{ "id": "R44082", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44082", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458881, "date": "2017-02-09", "retrieved": "2017-02-15T21:41:23.795053", "title": "Wildfire Suppression Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation", "summary": "Congress has directed that the federal government is responsible for managing wildfires that begin on federal lands, such as national forests or national parks. The states are responsible for managing wildfires that originate on all other lands. Although a greater number of wildfires occur annually on nonfederal lands, wildfires on federal lands tend to be much larger, particularly in the western United States. The federal government\u2019s wildfire management responsibilities\u2014fulfilled primarily by the Forest Service (FS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI)\u2014include prevention, detection, response, and recovery. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also may provide disaster relief for certain nonfederal wildfires. \nCongress provides appropriations for wildfire management to both FS and DOI. Within these appropriations, suppression operations are largely funded through two accounts for each agency: Wildland Fire Management (WFM) accounts and 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 several sources: the WFM account, the FLAME account, additional funding as needed through transfers, and/or supplemental appropriations.\nOverall appropriations to FS and DOI for wildland fire management have quadrupled since the 1990s, going from $1.2 billion in FY1994 to $4.9 billion in FY2016 in constant dollars. 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 FY2001, FS and DOI have required more suppression funds than have been appropriated to them in all but three years. This discrepancy often leads the agencies to transfer funds from other accounts, prompting concerns that increasing suppression spending may be detrimental to other agency programs. In response, Congress has enacted supplemental appropriations to repay the transferred funds or to replenish the agency\u2019s wildfire accounts 12 times, including $700 million provided as emergency spending in FY2016 to repay suppression costs from FY2015. Furthermore, wildfire spending\u2014like all discretionary spending\u2014is currently subject to 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 situation has prompted some to explore providing wildfire spending outside of those constraints.\nThe 115th Congress may consider legislation to address these issues. The 114th Congress considered\u2014but did not enact\u2014several wildfire spending bills that may be of interest. All of these bills, directly or indirectly, would have allowed for some wildfire suppression funds\u2014subject to certain criteria\u2014to be provided outside the statutory limits on discretionary spending, either through the annual appropriations process or through supplemental appropriations. Under those proposals, varying levels of wildfire funding would not have needed to compete with other programs and activities that are subject to the statutory limits. However, the amounts that could have been provided for wildfire suppression operations under these proposals\u2014both within and outside of the spending limits\u2014would have been subject to future appropriations decisions by Congress. These proposals also could have affected certain funding mechanisms that have been used to provide additional spending for major disaster recovery (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44082", "sha1": "f29ca910322f1c632ce65529dd0b3d0c39c0bf07", "filename": "files/20170209_R44082_f29ca910322f1c632ce65529dd0b3d0c39c0bf07.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44082", "sha1": "35a993142d2ce4c286887c1e3791623088504ca3", "filename": "files/20170209_R44082_35a993142d2ce4c286887c1e3791623088504ca3.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4773, "name": "Interior & Environment Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4839, "name": "Earth Sciences & Natural Hazards" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 454747, "date": "2016-08-03", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:49:23.364204", "title": "Wildfire Suppression Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "The federal government is responsible for managing wildfires that begin on federal lands\u2014such as national forests or national parks\u2014while the states are responsible for managing wildfires that originate on all other lands. Although a greater number of wildfires occur annually on nonfederal lands, the wildfires that begin on federal lands tend to be much larger, particularly in the western United States. The federal government\u2019s wildfire management responsibilities\u2014provided primarily through the Forest Service (FS) and Department of the Interior (DOI)\u2014include prevention, detection, response, and recovery. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may also provide disaster relief for certain nonfederal wildfires. \nCongress appropriates funding for wildfire management to both FS and DOI. Within their overall appropriations for wildfire, suppression operations are largely funded through two accounts for each agency: 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 several sources: the WFM account, the FLAME account, supplemental appropriations, and/or additional funding as needed through transfers.\nCongress is debating the level and direction of federal spending on wildland fire management. Appropriations to FS and DOI for wildland fire management have more than tripled since the 1990s, going from $1.6 billion in FY1995 to $4.9 billion in FY2016 in constant dollars. 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. In 14 of the 15 years since FY2001, FS and DOI have required more suppression funds than have been appropriated to them. This discrepancy often leads the agencies to transfer funds from other accounts, prompting concerns that the increasing suppression spending may be coming at the expense of other agency programs. In response, Congress has enacted supplemental appropriations to repay the transferred funds or to replenish the agency\u2019s wildfire accounts 12 times, including $700.0 million provided as emergency spending in FY2016 to repay suppression costs from FY2015. Further, wildfire spending\u2014like all discretionary spending\u2014is 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 situation has prompted some to explore providing certain wildfire spending effectively outside of those constraints.\nTo date, several bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress to address wildfire spending issues, including H.R. 167, S. 235, S. 508, and H.R. 2647. All of these bills, directly or indirectly, might allow for some wildfire suppression funds\u2014subject to certain criteria\u2014to 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\u2014both within and outside of the spending limits\u2014would 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). H.R. 2647 passed the House on July 9, 2015.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44082", "sha1": "03477875ee89a02ad4671939b9a98083711735d4", "filename": "files/20160803_R44082_03477875ee89a02ad4671939b9a98083711735d4.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44082", "sha1": "b5eb9a9e90ba19a62980dc68ca7a77f686569fb5", "filename": "files/20160803_R44082_b5eb9a9e90ba19a62980dc68ca7a77f686569fb5.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4773, "name": "Interior & Environment Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4839, "name": "Earth Sciences & Natural Hazards" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 444575, "date": "2015-08-25", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:31:13.133120", "title": "Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "Congressional Research Service\n7-5700\nwww.crs.gov\nR44082\nSummary\nThe federal government is responsible for managing wildfires that begin on federal lands\u2014such as national forests or national parks\u2014while the states are responsible for managing wildfires that originate on all other lands. The federal government\u2019s wildfire management responsibilities\u2014provided primarily through the Forest Service (FS) and Department of the Interior (DOI)\u2014include prevention, detection, response, and recovery. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may also provide disaster relief for certain nonfederal wildfires. \nCongress 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.\nCongress 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\u2019s suppression accounts. Further, wildfire spending\u2014as well as all discretionary spending\u2014is 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.\nTo 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\u2014subject to certain criteria\u2014to 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\u2014both within and outside of the spending limits\u2014would 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). H.R. 2647 passed the House on July 9, 2015.\nContents\nWildfire Background\t1\nWildfire Statistics\t2\nWildland-Urban Interface\t3\nFederal Assistance for Nonfederal Wildfires\t5\nDisaster Declarations\t5\nFire Management Assistance Grants\t6\nDisaster Relief Fund\t8\nWildfire Management Appropriations\t8\nSuppression Appropriations\t9\nFLAME\t13\nTransfer Authority to Supplement Suppression Funds\t15\nSupplemental Suppression Appropriations\t17\nForecasting Suppression Spending\t18\nIssues for Congress\t20\nAppropriation Levels and Forecasts\t21\nFunding Source\t21\nBudgetary Constraints\t22\nDiscretionary Spending Limits Background\t22\nLegislative Proposals in the 114th Congress\t24\nS. 235 and H.R. 167 (The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act)\t25\nSummary\t25\nPotential Implications\t26\nLegislative Action\t27\nS. 508 (The FLAME Act Amendments of 2015)\t28\nSummary\t28\nPotential Implications\t29\nLegislative Action\t31\nH.R. 2647 (The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015)\t31\nSummary\t32\nPotential Implications\t33\nLegislative Action\t34\n\nFigures\nFigure 1. Annual Trends in Wildfires and Acres Burned, 1994-2014\t2\nFigure 2. Fire Management Assistance Grants\t7\nFigure 3. Fire Management Assistance Grants by State\t7\nFigure 4. FS and DOI Total Wildfire Management Appropriations, FY1994-FY2014\t9\nFigure 5. FS Suppression Appropriations, FY2005-FY2014\t11\nFigure 6. DOI Suppression Appropriations, FY2005-FY2014\t12\nFigure 7. Distribution of FS Appropriations\t12\nFigure 8. FS Suppression Request, Appropriations, Obligations, and FLAME Forecasts\t19\nFigure 9. DOI Suppression Request, Appropriations, Obligations, and FLAME Forecasts\t20\n\nTables\nTable 1. 2014 Wildfires and Acres Burned by Eastern and Western States\t3\nTable 2. FS and DOI Appropriations, FY2010-FY2015\t10\nTable 3. FS Wildfire Suppression Spending, FY2004-FY2015\t13\nTable 4. DOI Wildfire Suppression Spending, FY2004-FY2015\t15\nTable 5. Comparison of Selected Attributes of H.R. 167, S. 235, and S. 508\t31\n\nContacts\nAuthor Contact Information\t34\n\nFederal funding for wildfire management\u2014particularly for suppression operations on federal lands\u2014raises several interrelated policy questions for Congress to consider. These questions include how much funding Congress should provide for suppression purposes\u2014an 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. \nThis 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.\nWildfire Background\nThe term wildfire is defined as an unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including lightning-caused fires, unauthorized human-caused fires, and escaped prescribed fire projects. 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)\u2014within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)\u2014carries 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. \nThe 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. 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\u2014primarily through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\u2014also may provide disaster relief to state and 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.\nWildfire Statistics\nSince 2000, an average of 74,000 wildfires burned an average 6.6 million acres every year (see Figure 1). 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. \nFigure 1. Annual Trends in Wildfires and Acres Burned, 1994-2014\n\nSource: CRS based on data from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC).\nNotes: Data reflect wildland fires and acres burned nationwide, including wildland fires on federal and nonfederal lands.\nIn 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, 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\u2019s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. \nTable 1. 2014 Wildfires and Acres Burned by Eastern and Western States\nLand Ownership\nFires\nAcres Burned\n\nWestern States\n20,712\n2,736,684\n\nFederal \n9,718\n1,955,657\n\n Forest Service\n5,732\n824,986\n\n DOI\n3,856\n1,101,550\n\n Other Federal\n130\n29,121\n\nNonfederal\n10,994\n781,027\n\nEastern States\n42,894\n858,928\n\nFederal \n3,318\n197,359\n\n Forest Service\n1,020\n46,889\n\n DOI\n2,202\n139,797\n\n Other Federal\n96\n10,673\n\nNonfederal\n39,576\n661,569\n\nTOTAL\n63,606\n3,595,612\n\nSource: CRS. Data compiled from NIFC, State and Agency Fires and Acres reports, at http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html.\nNotes: 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.\nWildland-Urban Interface\nWildfires 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\u2014or adjacent to\u2014vegetated wildlands (forests or rangelands) is called the wildland-urban interface (WUI). More than one-third of all housing developments in the United States are located within the WUI. In the West, nearly 900,000 homes are estimated to be at very high or high risk of wildfire damage in 2015. 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.\nU.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. 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. 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 \u201cblank check\u201d policy and has removed any incentive for the agencies to control suppression costs. \nFederal 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). These resources require protection, which often increases firefighter risks as well as suppression costs as more personnel or assets are deployed to provide protection. Federal suppression costs\u2014daily, overall, and on a per-acre basis\u2014become higher as the number and value of homes near a fire increase. \nWhen 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. The agencies have since modified their cost-share agreements with many of the states to provide more consistent arrangements, although these still may vary by state and by fire. 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\u2019s role in protecting WUI developments. However, the debate in more recent years seemingly has focused less on decreasing federal liability for rising suppression costs. \nFederal Assistance for Nonfederal Wildfires\nThe 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\u2014such as aviation equipment and personnel\u2014depending 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\u2019s jurisdiction or on resources deployed, among others. 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. \nCooperative fire protection and financial and technical assistance programs are provided by the federal land management agencies\u2014such as FS and DOI\u2014but FEMA also may provide assistance to states, communities, and individuals during or after a wildfire. \nDisaster Declarations\nThe term fire is included as an eligible event under the \u201cDefinitions\u201d section of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). A query of FEMA\u2019s declarations database for \u201cwildfire\u201d yields 27 major disaster declarations over a 60-year period (1953-2014). 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.\nIn 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. However, the most frequently employed authority for fighting wildfires under the Stafford Act is Section 420, which is specifically for \u201cFire Management Assistance.\u201d This authority results more frequently in the grants that are discussed below.\nFire Management Assistance Grants\nSection 420 of the Stafford Act authorizes the President to \u201cdeclare\u201d a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG), which authorizes financial assistance to the requesting state. 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\u2014day or night\u2014and can be submitted verbally by telephone to expedite the process.\nOnce issued, the FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal assistance\u2014such as equipment, personnel, and grants to state, local, and tribal governments\u2014for 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.\nAs 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. \nThe 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). \nCongress 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) of the Stafford Act. 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. The HMGP program is funded by the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) under major disaster declarations. \nFigure 2. Fire Management Assistance Grants\n(1970-2014)\n\nSource: CRS. Data provided by FEMA.\nFigure 3. Fire Management Assistance Grants by State\n(1973-2014)\n\nSource: CRS. Data provided by FEMA.\nDisaster Relief Fund\nFunds 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 \u201cno-year\u201d 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.\nIn 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 \u201cbase/non-major disasters.\u201d The President\u2019s 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\u2019s spending plans for all past declared major disasters.\nWildfire Management Appropriations\nFederal 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\u2014the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.\nBoth DOI and FS receive annual discretionary appropriations through the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bills. Each agency has two accounts for wildfire: a Wildland Fire Management (WFM) account and a Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act (FLAME) account. Each agency\u2019s 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. \nFederal 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. \nFigure 4. FS and DOI Total Wildfire Management Appropriations, FY1994-FY2014\n\nSource: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations.\nNotes: 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 dollars 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. \nThe 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\u2019s 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. \nSuppression Appropriations\nSuppression 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.\nTable 2. FS and DOI Appropriations, FY2010-FY2015\n(millions of nominal dollars)\n\nFY2010\nFY2011\nFY2012a\nFY2013\nFY2014\nFY2015\n\nForest Service (FS)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTotal Suppression Appropriations\n$1,410.5\n$1,285.9\n$853.6\n$1,188.8\n$1,595.5\n$1,011.1\n\n WFM Suppression\n$997.5\n$995.5\n$538.2\n$510.0\n$680.5\n$708.0\n\n FLAME \n$413.0\n$290.4\n$315.4\n$299.0\n$315.0\n$303.1\n\n Additional Appropriationsb\nNA\nNA\nNA\n$380.0\n$600.0\nNA\n\nWFM Other Than Suppressionc\n$1,181.2\n$1,172.5\n$1,436.6\n$1,358.9\n$1,481.8\n$1,625.3\n\nTotal FS Wildfire Appropriationsd\n$2,591.7\n$2,548.5\n$2,290.2\n$2,547.7\n$3,077.3\n$2,636.4\n\nFS Appropriations Other Than Wildfire\n$2,780.5\n$2,626.6\n$2,544.0\n$2,377.0\n$2,402.3\n$2,420.0\n\nTotal FS Appropriations\n$5,372.3\n$5,085.0\n$4,834.3\n$4,924.7\n$5,479.6\n$5,056.2\n\n% Wildfire Appropriations\n48%\n48%\n47%\n52%\n56%\n52%\n\nDepartment of the Interior (DOI)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTotal Suppression Appropriations\n$444.8\n$459.8\n$362.3\n$375.9\n$413.9\n$383.7\n\n WFM Suppression\n$383.8\n$399.0\n$270.5\n$261.2\n$285.9\n$291.7\n\n FLAME \n$61.0\n$60.9\n$91.9\n$91.7\n$92.0\n$92.0\n\n Additional Appropriations\nNA\nNA\nNA\n$23.0\n$36.0\nNA\n\nWFM Other Than Suppression\n$536.1\n$519.1\n$484.7\n$426.3\n$455.1\n$513.1\n\nTotal DOI Wildfire Appropriations\n$980.9\n$978.9\n$847.0\n$802.2\n$869.0\n$896.8\n\nDOI Approps. Other Than Wildfire\n$10,066.3 \n$9,648.6 \n$9,452.8 \n$9,890.1 \n$9,605.5 \n$10,194.1 \n\nTotal DOI Appropriations\n$11,047.2\n$10,627.5\n$10,299.8\n$10,692.3\n$10,474.5\n$11,090.9\n\nSource: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations.\nNotes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Data generally do not reflect any rescissions or budget adjustments for scorekeeping purposes. \nPrior 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. \nThis includes any appropriations enacted for suppression purposes and titled as \u201csupplemental,\u201d \u201cadditional,\u201d or \u201cemergency\u201d in the tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations.\nThis includes all appropriations to the FS WFM account, excluding funds appropriated to the Suppression program. \nThis 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. \nWithin 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\u2014including repaying borrowed funds from the previous fiscal year\u2014through 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.\nOver 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\u2019s overall wildfire appropriation and a quarter of the agency\u2019s total appropriation (see Figure 7). Within DOI, wildfire appropriations\u2014including suppression\u2014are 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.\nFigure 5. FS Suppression Appropriations, FY2005-FY2014\n(dollars in billions)\n\nSource: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations.\nNotes: The FLAME account was established in FY2010.\nFigure 6. DOI Suppression Appropriations, FY2005-FY2014\n(dollars in millions)\n\nSource: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations.\nNotes: The FLAME account was established in FY2010.\nFigure 7. Distribution of FS Appropriations \n(FY2005-FY2014)\n\nSource: CRS. Data compiled from detailed funding tables prepared by the House Committee on Appropriations.\nNotes: \u201cWildfire appropriations (other than Suppression)\u201d includes all appropriations to the FS WFM account, excluding funds appropriated to the Suppression program. \u201cWildfire Appropriations (Suppression)\u201d includes funds appropriated to the WFM Suppression program, the FLAME reserve account, and any emergency or supplemental appropriations provided for suppression activities. \u201cAll Other FS Appropriations\u201d includes appropriations to all FS accounts except the WFM account, FLAME reserve account, and any emergency or supplemental appropriations provided for suppression activities.\nFLAME\nCongress established a FLAME account\u2014under the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009\u2014for both FS and DOI in part to account for the growing cost of wildfire suppression. 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. \nBoth 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. 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 $5", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44082", "sha1": "2c915224af1ab78b2fabd18d7e110c82819a2c06", "filename": "files/20150825_R44082_2c915224af1ab78b2fabd18d7e110c82819a2c06.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44082", "sha1": "85da9860d2fbcc3d44ad22e62bfb45131f2a745d", "filename": "files/20150825_R44082_85da9860d2fbcc3d44ad22e62bfb45131f2a745d.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2346, "name": "Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies' Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 314, "name": "Federal Lands" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc809985/", "id": "R44082_2015Jul07", "date": "2015-07-07", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150707_R44082_da283d0aef86cd5ae937c0e57f847f07f8001f17.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150707_R44082_da283d0aef86cd5ae937c0e57f847f07f8001f17.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc770557/", "id": "R44082_2015Jun26", "date": "2015-06-26", "retrieved": "2015-11-04T09:58:14", "title": "Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "This report provides background information and analysis of funding for federal wildfire suppression operations. It concludes by summarizing relevant legislative proposals introduced in the 114th Congress and discussing their possible implications.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150626_R44082_3dd20150ab9875918c25a45807e7b1e53278ba8c.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150626_R44082_3dd20150ab9875918c25a45807e7b1e53278ba8c.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Emergency management", "name": "Emergency management" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Forest fires", "name": "Forest fires" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Fires", "name": "Fires" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc812844/", "id": "R44082_2015Jun19", "date": "2015-06-19", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Wildfire Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150619_R44082_25fa09ab70725227b3aefdaed0aadb1d5c72d350.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150619_R44082_25fa09ab70725227b3aefdaed0aadb1d5c72d350.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Appropriations", "Economic Policy", "Energy Policy" ] }