage (e.g.,
to state and county infrastructure as well as private homes), a major disaster may be declared by
the President if the governor of the affected state requests such assistance. Similarly, a governor
could request an emergency declaration to address the threat before it warrants a major disaster
declaration.23 However, the most frequently employed authority for fighting wildfires under the
Stafford Act is Section 420, which is specifically for “Fire Management Assistance.”24 This
authority results more frequently in the grants that are discussed below.
Fire Management Assistance Grants
Section 420 of the Stafford Act authorizes the President to “declare” a Fire Management
Assistance Grant (FMAG), which authorizes financial assistance to the requesting state.25 A state
must request an FMAG when the governor determines that a fire is burning out of control and
threatens to become a major disaster. Typically, governors submit requests to the FEMA regional
administrators. Requests can be submitted any time—day or night—and can be submitted
verbally by telephone to expedite the process.
Once issued, the FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal assistance—such as
equipment, personnel, and grants to state, local, and tribal governments—for the control,
management, and mitigation of any fire on certain public or private forest land or grassland that
might become a major disaster. The grants may reimburse up to 75% of the allowable suppression
costs for eligible fires. It should be noted that FMAG declarations, unlike some major disaster
declarations, do not authorize assistance to individuals and households.
As shown in Figure 2, the number of FMAG declarations has increased in recent years, reaching
a high of 114 in 2011. This surpassed the previous high of 86 FMAGs in 2006. As mentioned
previously, FMAGS are designed to prevent fires from becoming major disasters. It could be
argued that even though the cost for FMAG declarations may have increased, FMAGs may
actually save federal dollars by reducing the need for a major disaster declaration, thus reducing
overall spending on Stafford Act programs.
The first FMAG was declared in 1970, and they were rarely issued until the 1990s (see Figure 2).
The average number of FMAGs declared in the 1970s and the 1980s was about three per year.
During the 1990s, there were about 21 FMAG declarations per year (Figure 3). This upward
trend continued into the 2000s, with an average of 53 FMAG declarations issued each year. Texas
has received the most FMAGs (235 declarations), followed by California (148), Oklahoma (86),
Washington (73), and Colorado (59) (see Figure 3).26
Congress has made efforts to expand the assistance authorized by FMAGs to include mitigation.
For example, a provision in the FY2015 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland
Security (P.L. 114-4) allows FMAG funding to be used to mitigate the effects of future wildfire
risk. The funding is calculated under Section 404, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
23 42 U.S.C. §5191.
24 42 U.S.C. §5187.
25 For more information, see CRS Report R43738, Fire Management Assistance Grants: Frequently Asked Questions,
coordinated by Bruce R. Lindsay.
26 FEMA was unable to provide data on Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) request denials.
Congressional Research Service
6
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
of the Stafford Act.27 The measure could allow the states receiving FMAGs in FY2015 to take
mitigation efforts prior to the next fire threat (in addition to helping states control ongoing fires).
The provision was included in the general provisions for P.L. 114-4, and therefore mitigation
funding is available for FMAGs through the end of FY2015.28 The HMGP program is funded by
the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) under major disaster declarations.
Figure 2. Fire Management Assistance Grants
(1970-2014)
Source: CRS. Data provided by FEMA.
27 S. 2534, §573, pp. 106-107.
28 P.L. 114-4, §570. The provision in the appropriations bill was similar to legislation introduced during the 113th and
114th Congresses. These bills included H.R. 3333, the Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013 (S. 1396), which authorized
mitigation for FMAGs, and the PREPARE Act (S. 1428), which did the same.
Congressional Research Service
7
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Figure 3. Fire Management Assistance Grants by State
(1973-2014)
Source: CRS. Data provided by FEMA.
Disaster Relief Fund
Funds from the DRF, an account in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, are
used to pay for ongoing recovery projects from disasters occurring in previous fiscal years, meet
current emergency requirements, and serve as a reserve to pay for upcoming incidents. The DRF
is funded annually and is a “no-year” account, meaning that unused funds from the previous fiscal
year (if available) are carried over to the next fiscal year. In general, when the balance of the DRF
becomes low, Congress provides additional funding through both annual and supplemental
appropriations to replenish the account.29
In addition to major disasters, the DRF provides funding for emergency declarations and FMAGs
as well as some administrative costs. This portion of the DRF is described in the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) as the “base/non-major disasters.” The President’s request for
base/non-major disasters each fiscal year is based on a 10-year average for non-catastrophic
events, whereas the request for major disasters is based on FEMA’s spending plans for all past
declared major disasters.
29 See CRS Report R43537, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
Congressional Research Service
8
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Wildfire Management Appropriations
Federal funding for wildfire management is provided to both FS and DOI. Funding for DOI is
provided to the department, which then allocates the funding to the Office of Wildland Fire and
four agencies—the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.30
Both DOI and FS receive annual discretionary appropriations through the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies appropriations bills.31 Each agency has two accounts for wildfire: a
Wildland Fire Management (WFM) account and a Federal Land Assistance, Management, and
Enhancement Act (FLAME)32 account. Each agency’s WFM appropriation is distributed among
two subaccounts: fire operations and other fire operations. The fire operations subaccount
receives the bulk of the WFM appropriation and funds two programs: preparedness and
suppression. Appropriations for preparedness are used to support efforts that assist with fire
prevention and detection, equipment, training, and baseline personnel. Suppression appropriations
are primarily used for wildfire response. The other fire operations subaccount funds hazardous
fuels reduction and fire assistance programs, as well as other activities that are more focused on
decreasing the risk of future catastrophic wildfires.
Federal spending on wildfire management has more than doubled over the past two decades in
terms of 2014 dollars (see Figure 4), although the trend has fluctuated annually. From FY1994 to
FY1999, appropriations averaged $1.6 billion; since FY2000, appropriations have averaged $3.6
billion. In FY2008, total wildfire appropriations for FS and DOI were $4.9 billion in 2014 dollars
($4.5 billion in nominal dollars), the highest amount to date. Appropriations slowly declined in
FY2012 to $3.2 billion (2014 dollars; $2.6 billion in nominal dollars), before increasing again in
both FY2013 ($3.4 billion in 2014 dollars) and FY2014 ($3.9 billion). For FY2015, FS and DOI
have received $3.5 billion in wildfire appropriations to date, but it is possible that this figure
could increase before the end of the fiscal year if supplemental appropriations are enacted.
30 Wildfire appropriations to DOI used to go directly to BLM and were then allocated among the other bureaus, but
since 2009 appropriations have gone to the DOI department-level Office of Wildland Fire for allocation.
31 For background information on the wildland fire accounts for DOI and FS, see CRS Report R43077, Wildfire
Management: Federal Funding and Related Statistics, by Katie Hoover and Kelsi Bracmort.
32 P.L. 111-88, Division A, Title V (43 U.S.C. §1748a).
Congressional Research Service
9
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Figure 4. FS and DOI Total Wildfire Management Appropriations, FY1994-FY2014
Source: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
Notes: Total wildfire management appropriations include appropriations to the WFM account, the FLAME
reserve account, and any additional supplemental appropriations enacted for wildfire purposes to both FS and
DOI. Figures adjusted to 2014 dol ars using the annual GDP deflator price index reported by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Accounts Tables, Table
1.1.9.
The rising cost of wildfire management, combined with the annual spending fluctuations, makes
budgeting for future wildfire spending difficult. Much of the increases, fluctuations, and
unpredictability are driven by wildfire suppression costs. Analyzing wildfire cost trends is
challenging, because the agency’s account structures have changed; often the costs for one
wildfire season (using a calendar year) are covered over two fiscal years, and sometimes
appropriations are enacted in one fiscal year to cover costs incurred in previous fiscal years.
Suppression Appropriations
Suppression appropriations are used to control wildland fires on federal land, as well as wildland
fires on nonfederal lands under fire protection agreements. Suppression operations fund
firefighter salaries, aviation asset operations, incident support functions, and personnel and
resources for post-wildfire response programs.33
33 Appropriations to the Preparedness and Suppression programs are fungible, meaning the funds are interchangeable.
For example, maintenance and storage for aviation assets may be funded through the preparedness activity until
activated for wildfire response, at which point suppression funds will cover operation expenses.
Congressional Research Service
10
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Table 2. FS and DOI Appropriations, FY2010-FY2015
(millions of nominal dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012a FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Forest Service (FS)
Total
Suppression
Appropriations
$1,410.5 $1,285.9 $853.6 $1,188.8 $1,595.5 $1,011.1
WFM
Suppression
$997.5 $995.5 $538.2 $510.0 $680.5 $708.0
FLAME
$413.0 $290.4 $315.4 $299.0 $315.0 $303.1
Additional Appropriationsb
NA NA NA
$380.0
$600.0 NA
WFM Other Than Suppressionc
$1,181.2 $1,172.5 $1,436.6 $1,358.9 $1,481.8 $1,625.3
Total FS Wildfire Appropriationsd
$2,591.7 $2,548.5 $2,290.2 $2,547.7 $3,077.3 $2,636.4
FS
Appropriations
Other
Than
Wildfire $2,780.5 $2,626.6 $2,544.0 $2,377.0 $2,402.3 $2,420.0
Total
FS
Appropriations
$5,372.3 $5,085.0 $4,834.3 $4,924.7 $5,479.6 $5,056.2
%
Wildfire
Appropriations
48% 48% 47% 52% 56% 52%
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Total
Suppression
Appropriations
$444.8 $459.8 $362.3 $375.9 $413.9 $383.7
WFM
Suppression
$383.8 $399.0 $270.5 $261.2 $285.9 $291.7
FLAME
$61.0 $60.9 $91.9 $91.7 $92.0 $92.0
Additional
Appropriations
NA NA NA
$23.0
$36.0 NA
WFM
Other
Than
Suppression
$536.1 $519.1 $484.7 $426.3 $455.1 $513.1
Total
DOI
Wildfire
Appropriations
$980.9 $978.9 $847.0 $802.2 $869.0 $896.8
DOI Approps. Other Than Wildfire
$10,066.3
$9,648.6
$9,452.8
$9,890.1
$9,605.5 $10,194.1
Total
DOI
Appropriations
$11,047.2 $10,627.5 $10,299.8 $10,692.3 $10,474.5 $11,090.9
Source: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Data generally do not reflect any rescissions or budget adjustments
for scorekeeping purposes.
a. Prior to FY2012, certain expenditures related to aviation assets and personnel costs were funded through
the Suppression program; starting in FY2012, those costs were funded through the Preparedness program.
b. This includes any appropriations enacted for suppression purposes and titled as “supplemental,”
“additional,” or “emergency” in the tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations.
c. This includes al appropriations to the FS WFM account, excluding funds appropriated to the Suppression
program.
d. This includes all appropriations related to wildland fire management, including appropriations to the WFM
account, the FLAME account, and any additional appropriations enacted for wildland fire management
purposes.
Within the overall appropriations for wildfire, suppression operations are appropriated through
two accounts for both FS and DOI: the suppression activity within the respective WFM accounts
and the respective FLAME reserve accounts. These also are funded annually through the Interior
Appropriations Act. If these suppression resources are exhausted during any given fiscal year, FS
and DOI are authorized to transfer funds from their other accounts to pay for suppression
activities. Congress also may fund suppression activities—including repaying borrowed funds
Congressional Research Service
11
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
from the previous fiscal year—through emergency or supplemental appropriations. (These
processes and their impacts are discussed later in the report.) Thus, for any given year,
appropriations to FS or DOI for suppression activities may be a combination of three sources: the
WFM suppression account, the FLAME account, and supplemental appropriations (see Table 2);
but the agencies also have access to additional funds through the transfer authority. See Figure 5
and Figure 6 for a breakdown of FS and DOI suppression appropriations, respectively.
Over the past five years, total FS suppression appropriations have averaged $1.2 billion per fiscal
year, whereas total DOI suppression appropriations have averaged $399 million (see Table 2).
Over the past 10 years, suppression activities, on average, have accounted for half of the FS’s
overall wildfire appropriation and a quarter of the agency’s total appropriation (see Figure 7).
Within DOI, wildfire appropriations—including suppression—are smaller and account for a
significantly smaller portion of the overall DOI budget. Analyzing trends, however, is
complicated because of certain structural changes FS and DOI have made to their wildfire
accounts within the past five years. These changes include adding the FLAME account as well as
moving certain aviation and personnel costs between the Suppression and Preparedness programs.
Figure 5. FS Suppression Appropriations, FY2005-FY2014
(dollars in billions)
$Billions
$2.5
$2.0
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
WFM Suppression
FLAME
Supplemental
Source: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
Notes: The FLAME account was established in FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
12
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Figure 6. DOI Suppression Appropriations, FY2005-FY2014
(dollars in millions)
$Millions
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
WFM Suppression
FLAME
Supplemental
Source: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
Notes: The FLAME account was established in FY2010.
Figure 7. Distribution of FS Appropriations
(FY2005-FY2014)
Source: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
Notes: “Wildfire appropriations (other than Suppression)” includes al appropriations to the FS WFM account,
excluding funds appropriated to the Suppression program. “Wildfire Appropriations (Suppression)” includes
funds appropriated to the WFM Suppression program, the FLAME reserve account, and any emergency or
supplemental appropriations provided for suppression activities. “Al Other FS Appropriations” includes
appropriations to al FS accounts except the WFM account, FLAME reserve account, and any emergency or
supplemental appropriations provided for suppression activities.
Congressional Research Service
13
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
FLAME
Congress established a FLAME account—under the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and
Enhancement Act of 200934—for both FS and DOI in part to account for the growing cost of
wildfire suppression.35 The FLAME accounts provide a source of reserve funds used to cover the
costs of large or complex fires or when amounts provided in their WFM suppression accounts are
exhausted. Since the FLAME accounts were established in FY2010, the FS FLAME account has
received an annual average of $323 million; the DOI FLAME account has received an annual
average of $82 million (see Table 2). This represents about 30% of the combined (WFM and
FLAME) appropriation for suppression activities for FS and 20% for DOI.
Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior may transfer funds from their
respective FLAME accounts into the respective WFM accounts for suppression activities upon a
secretarial declaration.36 The declaration may be issued if the fire covers at least 300 acres or
threatens lives, property, or resources, among other criteria. Further, either Secretary may issue a
declaration if his or her respective WFM suppression account is within 30 days of depletion. Any
remaining FLAME funds may then be transferred into the WFM suppression account and used
for wildfire response, regardless of the size or complexity of the fire. DOI reports that in 2014, 42
wildland fires were eligible for FLAME funding and $50 million was transferred from the DOI
FLAME account.37 FS did not declare individual fires for FLAME funding in 2014 but declared
FLAME funds available for all fires due to the exhaustion of its WFM suppression funds.38
The FLAME Act also prohibited fire borrowing—transferring funds from other accounts to cover
suppression obligations—unless and until the FLAME account is exhausted. Although FS reports
that its FLAME account has been exhausted every year since FY2011—one year after the account
was established—FS has transferred funds from other accounts only twice: in FY2012 and
FY2013 (see Table 3).39 DOI’s FLAME account has been exhausted twice, in FY2012 and
FY2013, and DOI transferred funds from other accounts in both of those years (see Table 4).40
34 Title V of Division A of the FY2010 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, P.L. 111-88 (43 U.S.C. §§1748a et seq.).
35 H.Rept. 111-316.
36 16 U.S.C. §1748a(e).
37 DOI, FY2016 Wildland Fire Management Budget Justification.
38 Email from FS Legislative Affairs staff, May 2015.
39 In the years that fire transfers did not occur but the FS WFM suppression and FLAME accounts were exhausted, FS
used unobligated balances from previous fiscal years to cover additional suppression expenses as needed. Email from
FS Legislative Affairs staff, May 2015.
40 Email from DOI, May 2015.
Congressional Research Service
14
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Table 3. FS Wildfire Suppression Spending, FY2004-FY2015
(millions of nominal dollars)
Rolling 10-
Appropriationsb
Funds
Year
Transferred
Suppression
WFM
Supplemental
Annual
from Other
Fiscal
Obligation
Suppression
or Emergency
Suppression Accounts for
Year
Averagea
and FLAME
Suppression Total
O
bligationsc
Suppression
2004 $604.6
$597.1 $724.1
$1,321.2
$726.0 $0
2005 $685.4
$648.9 $395.5
$1,044.3
$690.0 $0
2006 $700.5
$690.2 $100.0
$790.2
$1,501.0
$200.0
2007 $746.2
$741.5 $370.0
$1,111.5
$1,374.0
$100.0
2008 $911.0
$845.6
$1,326.0
$2,171.6
$1,458.7
$273.8
2009 $993.9
$993.9 $700.0
$1,693.9
$1,018.3 $0
2010 $1,128.5
$1,410.5
$0
$1,410.5 $897.7
$0
2011 $886.0
$1,285.9
$0
$1,285.9
$1,414.4 $0
2012 $854.6
$853.6
$0
$853.6
$1,436.6
$440.0
2013 $931.0
$809.0 $379.9
$1,188.8
$1,356.5
$505.0
2014 $995.5
$995.5 $600.0
$1,595.5
$1,196.0 $0
2015 $1,011.6
$1,011.1
NA
$1,011.6 NA
NA
Source: Compiled by CRS. Unless otherwise specified below, data derived from detailed funding tables
prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations, annual agency budget documents, and data from the FS
legislative affairs office, July 2014 and updated January 2015.
a. Inflation adjusted for the fiscal year in which it is reported. This is the budget level requested by the
President for Suppression (WFM Suppression and, starting in FY2010, FLAME).
b. Total Appropriations includes appropriations to FS’s WFM suppression account, FLAME account, and any
supplemental or emergency appropriation enacted for suppression activities, but it does not general y
reflect any rescissions or budget adjustments for scorekeeping purposes. Emergency or supplemental
appropriations may be used to repay funds borrowed from other accounts in the previous fiscal year.
c. Obligations may exceed appropriations in any given year because FS is authorized to carry forward
unobligated balances from previous fiscal years and to transfer money from other accounts for suppression
activities.
Congressional Research Service
15
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Table 4. DOI Wildfire Suppression Spending, FY2004-FY2015
(millions of nominal dollars)
Appropriationsb
Funds
Rolling 10-
Transferred
Year
from Other
Suppression
WFM
Supplemental
Annual
Accounts
Fiscal
Obligation
Suppression
or Emergency
Suppression
for
Year
Averagea
and FLAME
Suppression Total
O
bligationsc Suppression
2004 $195.3
$192.9 $234.4
$427.3
$281.2 $0
2005 $221.5
$218.4 $89.6
$308.0
$294.1 $0
2006 $234.2
$230.7 $100.0
$330.7
$424.1
$96.0
2007
$257.0 $249.2
$95.0 $344.2 $470.5 $112.5
2008 $294.4
$289.8 $384.0
$673.8
$392.8 $0
2009 $335.2
$335.2 $65.0
$400.2
$218.4 $0
2010 $369.8
$444.8
$0
$444.8
$231.2 $0
2011 $384.0
$459.8
$0
$459.8
$318.8 $0
2012 $362.6
$362.3
$0
$362.3
$465.8
$15.5
2013 $368.5
$352.9 $23.0
$375.9
$399.2
$34.1
2014 $377.9
$377.9 $36.0
$413.9
$326.2 $0
2015 $383.7
$383.7
NA
$383.7 NA NA
Source: Compiled by CRS. Unless otherwise specified below, data derived from detailed funding tables
prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations, annual agency budget documents, and data from the DOI
Office of Wildland Fire Management, July 2014 and updated January 2015.
a. Inflation adjusted for the fiscal year in which it is reported.
b. Total Appropriations includes appropriations to DOI’s WFM suppression account, FLAME account, and any
supplemental or emergency appropriation enacted for suppression activities, but it does not general y
reflect any rescissions or budget adjustments for scorekeeping purposes. Emergency or supplemental
appropriations may be used to repay funds borrowed from other accounts in the previous fiscal year.
c. Obligations may exceed appropriations in any given year because DOI is authorized to carry forward
unobligated balances from previous fiscal years and to transfer money from other accounts for suppression
activities.
Transfer Authority to Supplement Suppression Funds
During an active wildfire season, the agencies may deplete their suppression accounts quickly.
However, they must continue to respond to wildfires and therefore need to be able to access
additional funds in a timely manner. Therefore, Congress has granted FS and DOI the authority to
transfer funds from other accounts and programs to ensure that federal emergency response
activities continue under certain conditions (often referred to as fire transfers or fire borrowing).
The transfer authority is granted annually in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations acts, specifically in the general provisions section for DOI and the administrative
provisions section for FS. The authority to transfer funds for WFM-related activities was first
granted in the FY1980 appropriations law (P.L. 96-126), which allowed transfers for the
emergency rehabilitation of lands impacted by wildfire. The authority was continued annually,
and then the FY1989 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 100-371) expanded the authority to allow
Congressional Research Service
16
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
for funds to be transferred for firefighting purposes in addition to emergency rehabilitation.41 As
noted above, the conditions for the transfer authority are that suppression funds in the respective
WFM suppression account and FLAME reserve account must be nearly depleted.42 Funds may be
transferred from other discretionary accounts as well as from mandatory and permanent funding
accounts and trust funds. Since the establishment of their FLAME accounts in FY2010, FS and
DOI each have borrowed from other accounts twice: in FY2012 and FY2013 (see Table 3 and
Table 4).
Typically, FS and DOI have developed an internal fire borrowing plan prior to the start of the
wildfire season.43 The plans identify accounts and programs that may be targeted if transfers are
needed, based in part on unobligated balances and in part on an incremental strategy that depends
on the amount that would need to be transferred while minimizing potential impacts to the public
and agency programs.44 Agencies often target programs that have relatively large unobligated
balances.45 These programs are often funded in one year, but the funds may not be obligated for
several years, potentially allowing for transfers to be made with minimal immediate impact so
long as the funds are reimbursed. The agencies may then also make a request to Congress to
provide additional funding to replenish the FLAME accounts and to repay the transferred funds.46
Fire Borrowing Impacts
The authority to transfer funds from other agency accounts for suppression operations is
controversial and has been since wildfire spending began to increase in the 2000s.47 The authority
to access additional funds for suppression operations provides FS and DOI flexibility to respond
quickly in time-sensitive emergency situations. However, it also effectively provides them with
an open-ended transfer authority, which some argue provides little incentive to manage
suppression costs.48 The agencies—and the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—also have
argued that the fire transfers are disruptive to their other, non-fire operations and hinder their
41 The provision generally reads: “Any appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service may be transferred ... for
forest firefighting and the emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its jurisdiction.”
42 In general, the agencies will have already depleted their WFM suppression accounts and transferred funds from their
FLAME reserve accounts.
43 Email from FS Legislative Affairs staff, February 2015.
44 Historically, the FS borrowed funds primarily from its mandatory spending accounts, particularly the Knutson-
Vandenberg (K-V) Fund. This account accumulated deposits from timber purchasers to reforest and otherwise improve
timber in timber sale areas. Because of the lag between timber payments and reforestation, the K-V Fund often had a
balance of about $500 million—more than enough to borrow for emergency fire suppression without impinging on one
season’s tree planting efforts. However, the K-V Fund has had a smaller balance since FY2000 (because of lower
timber sales) while emergency wildfire suppression costs have risen. Thus, the FS has had to borrow funds from other
FS accounts—land and easement purchases, recreation and wildlife management, and more.
45 GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Actions by Federal Agencies Could Mitigate Rising Fire Costs and Their Effects
on Other Agency Programs, GAO-09-444T, June 2004.
46 43 U.S.C. §1748a(2)(C)(ii) states that FS and DOI “should promptly make a supplemental request for additional
funds to replenish the FLAME Fund if the Secretary determines that the FLAME Fund will be exhausted within 30
days.”
47 See, for example, the following GAO reports on wildland fire funding issues published between 2004 and 2009:
GAO, Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and Delays, Strained Relationships, and
Management Disruptions, GAO-04-612, June 2004; GAO-07-655; and GAO-09-444T.
48 National Academy of Public Administration, Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for Containing Costs, September
2002.
Congressional Research Service
17
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
ability to carry out their statutory missions.49 Borrowing from other program accounts—even
when repaid in subsequent appropriations—creates uncertainty in the availability of funds and
affects program implementation. In addition, some programs are time sensitive (e.g., land sales)
and may suffer adverse impacts if and when delayed by fire transfers (e.g., changing land
prices).50
Congress began introducing legislation to insulate agency appropriations from emergency fire
suppression funding in the 110th Congress. The conferees of the FY2010 Interior appropriations
bill stated their intent was that the funding provided in the FLAME account, together with
appropriations to the WFM suppression account, should fully fund anticipated wildfire
suppression needs and prevent future borrowing of funds from non-fire programs.51 More recent
legislative proposals also seek to prevent fire borrowing (see “Legislative Proposals in the 114th
Congress” section of this report).
Supplemental Suppression Appropriations
When wildfire suppression funding is exhausted, Congress faces the question of reimbursing the
accounts from which funding was transferred. The funds may be provided in an emergency
appropriations bill (such as P.L. 108-324) or in the Interior appropriations bill but designated as
“supplemental” or “additional.” These funds may have been designated to repay fire transfers
(usually made in a previous fiscal year) or to replenish the WFM suppression or FLAME
accounts, although FS reports that $424 million in transferred funds remain unpaid since FY2002
(on a cumulative basis).52 Due to the timing of the fire season (typically peaking in August), a
reimbursement decision may be made after the end of the fiscal year when the transfers were
made. This timing may complicate discussions about how much suppression funding is needed
for the coming fiscal year.
Congress has provided supplemental appropriations in 7 of the 10 fiscal years since FY2005,
funding $4.7 billion for emergency wildfire suppression activities for FS and DOI combined (see
Table 3 and Table 4). Since the establishment of the FLAME account in FY2010, Congress has
provided supplemental suppression appropriations twice: $403 million in FY2013 and $636
million in FY2014. Supplemental appropriations provided in each of the years between FY2005
and FY2009 were designated so as not to be subject to certain procedural or statutory budget
enforcement, such as the BCA limits on discretionary spending.53 However, the supplemental
appropriations provided in FY2013 and FY2014 did not contain any such designation and, as
such, were subject to budget enforcement. (See the “Budgetary Constraints” section in this
report.)
49 See for example, GAO-04-612; testimony of FS Chief Tom Tidwell, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, Hearing to Receive Testimony on the Federal Government’s Role in Wildfire Management, the
Impact of Fires on Communities, and Potential Improvements to Be Made in Fire Operations, 114th Cong., 1st sess.,
May 5, 2015; and FS, Fire Transfer Impact by State, June 9, 2014, at http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/forest-service-
fire-transfer-state-impacts.pdf.
50 GAO-04-612.
51 H.Rept. 111-316.
52 FS, FY2016 Budget Justification, p. 400, at http://www.fs.fed.us/about-agency/budget-performance.
53 For example, “designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to §251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.” For more information on emergency designations, see
CRS Report R41564, Emergency Designation: Current Budget Rules and Procedures, by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
18
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Forecasting Suppression Spending
FS and DOI must estimate future suppression spending years in advance as well as during the
wildfire season to forecast spending levels and account balances ongoing in the current fiscal
year. The agencies formulate their budget requests for suppression operations using a rolling
average of previous years’ suppression spending (including supplemental appropriations enacted
for suppression purposes).54 This method originated in the 1990s from an agreement between the
House and Senate Committees on the Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of
Management and Budget.55 Prior to the enactment of the FLAME Act of 2009, the agencies’
WFM suppression activity requests would equal their rolling 10-year suppression obligation
averages. From FY2010 to FY2014, the agencies’ WFM suppression activity requests plus their
FLAME account requests equaled their rolling 10-year suppression obligation averages. Since
FY2015, the Administration has requested a new funding mechanism for suppression operations,
which includes eliminating the FLAME reserve fund and requesting 70% of the rolling 10-year
suppression obligation average for the WFM suppression activity.56
Due to the timing of the budget process, the suppression budget request for any given year is
based on the rolling 10-year suppression obligation average calculated two fiscal years
previously. For example, the FY2016 suppression budget request was formulated using the
FY2014 rolling obligation average. This means that suppression spending from FY2005 through
FY2014 was used to formulate the suppression budget request for FY2016.
Because it is based on past spending, the rolling 10-year suppression obligation average is a
lagging indicator of future suppression spending.57 Lagging indicators, in general, demonstrate
patterns across previous years but do not necessarily signal future trends. As such, the rolling 10-
year suppression obligation average may not be the most accurate method to predict future
suppression spending needs during the budget formulation process. For example, the rolling 10-
year suppression obligation average has underestimated suppression spending 9 out of the past 11
years for FS (see Table 3); and 7 out of the past 11 years for DOI (see Table 4). On average, over
the past 11 years, the rolling 10-year suppression obligation average has been 40% below the
obligations for FS and 19% below the DOI suppression obligations.
When wildfire spending began to increase in the 2000s, GAO noted that the agencies’ forecasting
methods were insufficient, both in terms of annual and in-season budgeting.58 FS reportedly
analyzed alternative methods, but FS and DOI still use the 10-year suppression obligation average
to formulate budget requests, even though suppression spending surpasses the estimate most
years.59 An earlier proposed version of the FLAME Act would have required the agencies to use a
54 See FS and DOI annual budget justification documents for a description of how the rolling 10-year suppression
obligation is calculated.
55 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement
Act, Report to accompany H.R. 5541, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., June 10, 2008, H.Rept. 110-704.
56 For more information on the Administration’s proposal, see FS FY2016 Budget Justification, p. 251; and DOI
Wildland Fire Management FY2016 Budget Justification, p. 35.
57 In 2004, GAO recommended that FS and DOI develop a method to predict suppression spending that was more
accurate than using the rolling 10-year obligation average (GAO-04-612).
58 GAO-04-612.
59 GAO-09-444T, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
19
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
rolling 5-year suppression obligation average to formulate their budget requests.60 A rolling 5-
year average potentially would have predicted future suppression spending more accurately than a
10-year average, since the lower values from earlier years would drop out of the calculation.
However, because a rolling 5-year average still would have been based on past spending, it also
would have been a lagging indicator and likely would have underestimated suppression spending.
The enacted version of the FLAME Act did not contain that provision, however. Instead, the
FLAME Act requires the agencies to develop an estimate based on the best available science—the
FLAME forecasts developed below—but does not direct that these be used to formulate budget
requests.61
FS and DOI also must predict suppression spending during a wildfire season to ensure the
availability of funds and to determine if and how much additional funds are going to be
necessary. In response to FLAME Act requirements, FS and DOI began using regression models
that incorporate weather and climate data, among other data, to forecast spending.62 The models
predict a range of suppression spending within a 90% confidence interval and are published four
times per year: March, May, and June, with a September outlook for the upcoming year. The
FLAME forecasts vary; for example, the estimate for the upper 90% confidence interval ranged
from $1.570 billion for FS in the March 2014 forecast to $1.996 billion in the May 2014 forecast
three months later. In the four years (2011-2014) that data are available, suppression obligations
exceeded the FLAME median forecast for the FS three times and DOI four times. However,
obligations exceeded the upper 90% confidence interval for both FS and DOI only once (see
Figure 8 and Figure 9).
60 See §2(c)(2) of H.R. 5541 from the 110th Congress.
61 43 U.S.C. §1748a(h)(3)(D).
62 43 U.S.C. §1748a(h)(3)(D).The FS Southern Research Station runs the regression models for both FS and DOI based
on methods developed by J. P. Prestemon, K. L. Abt, and K. Gebert, “Suppression Cost Forecasts in Advance of
Wildfire Seasons,” Forest Science, vol. 54, no. 4 (2008), pp. 381-396; and K. L. Abt, J. P. Prestemon, and K. Gebert,
“Wildfire Suppression Cost Forecasts for the U.S. Forest Service,” Journal of Forestry, vol. 107, no. 4 (2009), pp. 173-
178.
Congressional Research Service
20
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Figure 8. FS Suppression Request, Appropriations, Obligations, and
FLAME Forecasts
(dollars in billions)
$Billions
$2.5
10yr Obligation
Avg/Budget request
$2.0
Obligations
$1.5
Total appropriations
$1.0
FLAME upper 90% CI
forecast
$0.5
FLAME median
forecast
$0.0
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
Source: CRS.
Notes: Suppression includes appropriations to the WFM suppression activity, FLAME account, and any
supplemental or emergency appropriation enacted for suppression purposes. The FLAME median forecast is the
average of the four reported median values per year. The FLAME upper 90% confidence interval forecast is the
average of the four reported values per year.
Figure 9. DOI Suppression Request, Appropriations, Obligations, and
FLAME Forecasts
(dollars in millions)
$Millions
$600
10yr Obligation
Avg/Budget request
$500
Obligations
$400
Total appropriations
$300
FLAME upper 90% CI
$200
forecast
FLAME median
$100
forecast
$0
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
Source: CRS.
Congressional Research Service
21
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Notes: Suppression includes appropriations to the WFM suppression activity, FLAME account, and any
supplemental or emergency appropriation enacted for suppression purposes. The FLAME median forecast is the
average of the four reported median values per year. The FLAME upper 90% confidence interval forecast is the
average of the four reported values per year.
The FLAME forecasts have not generally been used in the annual budget formulation process.
However, the agencies use the forecasts to inform congressional decisionmakers about potential
spending levels throughout a wildfire season or during budget hearings. In addition, the
Administration’s current budget request proposes providing access to funding up to the upper
forecast range.
Issues for Congress
Congress last addressed the mechanism for wildfire spending in the 110th Congress with the
passage of the FLAME Act.63 Several interrelated issues related to funding federal wildland fire
management in general and wildfire suppression operations in particular have been topics of
congressional hearings and proposed legislation in the 114th Congress.
Appropriation Levels and Forecasts
Each year, Congress considers at what level suppression (and wildland fire management in
general) should be appropriated. Suppression costs are difficult to predict and can fluctuate
widely. From FY2010 to FY2011, for example, combined FS and DOI suppression obligations
increased more than 50%, but from FY2011 to FY2012, obligations increased by less than 10%.
More recently, from FY2013 to FY2014, obligations decreased by 15%. These variations make it
difficult for Congress to know at what level to appropriate in any given year. The budget
formulation process is based on a rolling historic average, which has underestimated suppression
spending 8 out of the last 10 years by nearly 50% annually on average. The agencies have had to
borrow funds from other accounts in 5 of those years, and Congress has appropriated
supplemental suppression appropriations in 7 of those years.
The intent of the FLAME accounts was to eliminate the need for fire borrowing or supplemental
appropriations by serving as a reserve fund.64 The FLAME accounts, however, are funded
through a definite appropriation (a specified amount) that is still budgeted using the rolling 10-
year suppression obligation average. After the FLAME accounts were established, the agencies
continued to receive suppression appropriations equal to the 10-year suppression obligation
average, although the funds were divided in two different accounts. The FLAME Act, in essence,
created an additional account for suppression operations but did not create access to any
additional funds above what was already being provided. The FLAME Act directed that the
agencies develop a better formula to forecast suppression spending, but it did not mandate that the
agencies use it to formulate their budget request (although that was debated). It also may be
63 A prior version of the FLAME Act was first introduced in the 109th Congress. The 109th and 110th Congresses also
considered other bills to address wildfire spending, such as S. 3729 [109th Congress] and S. 1770 [110th Congress]. The
Administration proposed the establishment of a suppression reserve fund in FY2010 and FY2011, which was similar to
the FLAME Act but with some fundamental differences, including requiring a presidential declaration to access the
funds. See FS’s FY2011 Budget Justification, p. 13-1, for more information on the proposal.
64 H.Rept. 111-316.
Congressional Research Service
22
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
argued that the FLAME Act actually created various hurdles for the agencies to access a portion
of the suppression funds they previously could freely access.
While it may be argued that the issue is that suppression costs are not being fully funded—
requiring the agencies to deplete other accounts and, potentially, the appropriation of
supplemental funds—the ability to access other funding sources has allowed the agencies to
honor all suppression obligations incurred during any given fiscal year. However, this may
sometimes be at the expense of not fully funding other programs. A more accurate description is
that suppression costs for any given year are not necessarily being fully funded in advance for
that fiscal year. In this sense, funding for suppression is sometimes reactive, not proactive. This is
in part due to the unpredictable nature of wildfires and wildfire spending as well as difficulties in
accurately predicting future suppression costs. Improving the suppression spending forecasts used
for budget decisions may alleviate some of the agencies’ needs to supplement their suppression
accounts during the fiscal year. Congress may consider directing the agencies to use a different or
specified methodology during their budget formulation processes, or it may continue to allow the
agencies the discretion to formulate their own budget requests using the methodologies they deem
most appropriate.
Funding Source
Federal spending on wildland fire management is currently more than double what it was in the
1990s. A significant portion of that increase is related to rising suppression costs, even during
years of relatively mild wildfire activity. Although the 2013 and 2014 wildfire seasons had fewer
fires and burned fewer acres than in 2012, Congress appropriated more funds in each successive
fiscal year, including providing supplemental appropriations both years. However, on average,
suppression appropriations have been slightly lower the last 5 fiscal years compared to the 10-
year average (FY2005-FY2014: $1.9 billion for both FS and DOI; FY2010-FY2014: $1.7 average
[2014 dollars]). Nonetheless, the overall trend is that costs are increasing relative to historical
levels.
Congress may consider whether or how to address the rising costs of wildfire management and
suppression operations. Some are concerned that the rising costs are coming at the expense of
funding other agency programs, some of which may potentially reduce future suppression
spending.65 Wildfire accounts for an increasing proportion of FS’s budget, up from 44% in
FY2005 to 56% in FY2014. This means that other programs are receiving a smaller proportion of
FS funds. For example, the proportion of FS’s budget devoted to managing the national forest
system decreased by 2% over that same time period, and the Construction Improvement and
Maintenance proportion decreased by 6%, although it is not clear if the declines are attributable
entirely to increasing wildfire funding. Congress may want to consider options that would
maintain consistent levels of funding for other agency programs, although this could come at the
expense of other agencies or programs funded through the Interior appropriations bill (discussed
below) or may contribute to increasing the federal deficit if the costs are not offset.
Congress also may want to discuss ways to reduce the overall cost of suppression spending. FS,
DOI, GAO, and others have argued that increasing current investments in hazardous fuel
65 GAO-09-444T; D. E. Calkin, M. P. Thompson, and M. A. Finney, “Negative Consequences of Positive Feedbacks in
U.S. Wildfire Management,” Forest Ecosystems, vol. 2, no. 9 (2015).
Congressional Research Service
23
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
reduction projects may potentially reduce long-term suppression spending.66 Others argue that the
agencies should place a higher priority on cost containment efforts, perhaps by reducing agency
budgets or restricting access to additional funds under certain conditions.67 Another option
Congress may consider is addressing the proportion of wildfire suppression costs borne by the
federal government—for example, by developing a consistent federal cost apportionment method,
which currently varies by state and often by fire, depending on the terms of the cooperative fire
agreement. Other options include providing incentives for nonfederal entities to mitigate their risk
of wildfire damages or discourage future WUI development, among others.
Budgetary Constraints
Discretionary spending—including wildfire appropriations—currently is subject to certain
procedural and budgetary controls. In the past, Congress has effectively waived some of these
controls for certain wildfire spending, but it has not done so in more recent years. This has
prompted some to explore providing certain wildfire spending effectively outside of those
constraints.
Discretionary Spending Limits Background
Pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA),68 discretionary spending currently is subject
to statutory limits for each of the fiscal years between FY2012 and FY2021. Specifically, two
different limits apply—one to “defense” and the other to “nondefense” spending. The defense
category includes all discretionary spending under budget function 050 (defense); the nondefense
category includes discretionary spending in all other budget functions.69 Enacted discretionary
spending may not exceed these limits. In the event that spending is enacted that exceeds a limit,
the limit is to be enforced through sequestration, which involves the automatic cancellation of
budget authority through largely across-the-board reductions of nonexempt programs and
activities.70 These reductions would occur to spending in the category of the limit that was
breached.
Certain spending is effectively exempt from the discretionary spending limits pursuant to Section
251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA),71 because those
limits are “adjusted” upward to accommodate that spending. For example, these adjustments
66 See for example, Calkin et al., “Negative Consequences”; GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of a Cohesive
Strategy Hinders Agencies’ Cost-Containment Efforts, GAO-07-427T, January 2007; GAO, Wildland Fire
Management: Federal Agencies Have Taken Important Steps Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action Is Needed to
Capitalize on Those Steps, September 2009.
67 Ingalsbee, Getting Burned; and Headwaters Economics, Solutions to the Rising Costs of Firefighting in the Wildland-
Urban Interface, September 2009.
68 P.L. 112-25.
69 For further information with regard to budget functions, see CRS Report 98-280, Functional Categories of the
Federal Budget, by Bill Heniff Jr.
70 The sequestration mechanism to enforce the statutory discretionary spending limits is provided by the BBEDCA, as
amended by the BCA. For further information about these procedures, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control
Act of 2011, by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, 2 U.S.C. §601-688) provides for procedural enforcement consistent with the statutory
spending limits, including the adjustments to those limits.
71 Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. §900-922, as amended by the BCA.
Congressional Research Service
24
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
include budget authority designated as emergency requirements, as well as that designated as for
disaster relief. The purpose of these designations is, in part, to address the unpredictable nature of
disaster assistance while attempting to impose discipline on the amount spent by the federal
government on disasters. The emergency designation could apply to a number of different types
of purposes,72 whereas the disaster relief designation is more narrowly limited to costs of major
disasters that have been declared pursuant to Section 102(2) of the Stafford Act.73 Wildfire
suppression operations are an allowable purpose for the emergency designation but are not
included under the disaster relief designation. Of the seven supplemental appropriations provided
for wildfire suppression operations from FY2005 through FY2015, Congress designated five as
emergency spending. The two most recent supplemental appropriations (FY2013 and FY2014)
did not receive emergency designations.
While there is no limit on the amount of budget authority that can be designated as emergency
requirements each fiscal year, the amount that can be designated using the disaster relief
designation is limited by a formula. This formula is based on the average funding provided for
disaster relief over the last 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest annual amounts.74 If less
than the maximum amount allowed by the formula is ultimately appropriated for a fiscal year,
then the difference is added to the amount that the disaster formula yields for the next fiscal
year.75 For example, if the formula for a fiscal year allows $10 billion in disaster designated
spending, but only $6 billion is appropriated, then the amount of the allowable disaster
designation for the following fiscal year will be the formula plus the $4 billion in carryover from
the previous fiscal year. This total amount—formula plus carryover, if any—is sometimes
referred to as the disaster cap.
Since FY2012, when the BCA discretionary spending limits were first implemented, three
different types of discretionary spending have been provided to prevent or respond to natural
disasters—spending that is subject to the discretionary spending limits, spending designated as
for disaster relief, and spending designated as for emergency requirements.
• Spending subject to the limits has been provided each fiscal year in regular
appropriations measures to respond to disaster events, including wildfires, in a
number of different appropriations accounts, such as certain FEMA
appropriations in the Disaster Relief Fund76 and the Small Business
Administration appropriations for disaster loans.
• Disaster-designated spending has been provided each fiscal year through the
regular appropriations process for response and recovery work for presidentially
declared events that are not wildfires. In previous practice, the great majority of
72 Although Congress may apply the emergency designation at its discretion, the BBEDCA, §250(c)(20), defines
emergency to mean “a situation that—(A) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new budget authority and the
outlays flowing therefrom) for the prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or property, or a threat to
national security; and (B) is unanticipated.”
73 42 U.S.C. §5122(2).
74 For additional discussion on the BCA and disaster spending, see CRS Report R42352, An Examination of Federal
Disaster Relief Under the Budget Control Act, by Bruce R. Lindsay, William L. Painter, and Francis X. McCarthy.
75 BBEDCA, §251(b)(2)(D). The amount that is allowed for the disaster designation each fiscal year is calculated by
the Office of Management and Budget.
76 The DRF provides funding for all open disasters, disasters currently impacting the nation, and retains a balance for
possible future disaster events.
Congressional Research Service
25
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
such spending also has been appropriated to the FEMA DRF to be used for the
response to major disasters. However, in some instances, disaster-designated
funding also has been provided to address the unmet needs created by major
disasters beyond those provided to the DRF, such as for the Community
Development Block Grant program at the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and disaster-related programs of the Army Corps of Engineers.
• Emergency spending usually has been provided to supplement disaster-
designated spending, as well as spending that is subject to the discretionary
spending limits, in response to events that have already occurred, including
wildfires.
According to FEMA, the BCA necessitated the development of a new, two-part approach to
accounting for disaster-related activity, with one approach for major disasters and another for all
other DRF activity:
Essentially, requests for DRF funding for FEMA’s Stafford Act programs and disaster
support activities fall into two categories: disaster relief cap adjustment and base/non-major
disasters. Funding requested under the disaster relief cap adjustment is for major disasters
declared pursuant to the Stafford Act and designated by the Congress as being for disaster
relief pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the BBEDCA, as amended by the BCA. Funding
requested under the base/non-major disasters category includes Emergencies, Pre-disaster
Surge Support, Fire Management Assistance Grants and activities that are non-disaster
specific, such as Disaster Readiness Support (DRS) activities (e.g., distribution centers,
reservist training, etc.).77
Legislative Proposals in the 114th Congress
The 114th Congress is considering options for addressing wildfire suppression spending issues,
which include
• what level to appropriate for suppression activities;
• how to provide for unpredictable costs quickly;
• where the money should come from; and
• whether suppression money should be subject to or outside of certain statutory
budget controls.
This section of the report discusses four proposals—S. 235, H.R. 167, S. 508, H.R. 2647—that
have been introduced to address issues related to wildfire funding.
All four bills contain provisions that are intended to address concerns that wildfire suppression
activities have not been adequately funded each year. Three of the bills—S. 235, H.R. 167, and
S. 508—effectively would allow some funds provided for wildfire suppression activities that
meet certain criteria to not be subject to the limits on discretionary spending (see Table 5). Under
77 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Relief Fund: FY2013
Congressional Justification, p. 5, at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/budget/
11f_fema_disaster_relief_fund_dhs_fy13_cj.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
these proposals, varying levels of wildfire funding would not need to compete with other
programs and activities that are subject to the limits. These proposals also would modify the
existing disaster relief designation to interact with the additional wildfire spending that was
provided pursuant to these new procedures. H.R. 2647 potentially could provide a related
discretionary spending option for wildfire suppression operations funding, but it takes a different
approach from the other three proposals.
S. 235 and H.R. 167 (The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act)
Two similar versions of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act have been introduced in the 114th
Congress (H.R. 167 and S. 235). The bills have minor differences from each other and from
versions introduced in the 113th Congress (S. 1875 and H.R. 3992). S. 1875 was referred to the
Senate Budget Committee; H.R. 167 was referred to the House Budget Committee, in addition to
the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees. This section of the report provides an
analysis of these 114th Congress proposals as introduced.78
Summary
S. 235 and H.R. 167 would amend the BBEDCA to add a new adjustment to the nondefense
discretionary spending limit for “wildfire suppression operations,” which includes spending for
the purposes of
• the emergency and unpredictable aspects of wildland firefighting, including
support, response, and emergency stabilization activities;
• other emergency management activities; and
• funds necessary to repay any transfers needed for these costs.
There is a precondition for using this adjustment—that 70% of the 10-year average funding level
for wildfire suppression operations must be appropriated subject to the limits. Once that
precondition is met, the amount of the adjustment for the additional wildfire suppression
operations funding is capped each fiscal year. In H.R. 167, the wildfire adjustment is limited to
$2.689 billion each fiscal year through FY2022. In contrast, the maximum amount of the wildfire
adjustment in S. 235 starts at $1.410 billion in FY2016 and gradually increases to $2.690 billion
in FY2025.79
This proposal also affects the calculation of the maximum amount for the existing disaster relief
adjustment—also referred to as the disaster cap—because the disaster cap calculation interacts
with the proposed wildfire adjustment in two ways. First, starting in FY2017 under H.R. 167 or
FY2018 under S. 235, the calculation of the 10-year rolling average for the disaster cap formula
would include any budget authority provided using the wildfire designation in previous fiscal
years. As a consequence, the amounts that are provided under the wildfire adjustment would
gradually be incorporated into the calculation of the 10-year rolling average for disaster relief.
78 For further information about S. 1875 and H.R. 3992 (113th Cong.), see the CRS congressional distribution
memorandum “The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875 and H.R. 3992), 113th Congress, March 26, 2014, available
from the authors.
79 The BCA spending limits are currently through FY2021.
Congressional Research Service
27
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Second, after the disaster cap for a fiscal year is calculated (including incorporating the amount of
the prior-year wildfire adjustments into the calculation), the amount of the disaster cap is to be
reduced by the amount of the previous fiscal year’s wildfire adjustment. For example, if $1.4
billion was provided using the wildfire adjustment in FY2016, the FY2017 disaster cap would be
lowered by $1.4 billion.
Potential Implications
Both S. 235 and H.R. 167 would remove some budget process barriers for the provision of
additional wildfire suppression funds, either through the annual appropriations process or through
supplemental appropriations. Whatever amount, if any, Congress elects to appropriate over the
minimum 70% for wildfire suppression (up to the specified maximum in each bill) effectively
would not be subject to the discretionary spending limits established in the BCA each year. For
example, were these proposals to be in effect for FY2016, Congress could appropriate the
minimum of $1.057 billion for suppression operations, which is 70% of the combined FS and
DOI suppression obligation for FY2016 ($1.510 billion). But then Congress could appropriate an
additional $2.689 billion under H.R. 167 or $1.410 billion under S. 235 in FY2016, effectively
outside of the budget controls discussed above. This means the agencies could be appropriated up
to $3.746 billion in H.R. 167, or $2.467 billion in S. 235, with $1.057 billion of those amounts
being subject to the BCA discretionary limits. However, because these proposals leave actual
funding decisions to future Congresses, Congress may choose to appropriate less than the
minimum 70% threshold so that the adjustments allowed would not be triggered.
Other potential budgetary and policy effects of both S. 235 and H.R. 167 are unknown. It is not
clear how these proposals would interact with the FLAME accounts. The bills specify that at least
70% of the budget request would have to be appropriated for suppression operations but do not
specify whether the appropriations have to be in the agencies respective WFM or FLAME
accounts. The FLAME accounts will expire if funds are not appropriated to (or withdrawn from)
them for three consecutive years.80
S. 235 and H.R. 167 also are silent as to fire borrowing. If either of these proposals were to be
enacted, it is unclear if fire borrowing authorities would continue to be provided in appropriations
laws.
Both S. 235 and H.R. 167 would require the USDA and DOI Secretaries to continue to use the
rolling 10-year average of suppression obligations to formulate their suppression budget requests.
The USDA and DOI Secretaries also are directed to “promptly” submit any request to Congress
for supplemental wildfire suppression operations funding, and they must submit a plan to
Congress explaining how the supplemental appropriations will be obligated within 30 days of
receiving them. This proposal would largely codify current agency practices, with some
modifications. This may give Congress more advance notice about the need for supplemental
wildfire suppression operations appropriations, as well as information on how the agencies
propose to use those additional appropriations. Both this advance notice and additional
information may aid Congress in appropriations decisionmaking and oversight. They also might
add to the workload of both the FS and DOI during a critical time of providing wildfire
assistance.
80 43 U.S.C. §1748(a)(g).
Congressional Research Service
28
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
This interaction between the proposed wildfire and existing disaster relief adjustments has a
number of potential implications for the amount of the disaster cap in the future. However,
because these potential implications are highly sensitive to future appropriations decisions that
will be made by Congress and the President each fiscal year, the extent to which the calculation
for the disaster cap will be affected by the use of the wildfire adjustment cannot be determined
definitively. Assuming that the wildfire adjustment is first used in FY2016, for the next several
years, the disaster formula would be based on 10 fiscal years of funding for disaster relief (minus
the highest and lowest fiscal year), but fewer than 10 fiscal years of the wildfire adjustment
would be available to be incorporated into the base calculation. This has the potential to make the
amount available for the disaster cap lower than it otherwise might have been. On the other hand,
appropriations for the full adjustment allowed by the disaster cap have not been made since
FY2013, which is causing the amounts that are used to calculate the 10-year rolling average for
the amount of the cap in future fiscal years to be lower than they would have been had the full
amount of the disaster cap been appropriated. As a consequence, adding wildfire-designated
spending into the formula might have the effect of increasing the amount of the disaster cap
above what it otherwise might have been. Another factor that affects these considerations is the
amount that is assumed to be appropriated using the wildfire adjustment each fiscal year because
either the full amount allowed, or a lesser amount might be appropriated.
Legislative Action
Neither of these proposals has received committee consideration as of the date of this report,
although other relevant action has occurred in the context of the wildfire management budget
request, the FY2016 budget resolution, and the FY2016 Interior Appropriations bill.
The Administration’s FY2016 wildfire management budget request included a proposal to change
how suppression operations are funded, similar to H.R. 167 and S. 235. However, the
Administration’s proposed maximum cap adjustment would be the difference between the upper
90% confidence interval FLAME forecast and the rolling 10-year suppression obligation average.
(In FY2016, this would be $854.6 million.)81
The FY2016 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11) includes two procedural provisions related to
wildfire suppression operations funding. First, the Senate Budget Committee-reported version
included a spending-neutral reserve fund to “improve forest health” that, in part, would allow for
the applicable committee allocations, aggregates, and other levels in the budget resolution to be
revised to the purposes of measures relating to “reform of the process of budgeting for wildfire
suppression operations.”82 Second, during Senate floor consideration of the budget resolution, an
amendment was adopted that would provide a procedural adjustment to the budget enforcement
limits associated with the budget resolution “if a measure becomes law that amends the
adjustments to discretionary spending limits established under Section 251(b) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)) for wildfire suppression
funding” (S.Amdt. 434).83 This amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent. Both of these
81 For more information, see FS FY2016 Budget Justification, p. 251; and DOI Wildland Fire Management FY2016
Budget Justification, p. 35.
82 S.Con.Res. 11, §319. For information about reserve funds, see CRS Report R43535, Provisions in the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013 as an Alternative to a Traditional Budget Resolution, by Megan S. Lynch.
83 S.Con.Res. 11, §424.
Congressional Research Service
29
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
provisions, with minor changes, were included in the final version of the budget resolution that
was agreed to by Congress—at Sections 3208 and 4319.
The FY2016 Interior appropriations bill (S. 1645) as reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee also would address wildfire funding in a manner similar to H.R. 167 and S. 235.
Title V of this bill would create a new adjustment for wildfire suppression operations and alter the
calculation for the disaster cap based on the amount of wildfire adjustment appropriations that are
ultimately provided. There are three main differences between the proposals discussed in this
subsection and Title V of the Interior bill:
1. The precondition for using the adjustment is that 100% of the 10-year average for
wildfire suppression operations also must be appropriated subject to the
BBEDCA spending limits.
2. The range that is specified for the wildfire adjustment is set initially at $1.460
billion for FY2016 and gradually increases to $2.650 billion for FY2021.
3. FS and DOI would be required to submit a comprehensive report analyzing
management decisions, fire activity, and fire accounting, among other topics.
S. 508 (The FLAME Act Amendments of 2015)
The FLAME Act Amendments of 2015 was introduced in the 114th Congress as S. 508 and
referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. An earlier version of the bill
was previously introduced in the 113th Congress (S. 2593) but received no congressional action.
This section of the report provides an analysis of the wildfire spending provisions of S. 508 as
introduced. (S. 508 also contains additional titles addressing specific national forest management
issues as well as stewardship contracting, which are not discussed.)
Summary
Like the proposals discussed in the “S. 235 and H.R. 167 (The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act)”
section of this report, S. 508 would amend the BBEDCA to add a new adjustment for “wildfire
suppression operations” spending. However, this proposal would impose two different sets of
preconditions to access the adjustment. First, a minimum amount that is subject to the statutory
discretionary spending limits must be appropriated to the DOI and FS Wildland Fire Management
accounts. This minimum amount is the greater of
• 100% of the average costs for wildfire suppression operations over the previous
five years; or
• the estimated amount of anticipated wildfire suppression costs at the upper bound
of the 90% confidence interval for that fiscal year calculated in accordance with
the FLAME Act.
In addition, an amount equal to at least 50% of that minimum amount must be specified for
various forest management activities to mitigate future fire risk, such as
Congressional Research Service
30
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
• authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects84 and other activities of the
Secretary of the Interior;
• forest restoration and fuel reduction activities performed outside of the WUI that
are on condition class 3 federal land or condition class 2 federal land located
within fire regime I, fire regime II, or fire regime III;85 and
• timber sales, pre-commercial thinning, and salvage harvests performed on
National Forest System lands.
Second, S. 508 also requires that all amounts in the FLAME fund have been expended as of the
day before the date of enactment of an appropriation that would be subject to the wildfire
adjustment.
Once those preconditions have been met, the measure would provide an adjustment for wildfire
suppression operations of up to $1 billion in additional new budget authority in each of FY2016
through FY2022. The allowable purposes for spending that uses this adjustment are the same as
those in S. 235 and H.R. 167.
This proposal also contains provisions that would affect the wildfire adjustment with the existing
disaster designation but in a different way than the proposals discussed in the previous section.
The formula for the disaster cap would still involve the 10-year rolling average for disaster relief
spending, minus the high and low fiscal years, plus any prior year carryover. The amount of the
wildfire adjustment from the previous fiscal year is also to be subtracted from that calculation.
However, the 10-year rolling average for the disaster relief designation is not to incorporate
amounts appropriated pursuant to the wildfire adjustment.
Potential Implications
The framework of S. 508 is similar to H.R. 167 and S. 235 in that it also would remove some
budget process barriers for the provision of additional wildfire suppression funds. However, S.
508 differs from those other proposals in some significant ways. First, under S. 508 only up to an
additional $1 billion for suppression spending could be provided under the new adjustment.
Second, the minimum amount that would be required to be appropriated subject to those limits
would be the greater of the rolling five-year suppression obligation average or the upper bound of
the FLAME forecast. In addition, whatever amount Congress appropriates for suppression
operations, an amount equal to half would be required for various forest management activities,
such as hazardous fuels reduction. It is not clear if this other amount would be half of the
suppression operations appropriation or an additional amount equal to that half. Regardless,
requiring an appropriation amount equal to half of the greater of the five-year suppression
obligation average or upper 90% FLAME forecast would increase the agencies’ investment in
hazardous fuels reduction substantially. Over the past five fiscal years, an average of $327 million
has been provided to the FS, and $163 million to DOI, for the hazardous fuels activity within the
84 This includes activities authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. §§6501 et seq.) and the
Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (25 U.S.C. §3115a).
85 Fire regime condition class is a classification that describes the relative change between the historical (prior to
modern human intervention) frequency and intensity of fire patterns across a vegetated landscape to the current fire
patterns. For more information, see S. Barrett et al., Interagency Fire Regime Condition (FRCC) Guidebook Version
3.0, 2010, at https://www.frames.gov/frcc.
Congressional Research Service
31
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
agencies’ respective WFM other operations accounts. While this may fund activities that would
potentially mitigate future fire risk, these additional funds might come at the expense of other
agency programs.
Another difference between the proposals discussed in the previous section and S. 508 is that it
would require that all amounts in the FLAME fund be expended as of the day before the date of
enactment of an appropriation that would be provided under the wildfire adjustment. This
requirement has some potential implications for the timing of those additional wildfire
appropriations. If the FLAME fund continued to receive annual appropriations, the wildfire
adjustment generally could not be used to provide additional funds in the same annual
appropriations laws. Instead, such funds would need to be provided in supplemental
appropriations acts once the FLAME fund was exhausted each year, which could further add to
Congress’s summer legislative agenda. Alternatively, if Congress wants to provide these
additional wildfire appropriations through the annual appropriations process, one way to do so
would be to entirely discontinue providing appropriations to the FLAME fund and instead fund
agency wildfire suppression operations entirely through their other accounts.
Like H.R. 167 and S. 235, the S. 508 formula also has potential implications for the amount that
is available for the disaster cap in future fiscal years. Because the amount that is appropriated
using the wildfire adjustment is subtracted from the disaster calculation and is not factored into
the 10-year rolling average, it appears that the use of the wildfire adjustment has the potential to
make the disaster cap lower than it otherwise might have been. However, the extent to which this
would be the case would depend on whether the full amount allowed for the wildfire adjustment
or a lesser amount was appropriated. As was the case for S. 235 and H.R. 167, these
considerations are highly sensitive to future appropriations decisions that will be made by
Congress and the President each fiscal year. Consequently, the extent to which the calculation for
the disaster cap will be affected by the use of the wildfire adjustment cannot be definitively
determined.
S. 508 also amends the FLAME Act. The agencies would continue to have their FLAME
accounts for the most severe, complex, and costly wildfires, but the declaration criteria to access
those funds would be changed: the minimum fire size would be 1,000 acres (up from 300 acres),
or if the fire was within 10 miles of an urbanized area, but the Secretaries would still be able to
access FLAME funds if their respective WFM suppression accounts were about to be depleted. S.
508 would also prohibit the agencies from transferring funds from other accounts for suppression
purposes.
S. 508 is the only bill to address suppression forecasts. S. 508 would require FS and DOI to
calculate and report the rolling five-year suppression obligation average and the outyear FLAME
forecasts in their annual budget requests. The other bills continue the rolling 10-year suppression
obligation average.
Congressional Research Service
32
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
Table 5. Comparison of Selected Attributes of H.R. 167, S. 235, and S. 508
Select Provisions
H.R. 167
S. 235
S. 508
Adds adjustment for
Yes Yes Yes
wildfire spending that is
effectively not subject to
statutory discretionary
limits
Precondition(s) for
Yes
Yes
Yes
adjustment
70% 10-yr suppression
70% 10-yr suppression
The maximum of:
obligation average must be
obligation average must be
appropriated within
appropriated within
• 100% 5-yr suppression
discretionary statutory
discretionary statutory
obligation average; or
limits annual y
limits annual y
• FLAME upper 90% CI
must be appropriated
within discretionary
statutory limits annually
An amount equal to at
least 50% of the above
amount must also be
appropriated for specified
forest management
activities
Funds in FLAME account
must be expended
Maximum adjustment
$2.689 billion/FY through
Increases annually:
$1 billion/FY through
FY2023
FY2022
$1.410 billion FY2016 to
$2.690 in FY2025
Interacts with disaster cap
Yes Yes Yes
adjustment/DRF formula
Suppression Forecasting
Would require that the
Would require that the
Would require that the 5-
10-yr suppression
10-yr suppression
yr suppression obligation
obligation average
obligation average
average be used for
continue to be used for
continue to be used for
suppression budgeting
suppression budgeting
suppression budgeting
Fire Transfers
Not addressed
Not addressed
Prohibited
Source: CRS.
Legislative Action
S. 508 has not received any congressional action as of the date of this report. See the S. 235 and
H.R. 167 “Legislative Action” subsection above for a discussion of action related to the wildfire
management budget request, the FY2016 budget resolution, and FY2016 Interior appropriations.
H.R. 2647 (The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015)
The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015 was introduced in the 114th Congress as H.R. 2647 and
referred to the House Committees on Agriculture and Natural Resources. This section of the
Congressional Research Service
33
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
report provides an analysis of the wildfire suppression provisions contained in Title IX of the
measure, as included in the House Committee on Rules print dated July 1, 2015.86 (H.R. 2647
also contains additional titles addressing other federal forestry issues, which are not discussed in
this report.)
Summary
Title IX of H.R. 2647 would broaden the purposes for major disasters under the Stafford Act to
include “wildfires on federal lands” (§901),87 and it would create a related budgetary mechanism
that potentially could be used to fund the response to each wildfire on federal land that was
declared to be a major disaster (§902). Under this proposal, the affected federal land management
agency (either the DOI Secretary or the USDA Secretary) may request a presidential declaration
of a major disaster for wildfire on federal lands if the following requirements are satisfied:
1. The Secretary must make the request in writing.
2. The Secretary must certify that wildfire suppression operations appropriations
that have been enacted for that fiscal year equal or exceed a certain minimum
level, which is the rolling 10-fiscal year average cost of wildfire suppression
operations incurred by the federal land management agencies. This minimum
level includes any concurrently enacted rescissions. The unobligated balance of
wildfire suppression operations funding, presumably from previous fiscal years,
also may be credited to that minimum level for the purposes of this
requirement.88
3. The Secretary must certify that the amount available to the agency for anticipated
and ongoing suppression operations for the wildfire on which the declaration
request has been made will be obligated not later than 30 days after the
notification.
4. The Secretary must specify the amount of current fiscal year funds that are
required for suppression operations related to the wildfire for which the
declaration is requested.
Title IX of H.R. 2647 would require that the President establish a specific account from which
available funds may be transferred to the DOI Secretary or USDA Secretary to conduct wildfire
suppression operations if a declaration of a major disaster is made.89 This account may be used
only to fund assistance for major disaster declarations for wildfires on federal lands and
nonfederal lands pursuant to a fire protection agreement or cooperative agreement. The bill would
establish reimbursement procedures from the nonfederal entity if any of the funds transferred
from this account were used for wildfires on nonfederal lands under a fire protection agreement.
86 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Text of H.R. 2647, Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, committee
print, 114th Cong., 1st sess., July 1, 2015, H.Prt. 114-21.
87 Currently, “fire” is an eligible event under the Stafford Act. This proposal extends that authority to federal lands.
88 It is not clear as of what date during the fiscal year that the amount of these unobligated balances are to be calculated
for the purposes of this precondition.
89 In the case of each declaration for which a transfer of funds is to occur, the President has the authority to decide
where to establish the account. In addition, the amount of the transfer is limited to the amount that was requested by the
agency as part of the request for the disaster declaration, and shall not exceed the amount in the account.
Congressional Research Service
34
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
This account could be funded in anticipation of one or more such major disasters, or in response
to them, through regular or supplemental appropriations.
Within 90 days after the end of a fiscal year in which a major disaster for wildfire on federal lands
has been declared, the affected Secretaries must submit reports detailing their wildland fire
management decisions and cost expenditures to several congressional committees. These reports
must include the risk-based factors that influenced management decisions; an analysis of the
effectiveness of management decisions and cost factors across a statistically significant sample of
large fires; suppression operations expenditures broken out by fire size, cost, regional location,
and other factors as deemed appropriate by each Secretary; and lessons learned.
Section 903 of H.R. 2647 would prohibit the agencies from transferring funds from their other
accounts for suppression purposes, potentially eliminating the agencies’ fire borrowing.
Potential Implications
The budgetary mechanism under this proposal potentially could provide an additional
discretionary spending option for wildfire suppression operations funding related to the disaster
relief designation. As previously discussed, spending designated as “disaster relief,” which is
effectively exempt from the BCA limits, may be provided only for activities carried out pursuant
to a determination of a major disaster under Section 102(2) of the Stafford Act.90 Because H.R.
2647 would amend the Stafford Act to include wildfires on federal land as an incident for which
major disasters could be declared, these changes might allow appropriations for such activities to
be disaster-designated under certain circumstances:
• First, the preconditions for requesting a major disaster declaration for wildfires
on federal land would need to be fulfilled. These preconditions include a
minimum level of budgetary resources for wildfire suppression operations, and
that minimum amount would need to have been appropriated (and therefore
would be subject to the statutory discretionary spending limits).
• Second, even if disaster-designated funds were appropriated in anticipation of a
major disaster for wildfires on federal lands, they could be transferred and made
available to the requesting agency only after a major disaster had been declared
by the President. They would not be available to the agencies prior to that time.
In the contexts of their various budget enforcement responsibilities, however, the House and
Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and
Budget would need to determine how the changes to the Stafford Act proposed by H.R. 2647
would affect the BBEDCA disaster designation, if at all.
If the Stafford Act changes in Title IX of H.R. 2647 led to the use of the disaster designation for
additional wildfire suppression operations funding, these changes would have implications for the
future operation of that designation. In addition to allowing wildfires that meet certain criteria to
be eligible for funding using the disaster designation, the calculation for the disaster cap would
only gradually incorporate appropriations for any major disaster declarations for wildfires on
federal lands over the next 10 fiscal years. This has the potential to increase the competition for
budgetary resources that can be provided using the designation. However, because appropriations
90 Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the BBEDCA.
Congressional Research Service
35
Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress
for the full adjustment allowed by the disaster cap have not been made since FY2013, adding
purposes to the designation might cause more of the allowable adjustment to be used and factored
into future disaster cap calculations. This might have the effect of increasing the amount of
disaster cap in future fiscal years above what it otherwise might have been. Because the amount
available under the disaster designation is highly sensitive to future appropriations decisions,
CRS cannot determine definitively the extent to which the calculation for the disaster cap would
be affected by this expansion of Stafford Act purposes.
Other considerations also affect the budgetary implications of this proposal for DOI and FS. The
bill would prohibit fire borrowing, although it is unclear if fire borrowing authorities would
continue to be provided in appropriations laws. It is also unclear how H.R. 2647 would impact the
agencies’ budget formulation process. The precondition to appropriate a minimum amount is
based on the rolling 10-year suppression obligation average, but the rescissions and unobligated
balances might complicate that calculation.
H.R. 2647 would require the agencies to provide Congress and the public with reports analyzing
cost expenditures and management decisions. These reporting requirements could provide
Congress—and the agencies—with more information on agency decisionmaking and spending to
aid in future appropriations decisions and oversight. However, the development and production of
these reports and the required analyses potentially could require substantial investments from the
agencies.
Legislative Action
Title IX was not in the versions of H.R. 2647 that were reported from the House Committees on
Agriculture and Natural Resources.
On July 7, 2015, the House Committee on Rules reported a special rule (H.Res. 347) for the
consideration of H.R. 2647. The special rule provides that Rules Committee Print 114-24, as
modified by an amendment printed in the Rules Committee report on H.Res. 347, shall be
considered to be the base text of the bill for the purposes of amending it. (The modifications to
the committee print do not alter Title IX.)
Author Contact Information
Katie Hoover
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
khoover@crs.loc.gov, 7-9008
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533
Bruce R. Lindsay
Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst in American National Government
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
jtollestrup@crs.loc.gov, 7-0941
Congressional Research Service
36