Remember House Interior Approps does both FS and BLM appropriations. Here’s a link to the bill text, but Marc at E&E did us a big favor by pointing out the key elements of interest.
House appropriators Monday turned away a Trump administration effort to slash the Forest Service’s research budget, proposing to hold spending steady at about $300 million in fiscal 2026. The proposal by the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee is part of an $8.5 billion annual spending plan for the Forest Service that largely ignores the administration’s most far-reaching proposals.
Total spending for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 would be $16.8 million less than this year’s level. Spending not directly tied to fire suppression would total $3.6 billion, or about $107 million less than this year. The measure is scheduled for a subcommittee markup Tuesday.
The research budget would total $302 million, of which $34 million would be reserved for forest inventory and analysis — the data-collecting operation that the administration hadn’t looked to scale back.
Lawmakers’ decision to stick with research funding follows a strenuous lobbying campaign by Forest Service retirees and others who said the programs have a distinguished, long history worth continuing.
The committee proposed $2.43 billion for wildland fire management at the Forest Service, plus the $2.48 billion disaster fund that’s mandated by Congress and likely to be tapped to cover rising wildfire costs.
Lawmakers didn’t endorse the administration’s proposal to move wildfire suppression to the Interior Department, which would require creation of a new sub-agency there.
Appropriators also opted not to endorse the administration’s proposal to eliminate funding for state and private forestry programs, including international forestry.
State and private forestry programs would receive $281 million, a slight decline from this year and a bigger drop compared to the $337 million spent three years ago.These include many of the grants the Forest Service provides to states and localities for practices from reducing potential wildfire fuel to planting trees, although the bill doesn’t dictate exactly how the funds are to be distributed.
As appropriators have learned this year, a top-line spending number doesn’t guarantee that the administration will spend the money as Congress likes.
The Agriculture Department this year has siphoned money away from some of the state forestry grants to pay employees who took deferred resignation, and a USDA official told lawmakers last week that the administration intends to shift already-appropriated grant funding to boosting timber production.
The appropriations bill also includes $202 million for reducing hazardous fuels such as dead or dying trees in national forests. Up to $30 million of that amount may be used to promote increased use of biomass such as in wood products.
***********
There are a variety of things that there may be a backstory on.. like why NFF and NFWF are singled out as non-profits. Here’s a peculiar one:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of any
2 appropriations or funds available to the Forest Service,
3 not to exceed $500,000 may be used to reimburse the Of4 fice of the General Counsel (OGC), Department of Agri5 culture, for travel and related expenses incurred as a re6 sult of OGC assistance or participation requested by the
7 Forest Service at meetings, training sessions, management
8 reviews, land purchase negotiations, and similar matters
9 unrelated to civil litigation: Provided, That future budget
10 justifications for both the Forest Service and the Depart11 ment of Agriculture should clearly display the sums pre12 viously transferred and the sums requested for transfer.
Were OGC folks jetting around the country in some unusual way?
What does this mean?
That $20,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Agri1 culture to enter into procurement contracts or cooperative
2 agreements or to issue grants for hazardous fuels manage3 ment activities, and for training or monitoring associated
4 with such hazardous fuels management activities on Fed5 eral land, or on non-Federal land if the Secretary deter6 mines such activities benefit resources on Federal land.
Does that mean that only 20 mill may be used? Line 20 of the previous pages says “not to exceed” for another purpose, which makes sense, but what does “may be used” mean? Is it gently encouraging that amount?
Please add questions or answers in the comments.