National Prescribed Fire Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2025
Bottom line
The National Prescribed Fire Act of 2025 seeks to proactively reduce wildfire risk and restore ecosystem health across federal and adjacent lands by boosting prescribed fire use, enhancing the fire workforce, and mitigating regulatory and liability barriers.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to significantly expand the use of prescribed fire on federal lands, aiming for a 10% annual increase in acreage treated for nine years. It establishes a Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program, provides funding flexibility for prescribed fire activities, and supports cultural burning by Indian Tribes. The bill also addresses workforce development for wildland firefighters, extends liability protections to non-federal cooperators, and streamlines environmental review processes related to smoke management.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical step towards mitigating the increasing threat of catastrophic wildfires, restoring the ecological health of fire-adapted landscapes, and protecting communities. They contend that expanding prescribed fire, including cultural burning, is a proactive and cost-effective strategy that aligns with scientific consensus and traditional ecological knowledge. Furthermore, supporters highlight the bill's provisions for workforce development as essential for retaining skilled personnel and improving operational capacity.
Opponents contend
Opponents or critics might raise concerns about the potential for increased smoke impacts on air quality and public health, especially in vulnerable communities, despite the bill's smoke management provisions. Some may also express apprehension about the risks of prescribed fires escaping containment, leading to unintended damages. Fiscal conservatives might question the long-term financial implications of expanding federal liability to non-federal entities and the overall cost of the mandated acreage increases and program expansions.
The bill is moderately complex but well-structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 102
Prescribed Fire Funding Flexibility and Prioritization
This section allows the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate up to 15% of their annual hazardous fuels management funds towards a broader range of prescribed fire activities. These activities include grants to states, tribes, local governments, and non-profits for prescribed fire implementation, environmental reviews, site preparation, and public outreach. The section also establishes prioritization criteria for these funds, favoring projects that are large-scale, cross-boundary, in wildland-urban interface areas, or critical habitats, and those important for Tribal trust resources.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this flexibility is crucial for effective wildfire management, allowing agencies to adapt to local conditions and leverage non-federal partnerships. The prioritization criteria ensure that funds are directed to areas with the greatest need and highest impact, maximizing the return on investment in wildfire prevention and ecosystem restoration.
Critics contend
Some critics might argue that reallocating existing funds without new appropriations could strain other hazardous fuels management activities or post-fire recovery efforts. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for 'pork barrel' spending if prioritization criteria are not rigorously applied, or if the definition of 'benefit Federal land' is too broad.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for flexible funding to expand prescribed fire with the potential for diverting resources from other critical wildfire management activities. It also seeks to balance federal control with local and tribal priorities through its prioritization criteria.
Sec. 103
Mandated Increase in Prescribed Fire Acreage
This section mandates that for 9 fiscal years following the bill's enactment, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture must conduct prescribed fires on federal land such that the total acreage treated annually is 10% greater than the preceding fiscal year. Additionally, each Secretary concerned must develop a prescribed fire operational strategy for their respective regions, outlining the 'fire deficit' and the staffing and funding needed to address it.
Sec. 104
Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program
This section establishes a Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program to fund landscape-scale projects (at least 50,000 acres) developed through transparent, nonexclusive collaborative processes. Projects must align with landscape restoration strategies, maintain old growth, maximize large tree retention, and include plans for wildfire risk reduction, habitat improvement, and smoke mitigation. The program has funding limits of $20 million total per fiscal year, $1 million per project per year, and a 10-year project sunset. Projects failing to meet annual targets for three consecutive years will lose funding.
Sec. 202
Human Resources for Prescribed Fire Workforce
This section introduces several measures to strengthen the prescribed fire workforce. It mandates hazard pay for federal employees involved in prescribed fire, requires a report on incentives for fuels assignments, and allows for noncompetitive conversion of seasonal firefighters to permanent positions if their duties emphasize prescribed fire. It also directs the Secretaries to seek career pathways for formerly incarcerated individuals and veterans in prescribed fire, support underutilized employees, establish additional training centers (including Indigenous-led ones), and adjust training requirements to reduce certification time for supervisory roles. Finally, it aims to enhance interoperability between federal and non-federal practitioners through qualification databases and partnership agreements.
Sec. 203
Liability Protections for Prescribed Fire Managers
This section extends Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) coverage to non-federal entities (States, Tribes, counties, NGOs, private entities) when they are engaged in prescribed fire activities on federal land under the direct supervision of a federal employee and within the scope of a contract or agreement. This means that if a non-federal cooperator causes damage while conducting a prescribed fire under federal direction, they would be treated as a federal employee for liability purposes, shifting potential claims to the federal government. The Secretaries, in consultation with the Attorney General, must issue guidance on implementing these protections and request annual appropriations to reimburse the Treasury for any claims paid.
Sec. 204
Environmental Review and Smoke Management
This section directs the Secretaries to align policies and training to facilitate greater use of prescribed fire while addressing public health and safety, especially smoke impacts. It mandates coordination between the EPA, federal, tribal, and state air quality and land management agencies to provide guidance, data, and tools for 'exceptional event demonstrations' for prescribed fire smoke, streamlining their approval. It also requires research to improve smoke prediction models, mitigation strategies, and public communication regarding smoke. Furthermore, it mandates the development of landscape-scale prescribed fire plans for federal units, ensuring NEPA and ESA compliance, and requiring collaboration with diverse actors and consultation with Indian Tribes.
Excludes pile burning from the definition of 'prescribed fire' for the purposes of funding flexibility under Title I.
Sec. 101(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to refine definitions for specific titles or applications within a bill, ensuring clarity on how certain funds can be used.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this exclusion ensures that the reallocated funds are primarily used for broadcast burning or other forms of prescribed fire that mimic natural fire regimes and achieve broader ecological benefits, rather than for more localized and less ecologically impactful pile burning.
Case against: Critics might contend that pile burning is a necessary and effective hazardous fuels treatment, especially in areas with heavy fuel loads or where broadcast burning is not feasible. Excluding it from funding flexibility could limit the range of tools available to land managers and slow down overall fuel reduction efforts.
Estimated impact: Potentially shifts millions of dollars in hazardous fuels management funds away from pile burning towards other prescribed fire methods, impacting the types of treatments implemented across federal lands.
Requires landscape restoration strategies under the Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program to fully maintain or restore old growth stands according to pre-fire suppression conditions, retaining large trees, and to maximize the retention of large trees in forest restoration treatments.
Sec. 104(b)(1)(D) and (E)
Why it matters:These are detailed programmatic requirements designed to ensure that prescribed fire activities are ecologically sound and do not inadvertently harm sensitive forest structures. This level of detail is common in legislative text for environmental programs.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these provisions are critical for ensuring that prescribed fire is used as a tool for genuine ecological restoration, protecting valuable old-growth forests and promoting biodiversity, rather than simply reducing fuel loads in a way that might degrade ecosystem health.
Case against: Some critics might argue that these specific requirements could add complexity and cost to project planning and implementation, potentially slowing down the pace of prescribed fire. They might also contend that rigid rules about tree retention could sometimes conflict with optimal fuel reduction strategies in certain forest types.
Estimated impact: Influences the design and execution of all projects funded under the Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program, ensuring an ecological focus on old growth and large tree retention across potentially millions of acres.
Directs the Secretaries to seek career pathways, training, and wraparound support services for formerly incarcerated individuals (excluding arson or violent crimes) who served on wildland firefighting crews, and for veterans, including establishing crews predominantly composed of veterans.
Sec. 202(a)(4) and (6)
Why it matters:These are specific social equity and workforce development initiatives that, while important, are part of a larger set of reforms. Their placement is logical within the human resources title.
Case for: Proponents argue that these provisions offer vital opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration for formerly incarcerated individuals who have valuable firefighting skills, and provide meaningful employment for veterans, leveraging their discipline and experience. This also helps address the critical shortage of skilled firefighters.
Case against: Some critics might raise concerns about the perceived risks or public acceptance of employing formerly incarcerated individuals in sensitive roles, despite the exclusion of violent offenders and arsonists. Administrative challenges in establishing and managing these specific pathways could also be a point of contention.
Estimated impact: Creates new employment and training opportunities for potentially hundreds or thousands of individuals, contributing to workforce diversity and addressing social equity concerns within the federal wildland fire sector.