USDI Wildfire Consolidation and Report from Megafire Action

It’s been a bit confusing, especially with the Wildfire Today story, about how Interior can combine wildfire responsibilities. It’s also confusing because while it is occurring during the Trump Admin, it is something that has been pushed for by fire folks and folks on the D side, most notably Megafire Action. I could write it either way, for R’s or D’s.

I reached out to Megafire Action for more info on the question “why does DOI think they can do this internally” and “do Congressfolk much care if they leave out the FS?”. Shout out to them for answering these questions!

Short answer: While Congress did not provide new appropriations specifically for unification, the Administration can proceed with unifying DOI WFM because the appropriated funds are already a consolidated wildland fire management account, folding in the Forest Service would require congressional action.

More detail: The Administration is working to unify the Federal wildland fire management mission to the maximum extent possible under existing appropriations structures and legal authorities. The Administration has determined that through administrative action it may restructure existing programs to establish a USWFS and unify DOI WFM programs under that Service.

The Administration has likely come to this legal determination that they can move forward with DOI consolidation without additional Congressional action primarily due to the unique appropriations structure for DOI WFM programs. This structure already consolidates appropriations that fund the WFM programs of multiple DOI bureaus (e.g. BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA) under one department-wide account. This consolidated appropriation, which is provided without restrictions on which component of DOI administers the funded programs, will be used to fund USWFS programs, including those currently administered by the bureaus.

However, in order to fold in the Forest Service WFM into the USWFS as well, as envisioned in the FY26 President’s Budget request, Congress would have to take additional action, both on the authorizing and appropriations side.

There is a diversity of opinion on the consolidation effort within Congress. From our perspective, if the Administration is moving forward with consolidation – at the very least on the DOI side – we’d like to help inform their decision-making. Last fall released a report highlighting important challenges and opportunities related to consolidation, I’ve attached the report for you.

Their report is very interesting. MegaFire Action is a fan of moving the FS to Interior. They have some good questions and observations.. some specifically about IRA and IIJA bucks.

Splitting the federal WFM mission between two departments hampers comprehensive, authoritative management—particularly in restoring landscapes to a fire-resilient state. For example, when Congress provided billions for hazardous fuels management through the IIJA and IRA, USDA and DOI were directed to create an integrated strategy to deploy the funding. Instead, USDA produced a 10-year plan ultimately focused on 21 discrete National Forest landscapes, while DOI issued a 5-year plan and did not focus resources within defined landscapes, thus introducing significant strategic misalignment from the outset of IIJA and IRA implementation.

Furthermore, a September 2024 report by the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) revealed that the Forest Service “. . . could not accurately report how much it spent for FYs 2022 and 2023 hazardous fuels management, resulting in $205.6 million in questioned costs.” Additionally, the OIG “. . . found that FS did not fully document its rationale for prioritizing and selecting projects. As such, FS’ decision-making process is not transparent, resulting in reduced assurance that the
most critical projects were selected.”

The scale of the crisis demands more accountability, efficiency, and efficacy in federal fuels management.

Not to seem too critical of the Forest Service, but to me, it was a bad look to try to change accountability from the concrete but problematic “acres treated” to the modeled and nebulous “outcomes.” Then there was the difficulty of even finding out where the bucks had gone (even FOIAs didn’t pick up all the info. Still, I think harmonizing the obvious across Int and USDA could do as well without the drama. Like fire hiring. And transparency and accountability.

Below is based on my experience.

• With Service-First- where there’s a consistent will, including Congress when needed, there’s a way.
• With LEO- stove-piped programs are not the end.
• With FS firefolks: there were (already, before I retired) instances in which they followed different rules than others in the FS based on interagency agreements. I’m sure that structure was leveraged toward desirable outcomes for fire folks in both agencies. Wouldn’t you?
• With Interior leadership: tend to be more partisan than USDA, for whatever reason. Think Jim Hubbard vs. Tracy Stone-Manning or Robert Bonnie vs. Laura Daniel-Davis.

Aside from experience, though, I could imagine that in a D Admin, timber would be the bad guys (once again), and in an R Admin timber would be overlooked and invisible compared to the Usual Energy Suspects.  Just at the time when there is (some) bipartisan support for wood utilization and rebuilding timber infrastructure.

Communities, including low-income and underserved, with federal forests could lose out either way.

We discussed some of this last June.