Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jul 24, 2025
Bottom line
This omnibus appropriations bill funds a wide array of federal programs related to natural resources, environment, and tribal affairs for FY2026, while also enacting specific policy directives and limitations.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates funds for the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and various related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It allocates billions of dollars across numerous programs covering land management, environmental protection, Indian affairs, cultural institutions, and wildland fire management. The bill also includes several policy riders and general provisions that direct agency actions, impose restrictions, or extend existing authorities, some of which are unrelated to the primary purpose of funding.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides essential funding to maintain critical government functions, protect natural resources, address environmental challenges, and fulfill federal trust responsibilities to Native American tribes. They emphasize the importance of stable funding for agencies like the National Park Service, EPA, and Forest Service to carry out their missions, including wildfire suppression, infrastructure maintenance, and species conservation. The inclusion of congressionally directed spending is often cited as a way to address specific local needs.
Opponents contend
Opponents might criticize the overall spending levels as excessive or insufficient, depending on their fiscal priorities. They may also object to specific policy riders included in an appropriations bill, arguing that such provisions should be debated and passed as standalone legislation. Concerns could also be raised about the allocation of funds, potential for wasteful spending, or the impact of certain environmental regulations or land management policies on economic development.
The bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring significant time for a thorough review. Given its omnibus nature, the time required to understand all provisions and their implications far exceeds what a typical legislative review period might allow for the public or even many policymakers.
Title I, Bureau of Land Management, Management of Lands and Resources
Bureau of Land Management Operations and Wild Horse Management
This provision appropriates $1,256,992,000 for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for managing lands and resources, including protection, use, improvement, and development. It specifies that funds for Wild horse and burro management, annual maintenance, and deferred maintenance remain available until expended. It also allows BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund fees to be used for oil and gas permit processing and allocates funds for wildlife habitat management and recreation resources management, subject to matching requirements or specific purposes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this funding is crucial for responsible stewardship of public lands, ensuring both conservation and sustainable resource use. Dedicated funds for permit processing can streamline energy development, while investments in wildlife and recreation enhance public access and ecological health. Wild horse and burro management is essential for herd health and rangeland sustainability.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that the allocation for oil and gas permit processing prioritizes industry over environmental protection, or that wild horse and burro management strategies are ineffective or inhumane. Some may also contend that overall funding levels are either too high or too low for the vast responsibilities of the BLM.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the competing demands of resource extraction (oil and gas) with conservation and recreation on public lands. It also addresses the ongoing challenge of managing wild horse and burro populations, which often involves balancing animal welfare with ecological impacts on rangelands.
Title I, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Management
Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management and Endangered Species Act Funding
This provision appropriates $1,462,934,000 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for resource management, scientific studies, and general administration. It specifies that funds for 'Listing' under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4, *except* for processing petitions, developing/issuing proposed/final regulations, and taking other steps to implement actions described in subsection (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii) of such section. Stewardship Priorities funds remain available longer and are for congressionally directed projects.
Title I, National Park Service, Operation of the National Park System
National Park System Operations and Maintenance
This provision appropriates $2,869,424,000 for the National Park Service (NPS) to manage, operate, protect, and maintain areas and facilities within the National Park System. Specific amounts are allocated for maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and cyclic maintenance projects, with some funds remaining available until September 30, 2027. It also includes funding for the National Park Medical Services Fund and extends certain authorities related to a commission.
Title I, United States Geological Survey, Surveys, Investigations, and Research
Geological Survey Research and Data Collection
This provision appropriates $1,485,354,000 for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for surveys, investigations, and research across topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and mineral/water resources. Funds for Satellite Operations and deferred maintenance/capital improvement projects exceeding $100,000 are available until expended. It includes a proviso that funds for ecosystem research cannot be used for new surveys on private property without owner authorization and limits federal cost-sharing for cooperative projects with states/municipalities.
Title I, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs
Bureau of Indian Affairs Operations and Tribal Programs
This provision appropriates $1,918,712,000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the operation of Indian programs, including welfare assistance, housing improvement, road maintenance, and land acquisition. It allows for exceeding the welfare payment cap in designated federal disasters and permits tribes to use tribal priority allocations for unmet welfare costs. Funds are also allocated for specific projects and allow for transfers to other accounts for trust, probate, and administrative functions.
Title II, Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and Management
EPA Environmental Programs and Management
This provision appropriates $2,869,076,000 for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for environmental programs and management, including personnel, travel, aircraft, and administrative costs for various programs like brownfields and coal combustion residual permits. It allocates $36,000,000 for the Energy Star Program and provides funds for Alaska Contaminated Lands, including non-competitive grants to Alaska Native entities. An additional $9,000,000 is for Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) activities, offset by fees collected.
Title II, Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
State and Tribal Assistance Grants for Water Infrastructure
This provision appropriates $4,386,109,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG), primarily for capitalization grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds ($1,638,861,000) and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds ($1,126,101,000). It includes specific allocations for congressionally directed projects, with a 20% non-Federal match requirement (waiver possible). It also allocates funds for US-Mexico Border water facilities, Alaska Native Village water needs, brownfields remediation, targeted airshed grants, and various Safe Drinking Water Act programs.
Title III, Forest Service, Wildland Fire Management
Forest Service Wildland Fire Management and Suppression Reserve Fund
This provision appropriates $2,426,111,000 for Forest Service wildland fire management, including presuppression, emergency suppression, and rehabilitation of burned lands. It also establishes a Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund of $2,480,000,000, available until transferred, to supplement suppression funds for both Forest Service and Department of the Interior. Funds are available for repayment of advances, reimbursement to states, and support for federal emergency response. It also continues federal wildland firefighter base salary increases.
Title III, Indian Health Service, Indian Health Services
Indian Health Services and Electronic Health Record System
This provision appropriates $82,409,000 for Indian Health Services (IHS) for FY2026, with an additional $4,805,147,000 becoming available on October 1, 2026, and remaining available through September 30, 2028. It also provides $264,702,000 for the Electronic Health Record System and the Indian Healthcare Improvement Fund. Funds for tribes and tribal organizations are deemed obligated upon award and remain available without fiscal year limitation. It includes specific allocations for Purchased/Referred Care, the Indian Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund, and accreditation emergencies.
Sec. 119, Title I, General Provisions, Department of the Interior
Prohibition on Sage-Grouse Listing
This provision prohibits the use of funds made available by this or any other Act by the Secretary of the Interior to write or issue a proposed rule for listing the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) or the Columbia basin distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Sec. 129, Title I, General Provisions, Department of the Interior
Denali Renaming and Prohibition on Alternate Names
This provision mandates the Secretary of the Interior to reinstate the name "Denali" for the mountain located at 63.0692° N, 151.0070° W in Alaska within 30 days of enactment, consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f. It requires the USGS to update its Geographic Names Information System and Science Data Catalog. Within 60 days, all public-facing materials must refer to the mountain as "Denali." Crucially, it prohibits the use of any funds from current, prior, or future appropriations to designate the mountain with any name other than "Denali."
Sec. 417, Title IV, General Provisions
Humane Transfer and Treatment of Wild Horses and Burros
This provision authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (for BLM lands) or Secretary of Agriculture (for Forest Service lands) to transfer excess wild horses and burros to other federal, state, and local government agencies for use as work animals. It specifies that transferred animals lose their 'wild free-roaming' status. Crucially, it prohibits the destruction of healthy, unadopted wild horses or burros and the sale of any wild horse or burro that results in its destruction for processing into a commercial product. Euthanasia is only permitted on veterinary recommendation for severe injury, illness, or advanced age.
Sec. 435, Title IV, General Provisions
Prohibition on GHG Emissions Regulation from Livestock
This provision prohibits the use of any funds made available in this Act or any other Act to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the issuance of permits under title V of the Clean Air Act for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions resulting from biological processes associated with livestock production.
Sec. 453, Title IV, General Provisions
Repurposing of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Funds
This provision repurposes (transfers) unobligated balances from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, Public Law 117-58) to fund other priorities in this Act. Specifically, $764,514,000 is transferred to the Department of the Interior's Wildland Fire Management account, derived from $250,000,000 from EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grants and $515,060,000 from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Additionally, $67,000,000 is transferred from IIJA funds previously allocated for DOI OIG oversight to the DOI Office of Inspector General account. These repurposed funds are explicitly stated not to be available for wildfire suppression operations and continue to be treated as amounts specified in section 103(b) of division A of Public Law 118-5.
The Bureau of Land Management shall maintain staffing levels by hiring, retaining, and rehiring after separations to fulfill its mission, including protecting natural/cultural resources, providing recreation access, ensuring visitor/staff safety, maintaining infrastructure, responding to stakeholders, conducting tribal consultation, managing energy/minerals, and operating National Conservation Lands.
Title I, Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Provisions, Proviso 4
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to provide specific instructions to agencies within administrative sections, ensuring that funding is tied to concrete operational expectations. It reflects congressional intent regarding agency capacity.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the BLM has adequate personnel to manage vast public lands effectively, preventing backlogs in critical functions like permitting, conservation, and public safety. It addresses concerns about agency capacity and workforce retention.
Case against: Critics might argue that such detailed staffing directives can micromanage agency operations, limiting flexibility in resource allocation based on evolving needs or administrative efficiencies. It could also be seen as an unfunded mandate if not accompanied by sufficient appropriations for hiring and retention.
Estimated impact: Ensures continued federal employment for BLM staff and impacts the agency's ability to execute its diverse mandates across millions of acres of public land.
The National Park Service shall maintain staffing levels by hiring, retaining, and rehiring after separations to fulfill its mission, including protecting natural/cultural resources, providing recreation access, ensuring visitor/staff safety, maintaining infrastructure, responding to stakeholders, conducting tribal consultation, administering preservation programs, and operating the National Park System.
Title I, National Park Service, Administrative Provisions, Proviso 4
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to ensure agencies maintain core operational capabilities, reflecting congressional concern over workforce stability and mission execution.
Case for: Supporters contend this directive is crucial for the NPS to manage its extensive system of parks, preserve national heritage, and provide a safe and enjoyable experience for millions of visitors. It addresses concerns about staffing shortages impacting park operations and visitor services.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such specific staffing mandates reduce agency flexibility in managing its workforce and could lead to inefficient resource allocation if not aligned with evolving operational needs or budget constraints.
Estimated impact: Ensures continued federal employment for NPS staff and impacts the agency's ability to manage its 400+ units and related programs.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall not be considered in violation of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 solely because more than 15 years have passed without revision of a National Forest System plan. This exemption does not apply if the Secretary is not acting expeditiously and in good faith to revise a plan.
Sec. 407, Title IV, General Provisions
Why it matters:This is likely a tactical maneuver to provide regulatory relief to the Forest Service, acknowledging the practical difficulties and resource constraints in updating all forest plans within statutory deadlines. It avoids potential litigation for non-compliance.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision provides necessary flexibility to the Forest Service, recognizing that updating complex forest management plans can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. It prevents legal challenges for delays that may be unavoidable, allowing the agency to prioritize other critical tasks.
Case against: Opponents argue that this provision weakens environmental protections by allowing outdated forest plans to remain in effect, potentially leading to management decisions that do not reflect current scientific understanding or public values. They contend that it reduces accountability for timely plan revisions.
Estimated impact: Affects the legal enforceability of deadlines for updating management plans for numerous National Forest System units, potentially extending the lifespan of older plans.
None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to transfer, merge, or otherwise shift funding between appropriations or program projects using the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535), any working capital fund or similarly operating account, or any other such mechanism to pay compensation or benefits for a federal employee unless expressly provided for in such appropriation, or if such funds are utilized to pay the compensation of a federal employee performing a detail to fulfill the usual and longstanding functions of the receiving account.
Sec. 450, Title IV, General Provisions
Why it matters:This is a tactical maneuver to limit agency flexibility in managing personnel costs across different accounts, potentially to prevent agencies from circumventing specific appropriations or to ensure greater congressional control over how funds are used for salaries and benefits.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision enhances congressional oversight and ensures that funds appropriated for specific programs are used for their intended purpose, preventing agencies from shifting personnel costs in ways not explicitly authorized. It promotes transparency in agency spending on compensation.
Case against: Opponents argue that this provision can create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and reduce agency flexibility in managing its workforce efficiently, especially in response to unforeseen needs or to optimize staffing across related programs. It could hinder agile deployment of personnel.
Estimated impact: Restricts the financial mechanisms federal agencies can use to manage employee compensation and benefits across different appropriations, potentially impacting administrative efficiency.