Department of Interior

The Wildland Fire Service Can Work—But Not Without the Forest Service: Post by Eric Horne of Megafire Action

by

Many thanks to the Megafire Action folks for digging into this- I was confused about the Senate bill vs. the budget justification and so on.  Just to get this on the table: Megafire Action is not associated with this Admin, in fact the CEO has a D California legislative background. So here’s one issue that hasn’t been partisanized, thank Gaia!

****************************************************************************************

The Wildland Fire Service can work—but not without the Forest Service

New Details on the Wildland Fire Service: budget, land management, and what’s left behind

By Eric Horne, National Policy Director, Megafire Action

The Trump Administration’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget formally proposes consolidating wildland fire programs across the Departments of Interior and Agriculture into a unified U.S. Wildland Fire Service housed within DOI. While we still await further details, the newly released FY26 Interior Budget in Brief and Forest Service Congressional Justification—published June 8th—provide sufficient detail to broadly assess what the proposed consolidation looks like: what is the rough budget, what programs would move from USDA to DOI, and what would remain behind. As the President’s Budget acknowledges, the proposed reorganization is “contingent upon the enactment of legislation,” placing the responsibility squarely with Congress. In February, Senators Padilla and Sheehy introduced a bill requesting a plan to establish a National Wildland Firefighting Service, but beyond that there are few indicators about how Congress will respond to the Administration’s proposal, offering the wildland fire and forestry community the opportunity to present its view(s). In our February piece on One Department for Wildfire Management, we argued that unifying wildland fire and land management under one department—specifically, moving the entire Forest Service to Interior—could streamline preparedness, mitigation, and suppression, improve transparency, strengthen Tribal partnerships, and deliver better value to taxpayers. In short: if the Wildland Fire Service is going to work, it needs the whole Forest Service, not just parts of it. As Congress takes up this proposal in budget hearings this month, here are some considerations:

U.S. Wildland Fire Service overview: The Fire Service has a proposed FY26 budget of $6.55 billion—$3.70 billion for operations and $2.85 billion for the reserve fund. This is relatively flat with the combined FY25 fire budgets for USDA and DOI, which together totaled over $6.3 billion—$2.43 billion in operations and $2.39 billion in reserve funding for the Forest Service, and $1.15 billion in operations and $350 million in reserve funding for Interior. The Fire Service would oversee wildfire suppression, fuels management, preparedness, post-fire recovery, intelligence and technology, and fire-related research across more than 693 million acres of federal land, while also funding Tribal firefighting personnel. By centralizing command, appropriations, and other key functions, the Administration aims to improve efficiency, enhance initial attack success, and reduce long-term wildfire risk through a more integrated approach. The proposal’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on careful operational integration—as Bob B. noted in his Smokey Wire piece last month—and how well remaining land management functions are aligned.

Fuels management: The transfer of fuels management to the new Fire Service is a critical step toward more effective wildfire mitigation—one Megafire Action has been advocating for. The FY26 budget funds this work at $770 million, which is roughly flat with the combined FY25 fuels management budgets of Interior ($228 million) and Forest Service ($175 million plus an estimated $393 million in salaries and expenses for FY25). Note: the salaries and expenses estimate is based on the historical share of National Forest System (NFS) staff working on fuels, since the Forest Service hasn’t reported FTEs for this program since FY20 (this shift may also account for a significant share of the NFS budget drop from $1.86 billion in FY25 to $1.3 billion in FY26.) While unified fuels management under one department promises better integration of mitigation and suppression, its success depends on aligning land management authorities as well. Putting the Wildland Fire Service in Interior in charge of fuels management, while keeping responsibility for 193 million acres of Forest Service land under a separate secretary at USDA, risks repeating the same fragmentation that has long undermined effective wildfire prevention.

What is left behind at USDA: While it is promising that suppression and fuels management will stay linked under the new Fire Service, key wildfire mitigation programs and expertise will be left behind at the Forest Service—undermining the proposal’s overall efficiency. The Vegetation and Watershed Management Program, cut from $30 million to $21.3 million, supports prescribed fire, invasive species control, and post-fire restoration. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program—also cut by a third down to $21.5 million—provides vital data on pre- and post-fire conditions. Land Management Planning is left behind at the Forest Service and drops from $14.5 million to $10 million, raising questions about how the Fire Service will accomplish its stated objective of “integration of fire into land-use planning.” Meanwhile, the Forest Products Program—flat-funded at $39 million—is tasked with increasing timber production on high-risk fire lands in accordance with the President’s Executive Order. The $283 million State, Private, and Tribal Forestry account and $300 million Forest and Rangeland Research account—both of which have major wildfire and fuels management functions—are planned for complete elimination in the FY26 budget. All of these underfunded functions—and there are many more—are critical to fuels management but have been left out of the proposed consolidation, raising the specter of a significantly divided and weakened wildfire mitigation system. Other functions like law enforcement, recreation, and minerals management also have clear synergies with Interior agencies, prompting a critical question: if the goal is an “integrated, cost-efficient, and operationally more effective organization”, why not move the entire Forest Service to DOI?

Moving the entire Forest Service to DOI: the Administration appears to be keeping this possibility open, stating in the FY26 budget that “additional operational capacity will be transferred from USDA FS to Interior in the future to ensure effective USWFS mission implementation.” This could eventually include relocating the entire Forest Service to the Department of the Interior, but we believe this should be done in conjunction with the creation of the Wildland Fire Service.  The Administration’s proposal—particularly the inclusion of fuels management within the new Fire Service—is a promising step toward a more integrated wildfire response system. However, by leaving key land management functions underfunded and siloed at USDA, the proposal risks recreating the very fragmentation it seeks to solve. By going half-way, we would forgo cost and performance synergies with DOI’s land management agencies and worsen the challenges facing an already overstretched land management workforce. Based on our research, we remain convinced that a truly effective, coordinated, and fiscally responsible Wildland Fire Service requires relocating the entire Forest Service to the Department of the Interior. Keep the green patches and distinct Forest Service identity, but rationalize and unify land management under a single, responsible Secretary.

As we have noted previously, structural reform on this scale comes with real risks and significant opportunities. Success will require the entire land management and wildfire community to engage Congress and ensure reforms strengthen responsible land management alongside suppression. Megafire Action is eager to continue to partner with other leaders and organizations on this initiative.

Megafire Action is a non-profit dedicated to ending the crisis of destructive wildfires by promoting a holistic approach to natural lands management, wildfire response, and community resilience to ensure that fire-dependent ecosystems and fire-affected communities thrive. 

 

Thoughts on the Administration’s Proposed Federal Wildland Fire Service: Guest Post by Eric Horne of Megafire Action

by

 

This is my prep paragraph to Eric Horne’s post below of context for MegaFire Action’s paper on One Department for Wildfire Management  (1) which includes (2)  moving the Forest Service to Interior (what we might call “the whole enchilada” of moves).

If I recall correctly, Michael Rains mentioned that there was a Carter-era  initiative to bring the agencies together. Larry Kurtz often mentions this as a good idea from his perspective, and we’ve discussed it here at TSW several times.

Then there was Service First, which many of us remember as successful but foundering on the shoals of individual agency budget accountability (or personal preference by State Directors or RFs? has a good history been written?  Here’s a link to to GAO Report from 2000 called “Ongoing Initiative to Share Activities and Facilities Needs Management Attention.  Well, I guess it got management attention.. but not in a good way. Like disappearing it.

So given those historic undercurrents that come to the surface from time to time (as included in the Megafire Action report, as far back as Reagan-er Interchange), it is not surprising that folks new to this space (Megafire Action) have surfaced the idea. Be sure to check out their “One Department for Wildfire Management” report  in its entirety.  Please remember to be hospitable and kind to new folks.  As Eric says, we can expect much more discussion around this topic, so hopefully we can set a productive tone for further discussions.

 

*************************************

Thoughts on the Administration’s proposed Federal Wildland Fire Service

By Eric Horne, National Policy Director, Megafire Action

The Trump Administration’s newly released “skinny budget” proposes a wholesale restructuring of wildfire management. Acknowledging that the “dispersed nature of the Federal mission creates significant coordination and cost inefficiencies that result in sub-optimal performance”, the budget calls for “consolidating and unifying the Federal wildland fire responsibilities into a single new Federal Wildland Fire Service at DOI, including transferring USDA’s current wildland fire management responsibilities.” Coming on the heels of Senators Padilla and Sheehy’s “Fit for Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act of 2025” and the widely circulated draft executive order, this concept is clearly gaining momentum.

Back in February, Megafire Action laid out the extensive history and potential merits of this proposal—“One Department for Wildfire Management”. We found that unifying wildland fire management and land management under one department would greatly streamline preparedness and mitigation, enhance transparency, strengthen tribal partnerships, and improve resource allocation by leveraging DOI’s centralized budget structure and departmental leadership that has a strong history of managing wildland fire across its agencies.

The Administration’s proposal is currently light on details, though we expect the forthcoming Congressional Budget Justification to shed more light on how and when this consolidation will take place, what programs and functions will be moved from USDA to DOI, and what will be left behind at USDA. While we await further details, we want to be clear about one thing: improved wildfire outcomes and cost synergies will only materialize if land management responsibilities are consolidated into the Department of the Interior alongside wildfire suppression capabilities. Fragmentation between emergency response, prevention and mitigation has too often resulted in year-round disaster management, minimizing long-term risk reduction.

The Administration’s skinny budget references “risk mitigation efforts” for consolidation, potentially including fuels management currently under the Forest Service’s Wildfire Suppression Operations appropriations account, though its inclusion remains unclear. On the other hand, key Forest Service land management accounts appear to be left behind at USDA, with significant budget cuts: $392 million in cuts to National Forest System Management, including “vegetation and watershed management”; and $994 million in cuts to other programs. Moving wildfire suppression to DOI while leaving these critical functions underfunded at USDA would forgo cost synergies with DOI land management agencies, missing an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars while improving performance. Severing wildfire suppression from the Forest Service while underfunding land management agencies which are already in the throes of a workforce crisis would likely result in a significantly worse fire environment.

Kelly Martin, retired Chief of Fire and Aviation at Yosemite National Park, explains that “taking a unified approach to all aspects of fire management is intended to help eliminate duplication and overlap between the two main departments—Agriculture and Interior—over the next 50 years. However, without sustained public and political support for communities and individuals doing wildland fire and land management work, we risk perpetuating the wildfire crisis and facing even more severe fire seasons well into the future.”

Structural reform on this scale comes with real risks and potential opportunities. Success will require that the entire land management and wildfire community engage Congress and the Administration to ensure any reform strengthens responsible land management alongside suppression. Stay tuned.

 

 

 

 

BLM Unveils New Online Portal for Improved Access; Also How Many Political Appointees Do You Need to Prepare/Approve Leases?

by

The Center for Western Priorities had some interesting stuff today. This looks like a great idea to me, public input to prioritize parcels for improved access.  But the question I always ask is… would this make sense for the FS and BLM to do together in some way, even though the FS does not have the Dingell Act? Perhaps the FS could somehow coast on Interior’s coattails?

 

The Bureau of Land Management unveiled a new online portal where members of the public can nominate parcels of land for improved access. The agency is looking for help identifying parcels where recreational opportunities are high, but access is difficult or impossible. BLM will use this process to create a priority list of parcels that Congress could make accessible.

There are currently 8.3 million acres of public land that remain inaccessible to the public due to inholdings of private land and other barriers. Taking action to open this land to public access is beneficial for hikers, anglers, and hunters. It will allow recreationists to enjoy public land without risking a trespassing lawsuit, which has been highlighted in the ongoing corner-crossing case in Wyoming.

“It is clear the American public is passionate about increasing access to public lands,” BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning said in a statement. “This new technology to gather nominations will help us organize what we anticipate will be an equally robust response in 2022.”

 

And on the below topic.. I disagree with Aaron that one more political appointee will help the process of doing more leasing.  In fact, it seems that given what political appointees actually say (if we assume that doing and saying are related; not always clear for those of a political bent), probably fewer of them are needed (and more career employees).

Interior nominee kept waiting over Manchin energy demands

Environmental groups are increasingly frustrated by delays to confirm Interior nominee Laura Daniel-Davis in the Senate. The stalled nomination is indicative of the larger political battle over fossil fuel development on public lands. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin delayed the confirmation in March while he waited to see how the administration responded to his demands for more fossil fuel production on public lands. Aaron Weiss, deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities said confirming Daniel-Davis would help address lawmaker concerns, and added, “If you want Interior to get moving on this stuff, give Interior the people to do it.”

 

 

Budd Falen: Standing Up for Rural Constituents

by
Salon

Karen Budd Falen was the Deputy Solicitor for Parks and Wildlife in the Department of Interior for three years, and she left with the rest of the Trump administration, capping off a notable career in opposing public lands.  She appears to come by that view honestly, being raised on a Wyoming ranch and representing ranchers as an attorney (including the Bundys).  She reflects in this short piece on her legacy of changing the Endangered Species Act regulations and National Environmental a Policy Act regulations to promote more “local control” (as well as with the Land and Water Conservation Fund).

I take issue with her arguments in both cases that the laws the regulations implement (ESA and NEPA) were intended to allow social and economic considerations to play the role she has provided for them.  These statutes are both clearly aimed at the “natural environment,” and not local “custom and culture.”  Remarkably, she appears to admit that, “the listing of a species should be based only on science,” but then she has made it harder to do that with various changes in the ESA implementing regulations (which go beyond those she describes here in relation to critical habitat).

My fundamental disagreement with her and those she represents concerns this statement (and I suspect it may be a reason for differing opinions on this blog):

In my view, local elected officials should have more sway on issues directly affecting them than someone from midtown New York who has never faced the realities of making a living from the land.

The major gloss-over here is that endangered wildlife and federal lands don’t belong more to local people and their elected officials.  Her view that local interests should have more influence is not supported by either of these laws, and it is not the view held by most of the people that these resources do belong to.  Should the Biden administration not reverse these regulations, courts will have another opportunity to slap down the misinformation from her, and organizations she has worked for like the Mountain States Legal Foundation, that has led to ideas like “county supremacy” limiting how national forests are managed.

(Here is a little background from just before Trump decided she could not get confirmed as BLM Director.)

Interior Dept. to limit freedom of information

by

To add to the lawsuits that result when the government misses its deadline to provide information subject to the Freedom of Information Act, we may soon see a lawsuit against USDI’s effort to not have to provide the information in the first place.  Comments on their proposed new FOIA regulations were due Monday.

(The purpose is to) “streamline the FOIA submission process in order to help the Department inform requesters and/or focus on meeting its statutory obligations.”

The department proposes limiting the number of requests that individuals or groups could file each month, and to “not honor a request that requires an unreasonably burdensome search or requires the bureau to locate, review, redact, or arrange for inspection of a vast quantity of material.”

A department spokeswoman said making the process more efficient would “ensure more equitable and regular access to federal records for all requesters, not just litigious special interest groups.”

FOIA represents a strong statement from Congress about the importance of open government.  Responses to FOIA requests often reveal illegal activity and become the basis for lawsuits. Still, every administration seems to stamp its own bias on its FOIA procedures, and this is Trump and Zinke.

As a practical matter, it can take a lot of agency resources to comply with FOIA requirements.  But as a legal matter, the law is pretty clear about what has to be provided and how fast.  Regulations can’t change that.  There is nothing in the law that excuses agencies from honoring a request if they happen to take actions that generate “vast” quantities of material, or if some aspect of providing required material is “burdensome.”

(Could the USDA Forest Service be brewing something similar?)

 

Interior’s No. 2 Man Sees Washington from a Colorado Point of View – from Colorado Politics

by

Now that Zinke’s out, but before we hear about a replacement, let’s take a look at a Colorado perspective on his second in command, a fellow named David Bernhardt, a native Coloradan who grew up in Rifle, on the Western Slope. 

This article is by Joey Bunch of Colorado Politics (shout out to them, they gave us a discounted subscription as a not-for- profit). It’s very even-handed IMHO, plus has a number of interesting links.

On his latest return to Colorado, Bernhardt visited with federal workers and volunteers. Then he went to the Western Slope to present an oversized check for $40.1 million for payments in lieu of taxes, the annual allocation that offsets what the local property tax base loses for carrying federal property on its books. Garfield County received $3.2 million.

He’s a key figure in President Trump’s proposed reorganization of federal agencies. One of the Department of the Interior moves most heavily discussed — with the great benefit of bipartisan support from Colorado’s Gardner, a Republican, and Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat — is the potential of relocating the Bureau Land Management federal headquarters outside Washington, and specifically to Grand Junction.

The first thing the department has to do is align the regions of its various agencies so they can better coordinate and augment their often parallel missions while reducing costly duplication and delays, Bernhardt said.

“Where things are overloaded is really in the field,” he said. “Our management has gotten a little heavier and our field organizations have gotten a little smaller, and we need to put that energy and capabilities out on the front lines.” 

We’ve talked before on this blog about the confusion it can cause partners when dealing with the many headed hydra of Interior agencies, responsibilities, and regions.

“It’s very hard for anybody who knows anything to look at our organization and say it’s firing on all cylinders,” Bernhardt said. “Even the Democrats who spend a lot of time with our department, I think at the end of the day, they know that we have room for significant improvement, and why would they not want to be part of that?”

“I know the rules,” Bernhardt said, leaning forward over his coffee cup when asked about ethics and investigations. “I’m going to play by the rules. I’m not going to go outside the rules. And you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to rigorously adhere to those rules.

“And those rules don’t say I can’t have opinions on certain things.”

He continued, “Everybody in the administration is for clean air, clean water, a wonderful outdoor experience. At the same time, we also believe you can develop energy responsibly. We don’t think it’s an either-or choice.”

One thing I noticed in the article was this quote:

Trump’s executive orders and Zinke’s secretarial orders have pushed the pace of overhauling the agency with brute force — not in ways appreciated by department veterans, environmentalists or others on the political left.

At least in the Forest Service, it would be hard to get a sense of what current employees think about things. I’ve found it to be from one to the other end of the spectrum on almost everything, from the greatest philosophical, to one particular line in a rule (say, ecological integrity, for example ;)). You can see that from the retirees on this blog who are free to speak their minds. You could also think AFSEE and NAFSR may not have the same point of view on things. Anyway, I just pointed it out because it’s an interesting thing to observe.. in what pieces do folks in media cite what agency employees think?, and we might wonder how they get that info.