As I have said previously, I think that the study is a bad idea particularly at this point in time, when the USWFS is still in a learning mode. To me, it would be logical to wait until a) the USWFS has arrived at some equilibrium about how it wants to do things, and then b) identify where the agencies being different is a problem, and then c) compare moving FS wildfire folks to fixing the inconsistencies directly via other means.
Isn’t that the real comparison? Of course “doing a study” can be a delaying tactic by Congressfolk who don’t want to do something, but don’t want to go on record as opposing. Still, my view is that doing it now is particularly pointless. That being said, let’s start with the FS press release:
U.S. Forest Service Awards Fire Feasibility Study Contract on Wildfire Management Consolidation. The independent study is intended to answer questions of potential efficiencies and continuity.
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 4, 2026
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service has awarded Research Triangle Institute a $1,156,000 contract to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study on consolidating wildland fire management operations within the federal government.
The feasibility study will assess potential efficiencies and anticipated impacts of separating the Forest Service’s wildland fire management operations from its broader land management responsibilities to consolidate federal wildland fire management operations, as described in the President’s FY27 budget.
Completing the feasibility study is essential to understanding the key risks, dependencies, constraints and trade-offs associated with consolidating federal wildland fire management. Under the contract, Research Triangle Institute will evaluate operations, organizational structure, workforce, financial management, wildland fire infrastructure, interoperability and stakeholder coordination to determine how consolidation could affect delivery of the Forest Service’s land management mission, operational readiness, and continuity of critical programs.
The final report is expected by February 15, 2027. Findings will inform future decision-making on the consolidation of federal wildland fire management operations.
Background
The 2026 Appropriations Act (P.L. 119-74) directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to engage an independent, non-partisan research organization to conduct a feasibility study on the consolidation of federal wildland fire management operations, as outlined in the President’s budget.
The Department of Agriculture issued a request for quote for the feasibility study, which closed on June 8, 2026.
***********************
I guess the good news is that the contract is only a little over $1 mill, basically spare change in the FS budget.
But who is the Research Triangle Institute?
We are an independent scientific research institute dedicated to improving the human condition
And what do they know about “operations, organizational structures, workforce, financial management, wildland fire infrastructure, interoperability and stakeholder coordination?” Is the FS funding a learning experience for some North Carolinians? Maybe there’s a lack of organizations with knowledge of fire, or organizations, or public administration. Maybe that’s a broader question.. if we (this country, more broadly) want to improve state (in the sense of “the state” not just states) capacity, where are the academics or consulting groups that have the knowledge and wherewithal to help? Is the capacity out there, and we’re not asking them? Are the folks with expertise not interested in this project for some reason (not enough bucks?). While I did a post-doc at NC State and am very fond of North Carolina, I do wonder about picking an organization from a state that has relatively little contact with federal wildland fire operations. Is this a case of convenience over capacity?
And are public administration questions really addressed by “scientific research” at all? Do we think so little of management and administration questions that they don’t even get their own disciplines? Of course, RTI could hire people with knowledge, but then so could anyone else.
There’s an E&E news story on this also.
Someone in the Trump Admin wants to push the “moving wildfire to Int” forward, and certainly Senator Sheehy does, but that’s not enough to do much if others in the Admin and Congress oppose it. The due datefor the study is Feb. 15, in the next Congress. Perhaps the FS slow-walked getting the contract out there until after mid-terms?
The RTI, an independent scientific research institute, is a preferred vendor with the General Services Administration, meaning it has a prenegotiated contract with the federal government that makes additional competitive bidding unnecessary. Its wide portfolio includes environmental issues like climate change and wildfire smoke, military programs, and food safety.
As I said above, whatever their “portfolio” is, I don’t see any organizational stuff in there. See their “services and capabilities” page above.
While some congressional Republicans support the idea, key appropriators such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) have been more cautious and backed the requirement for an initial study. Murkowski chairs the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. Simpson chairs the counterpart subcommittee in the House.
“I don’t feel any pressure to get it done,” Simpson told reporters in March as his panel was weighing whether to advance the concept, eventually adopting language to put off any consideration until future budget requests. “It may be the best idea since sliced bread, I just don’t know yet.”
Of course, we can question whether Senators Simpson and Murkowski would know if it is a good idea based on this particular study, with potentially inexperienced researchers, and without the knowledge of what coordination barriers will remain after USWFS gets running smoothly. My guess is that there will be many “outs” for the dubious Congressfolk once the study is completed, aided by “FS together” aficionados.
The easiest, cheapest and best thing in my view would be for FS and USFWS to make a list of “things Congress needs to change for smooth interoperability” after maybe one more fire season and present it to them. What’s the hurry?
Dismantling the United States Forest Service like the way it is being done and then studying a tactical component (wildfire suppression) seems so obviously backwards. Even I know that. But I suspect the powers to be obviously have their motives. In the end, this mess will be able to say there was a study and a USWFS emerged, even though it has already emerged. Come on. We are so much better than this.
A real opportunity for the American people is being lost. Why not look at the real issue — lack of forest stewardship — and design a configuration to effectively address forest management, protection and utilization. Look at all the people that are dying each year due to smoke inhalation due to our selfishness.
Establish some core values and chart a decade-long “Campaign.” Think cohesively:
1. Address a national emergency; lack of forest management and the resulting wildfires.
2, Create an unprecedented national federal, state and local commitment to aggressively manage America’s forests along the complex rural to urban land gradient.
3. Form a Commission to lead the way.
4. Create an organizational configuration that includes three “Service Departments” (management, protection, and improved biomass utilization). The “protection” “Service Department” would include the USWFS. This way you keep forest management and protection together. The current approach is super expensive and doomed for failure.
5. Align to a “Department of Land Conservation.”
The Commission should have co-leadership: A western governor and a member of Congress. Place people on the Commission that fully understand the “forests are more than just trees.” This is key: We must use the best science and scholarship available. The process must be transparent, open to review, and amenable to change. The current approach is an insult. Spending a million dollars to say, “we studied it” is sad. Go ask the trees, they will tell you. Think in terms of landscape scale conservation. Stop the USWFS until a stewardship vision is outlined and agreed to and deployed. Pretty basic stuff!
Very respectfully,
The only solution I see for the new paradigm is a massive investment in hundreds of tanker planes and helicopters, and also engaging the US Military aviation resources. Today’s strategy involves setting up fire camps (days of wasted time).
With rapid aerial attack, fires will be extinguished before they grow. Too expensive? Calculate the number of aircraft that could be purchased with the money Trump has spent on the Iran “War”, and the billions we send to Israel each year.
Beyond this, billions can be saved by closing FS roads whenever the fire danger rises above “moderate”, given that 80% of fires are human caused. Also, reducing the number of miles of FS roads – with permanent closures – would statistically reduce the number of human caused fires.
It would be interesting to map where human caused ignitions are located.. highly used roads? Other roads? Certainly keeping people out would reduce unwanted ignitions, but a key element of FS management is recreation, so there’s that.
Yes, it would be interesting. Regarding recreating, I guess we would need to weigh the benefits and savings versus the inconvenience to the recreating public. I lean in favor of closing access, and that individuals will find alternative activities.
Thanks for what you do to host dialogues about our public lands.
Glenn
As I write this, millions of Americans are living under conditions of severely degraded air quality due to drought induced western wildfires. Here in Bozeman Montana my family – for a full week as of this writing- is wearing N95 masks anytime we venture outdoors, and we are spending most of our days indoors with windows closed tightly, and “box fan” air filters running 24 hours a day.
This has become the norm for most of our August months for the past decade.
This is a national emergency that is impacting the lives and health of millions of Americans, and it needs to be treated as such – with aggressive action by the federal government. Clearly, our present approach to fighting wildfires is inadequate and antiquated.
I’m not an expert on wildfires. I’m a pilot, and have some knowledge of the capabilities of aerial attack, and the capabilities and limitations of aircraft. When I look at the logistics and costs of “fire camps”, I see a bulky, slow, cumbersome approach that burns money, imperils the health of brave firefighters, and isn’t very effective.
I did some research and calculating to add to my previous comment about a robust aerial attack strategy to fight wildfires.
At the conservative estimate of $30 billion as the present cost of the Trump Iran “War”, the US could purchase a fleet of 1300 Sikorsky/Ericson Sky Crane helicopters.
Imagine fleets of these placed around the west, and which could be called upon to converge on a conflagration.
Would this make a difference in our effectiveness at attacking wildfires?
Or, the US military possesses about 450 Chinook heavy lift helicopters. What a perfect mission for the military to fight wildfires.
Obviously 1300 Skycranes is overkill, but fleets of these positioned strategically around the west could have a profound impact on fires.
I would welcome any critique/comments on my ideas.
Thank you Smokey Wire.
Couple things to consider.
– Aviation doesn’t fully put out fire. You need ground pounders to go in, and fully put it out.
– The ability to use the military on fires has to go throw a huge process of approval and majority of the time the first to go are the national guard. Rarely do you see a whole aviation regiment mobilized to fight a fire from an active duty base.
– The aviation side of fire is going through a change of thought process realizing that hueys are going to be phased out in the next ten years, and there will be a need for modern aircraft. Hence why you see more blackhawks out fighting fire because the military is starting to phase the blackhawks out, and thus they become available for civilian purchase.
– There are positions that coordinate the movement of aircraft across the country for wildfire suppression. They have to make the tough decisions of where to send aircraft based on needs. Pay for the premium version of watch duty and watch the amount of aircraft there are in the country that respond to fires.
– The fire camps are necessary to support the whole fire operation. They support everyone and act as a forward operating base. They coordinate logistical supply needs and provide food/ medical care for the firefighters. If they did not exists, I guarantee that the cost would double to fight fire.
– The aviation world is complex and unfortunately you can’t just through 30 VLATS, 80 chinooks, and 100 crop dusters on a fire and think that is an efficient process.
– People choose to live where they live and they will never understand that there is inherent risk of wanting to live in nice areas surrounded by forest.
This is obviously written by somebody who has never stepped foot onto a fire, exposure to the fire world, and probably never left their desk job in the concrete jungle. The fact that they elected to consult with a third party is a beyond wise decision so that there can’t be any agency favoritism. There are huge outstanding issues between all the federal agencies when it comes to fire operations and management plans. It is also pretty normal to contract a third party when it comes to scenarios like this to take a neutral position and look past the bureaucratic influence that happens all too often. Look at what has happened the past five years in the US when it comes to wildfires. The season is now year round, the fires are growing at explosive rates, and there is a shortage of fire personnel at all levels. Give the folks some grace on both sides, especially for the firefighter fatalities that have already taken place over what, trees and dirt and for people to go recreate on their weekends? People are burnt out, the season is barely halfway over, and no they don’t wear N-95 masks because that would make their job impossible.
Can we get some insider information about which wildfire-related industries to invest in? (Asking For A Friend)
Perimeter solutions and Bridger Aerospace.
Wearing masks such as N-95s would make their job impossible? Because we know bandanas work so much better and firefighters in Greece are inferior firefighters due to wearing masks. I quit going out on fires as a firefighter as soon as I got a permanent position and received a paycheck all year long (extra money going out on fires helped me get through the winters) because I knew breathing all that smoke was bad for me. Meanwhile, a good friend of mine continued to go on fires and because his first job wasn’t fire, he did so for more than 30 years. He was never a smoker and his lungs are currently functioning at 55%.