A substantive amendment, v2 renumbers several sections and introduces new provisions, including a sunset for new collaborative fire projects and a savings clause. Key modifications include making hazard pay for prescribed fire work discretionary rather than mandatory, changing the scope of required task forces and training centers, and refining definitions and reporting requirements for prescribed fire activities.
National Prescribed Fire Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to substantially increase the application of prescribed fire as a wildfire mitigation and ecological restoration strategy on federal lands by addressing funding, workforce, regulatory, and liability barriers.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to significantly expand the use of prescribed fire on federal lands, setting annual acreage increase targets. It establishes funding flexibility for prescribed fire activities, creates a collaborative prescribed fire program, and enhances workforce resources for fire practitioners. The bill also clarifies liability protections for non-federal cooperators and streamlines environmental review processes related to smoke management, while acknowledging and supporting cultural burning practices by Indian Tribes.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that prescribed fire is an essential tool for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, restoring ecological health to fire-adapted landscapes, and protecting communities. They contend that this bill provides the necessary funding flexibility, workforce development, and regulatory clarity to overcome existing barriers to its wider implementation, while also recognizing the importance of traditional ecological knowledge through cultural burning.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential for prescribed fires to escape control, the health impacts of smoke on nearby communities, and the administrative burden of implementing such an expansive program. They could also question the effectiveness of prescribed fire in all contexts or the potential for unintended ecological consequences if not managed perfectly, or the fiscal implications of expanded federal liability.
The bill is moderately complex but well-structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its provisions within a reasonable timeframe, though the technical details require careful attention.
Section 101
Prescribed Fire Funding Flexibility
This provision allows the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to use up to 15% of their annual hazardous fuels management funds for a broader range of prescribed fire activities. These activities include providing grants to state, Tribal, local, and non-profit organizations, offering training, conducting post-fire monitoring, and funding the Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program. It also establishes prioritization criteria, favoring large, cross-boundary projects in high-risk areas or critical habitats.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this funding flexibility is crucial for effective prescribed fire implementation, as it allows agencies to invest in necessary preparatory work, training, and partnerships that are often overlooked when funds are narrowly restricted to direct burning. It also empowers local and Tribal entities to participate more actively.
Critics contend
Some might argue that diverting funds from direct hazardous fuels treatment to broader activities could reduce the immediate acreage treated, or that the 15% cap might not be sufficient to address all needs, potentially leading to underfunding of core activities.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the immediate need for direct hazardous fuels treatment with the broader ecosystem of support (training, partnerships, planning) required for effective and sustainable prescribed fire implementation.
Section 102
Mandated Increase in Prescribed Fire Acreage
This section mandates that for 10 fiscal years following the bill's enactment, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture must increase the total acreage of federal land treated with prescribed fire by at least 10% annually compared to the preceding fiscal year. It also requires each Secretary concerned to develop a prescribed fire operational strategy for their respective regions, outlining fire deficits and identifying staffing and funding needs to meet these targets.
Section 103
Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program Establishment
This section establishes a Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program to select and fund projects developed through collaborative processes. Projects must align with landscape restoration strategies, reduce wildfire risk, improve habitat, and benefit local economies. The program sets specific eligibility criteria for proposals, including requirements for landscape restoration strategies, collaborative development, and plans for smoke mitigation. It also outlines a nomination and selection process, and imposes funding limitations: up to $20 million total per fiscal year across both Secretaries, with a maximum of $1 million per project, and a 10-year funding limit per project.
Section 202
Prescribed Fire Workforce Development and Retention
This section addresses critical workforce issues by allowing hazard pay for federal employees engaged in prescribed fire activities and requiring a report on incentives to attract and retain skilled fuels personnel. It mandates the establishment of at least six multiparty prescribed fire task forces across geographically diverse areas and directs the Secretaries to determine methods for converting seasonal firefighters to permanent employees. The bill also promotes career pathways and training for formerly incarcerated individuals and veterans in prescribed fire, supports Indigenous-led training centers, and requires adjustments to training requirements for supervisory roles to emphasize prescribed fire experience.
Section 203
Liability Protections for Prescribed Fire Cooperators
This section extends Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) coverage to 'covered entities'—non-federal persons acting on behalf of a federal agency under direct supervision and within a contract or agreement—when engaged in prescribed fire activities on federal land. This means these cooperators would be considered federal employees for liability purposes, protecting them from certain lawsuits. The Secretaries, in coordination with the Attorney General, are also required to develop a voluntary training course on liability protections for federal and Tribal employees involved in covered activities and to request annual appropriations to reimburse the Treasury for any claims paid under this expanded coverage.
Section 204(a)
Streamlining Smoke Management and Air Quality Coordination
This provision directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation with federal and state land management agencies, to provide guidance, data, and tools to State, Tribal, and local air quality agencies. The goal is to support 'exceptional event demonstrations' for prescribed fire smoke, which can prevent smoke impacts from counting against national ambient air quality standards. It also promotes basic smoke management practices, educates landowners on smoke management, and shares public health information regarding wildland fire smoke. The Secretary concerned is required to assist with or develop these demonstrations for prescribed fires on federal land.
Section 204(b)
Development of Landscape-Scale Federal Prescribed Fire Plans
This section requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to develop or revise landscape-scale prescribed fire plans for units of the National Forest System or Bureau of Land Management districts. These plans must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental laws, analyzing site-specific consequences and benefits of prescribed fire. Once approved, these comprehensive plans would obviate the need for subsequent NEPA decisions for individual burns within the plan area, streamlining future operations. The provision also mandates collaboration with diverse stakeholders and government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes during the planning process.
Excludes 'pile burning' from the definition of 'prescribed fire' for the purposes of this Act.
Section 2(5)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define terms and their exclusions, ensuring that the specific benefits and mandates of the Act apply only to broadcast burning and similar methods, not to the disposal of piled fuels. It's a technical clarification rather than an evasive maneuver.
Case for: Supporters would argue that pile burning, while a useful fuels reduction technique, has different ecological outcomes and operational considerations than broadcast prescribed fire. This exclusion ensures the Act's focus remains on restoring natural fire regimes and broader landscape-scale effects.
Case against: Some might argue that excluding pile burning unnecessarily limits the scope of the Act, as pile burning is a common and effective method of hazardous fuels reduction, especially in areas where broadcast burning is difficult or unsafe. Including it could provide more comprehensive support for fuels management.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it means any funding flexibility, acreage targets, or liability protections tied to 'prescribed fire' under this Act would not apply to pile burning activities, which are a substantial part of fuels management operations.
Prohibits the approval of new projects under the Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program starting on the first day of the fiscal year that is 10 years after the fiscal year for which the first project is authorized.
Section 103(h)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice for new programs or pilot initiatives, ensuring periodic review and reauthorization by Congress. It's not necessarily evasive but ensures that the program's effectiveness is assessed before it becomes permanent.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a sunset clause encourages evaluation of program effectiveness and allows Congress to revisit and refine the program based on lessons learned, rather than creating a permanent, potentially unadaptable, bureaucracy. It promotes accountability.
Case against: Critics might argue that a sunset clause creates uncertainty for long-term planning and investment, potentially hindering the program's ability to achieve its full potential if collaborators fear its eventual termination. This could discourage significant upfront investment from partners.
Estimated impact: Ensures the Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program has a defined lifespan for new project approvals, impacting the long-term continuity of collaborative funding and requiring future legislative action for its continuation.
Requires that landscape restoration strategies under the Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program commit funding to decommission all temporary roads constructed to carry out the strategy, unless those roads have a planned use for maintaining fuels treatments.
Section 103(b)(1)(F)(ii)
Why it matters:This level of detail is typical for environmental and land management legislation, ensuring specific practices are followed to mitigate environmental impacts. It's a technical detail that might be overlooked by a casual reader focused on the broader program goals, but it's not evasive.
Case for: Environmental advocates would support this, arguing it prevents the proliferation of temporary roads that can lead to erosion, habitat fragmentation, and increased access for illegal activities, while allowing for necessary infrastructure for long-term maintenance of fuels treatments.
Case against: Some land managers or industry groups might argue that the decommissioning requirement adds cost and logistical complexity to projects, and that some temporary roads could have other beneficial uses beyond fuels treatment maintenance, which this provision restricts.
Estimated impact: Could add significant costs to projects if many temporary roads are needed and must be decommissioned, but also protects ecological integrity by minimizing long-term impacts of temporary infrastructure.