What changed between these versions
A substantive revision, v2 renames the bill to 'Western Wildfire Support Act of 2026' and extends several deadlines by one year. Key changes include broadening definitions for 'fireshed' and 'Federal land', expanding coordination requirements for strategic planning, and significantly altering the scope and funding mechanisms for post-fire recovery, including the deletion of the 'Prize for wildfire-related invasive species reduction' section.
Overview
Extensive changes are present throughout the bill, affecting definitions, deadlines, agency responsibilities, and program scopes. · v2 clarifies and refines several provisions, broadens the scope of some definitions and coordination efforts, extends deadlines, and narrows the focus of post-disaster assistance to specifically post-wildfire. It also removes certain funding authorizations and a prize program.
The bill's short title year is updated to 2026, and several implementation deadlines are extended by one year. Key definitions like 'fireshed' and 'Federal land' are broadened or clarified, and the definition of 'resource management plan' is changed. The scope of post-disaster assistance is narrowed to focus exclusively on post-wildfire recovery, and a section establishing a prize for wildfire-related invasive species reduction is entirely removed. Additionally, funding authorizations for unmanned aircraft system research and burned area rehabilitation are removed, and the structure and responsibilities for burned area rehabilitation are modified.
Major additions
This new paragraph defines 'Secretary' as the Secretary of the Interior. This consolidates references to the Secretary of the Interior throughout the bill.
The addition of a specific definition for 'Secretary' streamlines language and clarifies which Secretary is being referred to in various provisions, particularly when distinguishing between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture.
This new paragraph defines 'Indian Tribe' by referencing its meaning in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
The explicit definition of 'Indian Tribe' provides clarity and consistency for references to Indian Tribes throughout the bill, particularly in sections related to coordination and financial assistance.
These new paragraphs require the study on integrating local firefighters into wildfire response to include an examination of costs to State, local, and Tribal governments for integration, and ways the Federal Government can minimize these costs.
These additions expand the scope of the required study, ensuring that the financial implications for non-federal entities are considered, which could lead to more practical and equitable integration strategies for local and Tribal firefighters.
This new paragraph explicitly requires Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Teams to carry out risk assessments to determine risks to critical values and identify post-fire emergency situations.
This addition formalizes and emphasizes the critical role of risk assessment in the immediate post-wildfire response, ensuring a structured approach to identifying threats to human life, property, and natural resources.
This new paragraph allows BAER Teams to monitor and maintain post-fire emergency response and stabilization efforts for a period of not more than 5 years after the date of containment of a wildfire.
This addition significantly extends the potential duration of BAER Team involvement, allowing for longer-term monitoring and maintenance of stabilization efforts, which is crucial for sustained recovery and mitigation of secondary hazards.
Deletions
The specific inclusions of 'public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702))', 'units of the National Park System', and 'units of the National Wildlife Refuge System' from the definition of 'Federal land' were removed.
While the intent might be to consolidate under the new 'Secretary' definition, the explicit enumeration of these land types is removed, potentially altering the perceived scope or clarity of 'Federal land' for some stakeholders, though the underlying land types are likely still covered by the new broader definition of 'land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary'. The operative impact is likely minimal but changes the specificity of the definition.
The exclusion of 'National Forest System land east of the 100th meridian' from the definition of 'National Forest System' was removed.
This deletion broadens the geographic scope of the 'National Forest System' as defined by this Act, potentially extending its provisions to lands previously excluded. This could significantly expand the areas where the bill's provisions apply, particularly in the eastern United States, which was explicitly excluded in v1. The new exclusion 'any forest reserve not created from the public domain' replaces it, which is a different type of exclusion entirely, focusing on the origin of the land rather than its geography. This is a significant change in scope for the application of the Act's provisions to National Forest System lands.
The requirement for the Secretary concerned to 'annually provide a forum for companies engaging in the development and testing of emergent wildland fire technology to engage with wildland fire managers' was removed.
This deletion removes a specific mechanism for fostering innovation and collaboration between technology developers and wildland fire managers. This could reduce opportunities for new technologies to be integrated into wildfire detection and response efforts, potentially slowing the adoption of modern solutions. The operative impact is a reduction in mandated industry-government engagement.
The requirement for the Secretaries, in coordination with the Administrator of the U.S. Fire Administration, to 'promulgate guidance for the mobilization of slip-on tanker units for wildfire response' was removed.
This deletion removes a specific mandate for developing standardized guidance for mobilizing slip-on tanker units. Without such guidance, coordination and efficient deployment of these resources during wildfire incidents might be less consistent or effective, potentially hindering rapid response efforts. The operative impact is a reduction in mandated inter-agency guidance development.
The authorization of appropriations for 'such sums as are necessary to carry out this section' for research and development of unmanned aircraft system fire applications was removed.
The removal of this explicit authorization of appropriations means that funding for unmanned aircraft system research and development will need to be secured through other, potentially less direct, means. This could impact the pace and scale of innovation in this area, making it harder to secure dedicated funding. The operative impact is a reduction in dedicated funding authority for UAS research.
The provision stating that 'The Secretary concerned may use to carry out this section funds made available by section 40803(c)(16) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16 U.S.C. 6592(c)(16))' for post-fire management and recovery was removed.
This deletion removes a specific funding source for Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Teams and their activities. While other funding may exist, the removal of this explicit authorization could create uncertainty or challenges in securing dedicated funds for immediate post-wildfire emergency stabilization and erosion planning efforts. The operative impact is a reduction in dedicated funding authority for BAER teams.
The authorization of appropriations for 'such sums as are necessary to carry out the activities described in subsection (d), not to exceed $100,000,000' for the Long-Term Burned Area Rehabilitation account was removed.
This deletion removes the explicit authorization of appropriations and the $100,000,000 cap for the Long-Term Burned Area Rehabilitation account. This means that funding for these activities will need to be sought through the annual appropriations process without a specific statutory authorization or ceiling, potentially impacting the availability and consistency of funding for long-term recovery projects. The operative impact is a reduction in dedicated funding authority for long-term rehabilitation.
The annual reporting requirement to Congress on burned area recovery work performed using funds from the Long-Term Burned Area Rehabilitation account, the Act of June 9, 1930, and the Reforestation Trust Fund was removed.
This deletion removes a key oversight mechanism for Congress to track the progress and effectiveness of burned area recovery work. Without this annual report, transparency and accountability regarding the use of these funds and the outcomes of rehabilitation projects may be reduced. The operative impact is a reduction in transparency and oversight for burned area recovery efforts.
The entire section establishing the 'Theodore Roosevelt Genius Prize for the management of wildfire-related invasive species' was removed.
This deletion eliminates a program designed to incentivize technological innovation for managing wildfire-related invasive species. The removal of this prize competition means that a dedicated mechanism for fostering and rewarding advancements in this specific area of post-fire recovery is no longer available, potentially slowing progress in addressing invasive species post-wildfire. The operative impact is the cessation of a specific incentive program for invasive species management.
Modifications
This is a technical update reflecting the likely year of enactment or reporting, with no direct policy impact beyond the naming convention.
Before
The Act could be cited as the 'Western Wildfire Support Act of 2025'.
After
The Act may be cited as the 'Western Wildfire Support Act of 2026'.
By removing 'forest', the definition of 'fireshed' is expanded to include any type of landscape, not just forested ones. This could broaden the applicability of policies and planning efforts related to firesheds to a wider range of ecosystems and land types.
Before
The term 'fireshed' meant a 'geographically delineated forest landscape'.
After
The term 'fireshed' means a 'geographically delineated landscape'.
This modification significantly alters which National Forest System lands are covered by the Act. v1 excluded lands in the eastern U.S. based on longitude, while v2 excludes lands based on their historical creation (not from public domain). This could bring more eastern National Forests under the Act's provisions while potentially excluding some western forests that were not created from the public domain.
Before
The 'National Forest System' excluded 'National Forest System land east of the 100th meridian'.
After
The 'National Forest System' excludes 'any forest reserve not created from the public domain'.
This modification shifts the legal basis for 'resource management plans' from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This could lead to different interpretations or requirements for these plans, potentially affecting how land management decisions are made and implemented under the Act.
Before
The term 'resource management plan' had the meaning given in section 101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
After
The term 'resource management plan' means a land use plan prepared for public lands under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
This is primarily a stylistic change for consistency with the new definition of 'Secretary' and does not alter the substantive roles or responsibilities of the Secretaries.
Before
The terms 'Secretaries' and 'Secretary concerned' explicitly listed 'the Secretary of the Interior'.
After
The terms 'Secretaries' and 'Secretary concerned' now refer to 'the Secretary', which is a newly defined term meaning the Secretary of the Interior.
This extension provides an additional year for the Secretaries to complete the review and issuance of spatial fire management policies, potentially allowing for more thorough planning but delaying the implementation of updated policies.
Before
The deadline for the Secretary concerned to review and issue spatial fire management policies was September 30, 2026.
After
The deadline for the Secretary concerned to review and issue spatial fire management policies is September 30, 2027.
This change provides more flexibility in updating policies, moving away from rigid deadlines. While it could allow for more responsive updates when needed, it also removes the minimum frequency requirements, potentially leading to less frequent reviews if not deemed 'necessary'.
Before
Spatial fire management policies were to be reviewed and updated (A) to include forest management activities or changes in accessibility; (B) not later than 1 year after a wildfire; and (C) not less frequently than once every 10 years.
After
Spatial fire management policies shall be 'routinely reviewed and updated as necessary to reflect changes in the fireshed as a result of forest or land management activities or wildfire incidents that have occurred within the applicable fireshed'.
This modification ensures that spatial fire management policies are consistent with both resource management plans (primarily for Interior lands) and forest plans (for National Forest System lands), providing a more comprehensive and integrated approach to land management across different federal jurisdictions.
Before
Policies were to be consistent with any 'resource management plan'.
After
Policies are to be consistent with any 'resource management plan or forest plan'.
This expansion broadens the scope of local and Tribal involvement in strategic wildland fire management planning, ensuring that a wider range of local perspectives and needs are considered in identifying wildfire control locations and elevated risk areas. This could lead to more effective and locally-tailored fire management strategies.
Before
Coordination for delineating wildland fire operational delineations was with 'any State that includes that fireshed'.
After
Coordination for delineating wildland fire operational delineations is with 'the local government, State, or Indian Tribe that includes that fireshed'.
The inclusion of specific examples like the 'hot-dry-windy index' provides more concrete guidance for what constitutes severe fire weather conditions, potentially leading to more standardized and effective prefire planning and response protocols.
Before
Policies were to include a description of weather conditions that would comprise severe fire weather conditions.
After
Policies are to include a description of weather conditions that would lead to severe fire weather conditions, 'including the hot-dry-windy index and other relevant factors'.
This change makes the inclusion of 'other prefire planning provisions relevant to wildfire response' a standard requirement rather than an optional one, potentially leading to more comprehensive planning across all firesheds.
Before
Other prefire planning provisions were included 'at the discretion of the Secretary concerned'.
After
The discretionary language 'at the discretion of the Secretary concerned' was removed.
This modification ensures that expertise from spatial fire management policy development is integrated into the creation and revision of both resource management plans and forest plans, promoting a more consistent and informed approach to wildfire considerations in broader land management strategies.
Before
The Secretary concerned was to include an employee involved in spatial fire management policy development on a team for 'resource management plan' development or revision.
After
The Secretary concerned is to include such an employee on a team for 'resource management plan or forest plan' development or revision.
This expansion ensures that additional relevant committees with jurisdiction over homeland security, governmental affairs, science, space, and technology receive the report, potentially leading to broader congressional awareness and action on the study's findings.
Before
The report on integrating local firefighters was to be submitted to 'the congressional committees'.
After
The report is to be submitted to 'the congressional committees, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives'.
This is a technical update for consistency with the new definition of 'Secretary' and does not alter the substantive reporting responsibility.
Before
The annual report on slip-on tanker units was to be submitted by 'The Secretary of the Interior'.
After
The annual report on slip-on tanker units is to be submitted by 'The Secretary' (meaning the Secretary of the Interior).
This extension provides an additional year for the Secretary to prepare and submit the initial report, potentially allowing for more comprehensive data collection but delaying initial oversight.
Before
The initial report on slip-on tanker units was due 'not later than October 1, 2026'.
After
The initial report on slip-on tanker units is due 'not later than October 1, 2027'.
This extension means the annual reporting on slip-on tanker units will continue for an additional year, providing more data and oversight on the program's implementation.
Before
The reporting requirements for slip-on tanker units were to 'expire on October 1, 2028'.
After
The reporting requirements for slip-on tanker units are to 'expire on October 1, 2029'.
This change standardizes the definition by aligning it with existing federal law, ensuring consistency with broader aviation regulations. It removes the specific descriptive text from the bill itself.
Before
The definition of 'unmanned aircraft system' was a detailed description of the aircraft and associated elements.
After
The definition of 'unmanned aircraft system' refers to the meaning given in section 44801 of title 49, United States Code.
This change standardizes terminology with existing federal aviation law, shifting the focus from 'drones' to the broader 'unmanned aircraft systems' and 'unmanned aircraft'. This also removes the specific definition of 'drone incursion', implying that the study will now focus on 'unauthorized unmanned aircraft' more generally.
Before
The section defined 'Administrator', 'Drone', and 'Drone incursion' specifically for this section.
After
The section states that 'unmanned aircraft' and 'unmanned aircraft system' have the meanings given in section 44801 of title 49, United States Code.
This shifts primary responsibility for the study from an aviation regulatory agency to a land management agency, potentially bringing a more direct land management perspective to the study of unmanned aircraft interference with wildfire suppression. The focus also shifts from 'drone incursions' to 'unauthorized unmanned aircraft'.
Before
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was to conduct the study on drone incursions, in consultation with the Secretaries.
After
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, is to conduct the study on unauthorized unmanned aircraft, in consultation with the Secretary (of the Interior) and the FAA Administrator.
This is a terminology update consistent with the revised definitions in Section 204(a), ensuring consistent language throughout the section.
Before
The study was to determine occurrences where a 'drone incursion interfered' with wildfire suppression.
After
The study is to determine occurrences where an 'unauthorized unmanned aircraft interfered' with wildfire suppression.
This modification updates the language to reflect current terminology in counter-UAS technology and explicitly adds safety as an evaluation criterion. It provides a more precise framework for assessing prevention methods, potentially leading to more advanced and safer strategies for managing unauthorized unmanned aircraft during wildfires.
Before
The study was to evaluate actions to prevent 'drone incursions', including 'counter-drone radio towers', 'reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy a drone', and 'seizure of a drone, including seizure with a net device'.
After
The study is to evaluate actions to prevent 'unauthorized unmanned aircraft from interfering with wildfire suppression', including 'deployment of nonkinetic counter-UAS equipment' and 'seizure of an unmanned aircraft system, including through the use of kinetic counter-UAS equipment, such as a net'. It also adds 'safety impacts and results' to the evaluation criteria.
This extension provides more time for the Secretary of Agriculture to complete the study and report, potentially allowing for more comprehensive findings. The change in submitting agency aligns with the change in lead agency for conducting the study, ensuring consistency in responsibility.
Before
The report was due 'Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment' and submitted by 'the Administrator'.
After
The report is due 'Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment' and submitted by 'the Secretary of Agriculture'.
This modification broadens the application of AI in wildfire predictive modeling to explicitly include smoke, which is a significant health and environmental concern during wildfires. This could lead to better predictions of smoke plumes and their impacts on communities.
Before
The study on predictive modeling included the feasibility of using artificial intelligence for 'wildland fire modeling'.
After
The study on predictive modeling includes the feasibility of using artificial intelligence for 'wildland fire and smoke modeling'.
Changing 'safe' to 'preferred' conditions for prescribed fires acknowledges that 'safe' is a baseline, but 'preferred' conditions optimize for ecological benefits and operational success. The addition of 'predicting smoke impacts' further emphasizes the importance of managing smoke from prescribed fires, aligning with the expanded AI modeling scope.
Before
Predictive models could assist with establishing 'safe conditions' for igniting a prescribed fire.
After
Predictive models could assist with establishing 'preferred conditions' for igniting a prescribed fire and 'predicting smoke impacts'.
This extension provides more time for the Secretaries to complete the study on modernizing wildfire response technologies, potentially allowing for more comprehensive research but delaying the public dissemination of findings.
Before
The study results were to be submitted and made publicly available 'Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment'.
After
The study results are to be submitted and made publicly available 'Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment'.
This modification narrows the focus of the online guides to specifically address post-wildfire recovery, rather than general post-disaster assistance. This makes the program more targeted but excludes other types of disasters.
Before
The provision referred to 'post-disaster assistance'.
After
The provision refers to 'post-wildfire assistance'.
This change significantly narrows the applicability of the online guides, making them exclusively for communities and individuals affected by catastrophic wildfires, rather than any major disaster or emergency. This provides a more focused resource but limits its utility for other disaster types.
Before
Funding was for information relating to 'post-disaster recovery funding and resources to a community or an individual impacted by a major disaster or emergency'.
After
Funding is for information relating to 'post-wildfire recovery funding and resources to a community or an individual impacted by a catastrophic wildfire'.
Removing 'only' from the content restrictions potentially allows State agencies to include additional types of information on their websites beyond the explicitly listed categories, offering more comprehensive guidance to affected communities and individuals.
Before
The Administrator could provide funding for a website that provides 'only 1 or more of the following'.
After
The Administrator may provide funding for a website that provides '1 or more of the following'.
This consistent terminology reinforces the narrowed focus of the online guides to specifically address wildfire-related recovery, ensuring all content is relevant to that specific type of disaster.
Before
Content lists referred to 'post-disaster recovery funding or assistance' and 'disaster or emergency'.
After
Content lists refer to 'post-wildfire recovery funding or assistance' and 'catastrophic wildfire'.
This change moves from a rigid 180-day update cycle to a more flexible 'as necessary' approach, prioritizing accuracy over a fixed schedule. This could mean more frequent updates if information changes rapidly or less frequent if content remains stable, potentially reducing administrative burden but relying on agency discretion for timeliness.
Before
The website was to be updated 'not less frequently than once every 180 days'.
After
The website shall be updated 'as necessary to ensure the content is accurate'.
Adding 'to the maximum extent practicable' introduces flexibility in establishing BAER Teams, potentially allowing for resource constraints. Broadening the scope of efforts to 'response and stabilization' suggests a more comprehensive immediate post-fire role beyond just planning for stabilization and erosion.
Before
The Secretary concerned was to 'establish 1 or more permanent Burned Area Emergency Response Teams' to coordinate 'immediate post-wildfire emergency stabilization and erosion planning efforts'.
After
The Secretary concerned shall, 'to the maximum extent practicable, establish 1 or more permanent Burned Area Emergency Response Teams' to coordinate 'immediate post-fire emergency response and stabilization efforts'.
This restructuring clarifies that the various actions of BAER Teams are all aimed at mitigating risks to critical values. The expanded concluding phrase provides a more explicit and comprehensive mandate for BAER Teams, emphasizing their role in protecting human life, safety, property, and critical resources.
Before
BAER Team requirements were listed as individual actions (e.g., identify and remove trees, stabilize hazardous materials, conduct erosion prevention, prevent invasive species, inform public, collaborate with Sec. 303, other work).
After
BAER Team requirements are consolidated under a new heading 'mitigate risks to critical values', which then lists the specific actions, with an expanded concluding phrase 'to identify and address imminent post-wildfire threats to human life and safety, property, and critical natural or cultural resources'.
This is a minor stylistic change to the section title and does not alter the operative provisions within the section.
Before
The section title was 'Long-Term Burned Area Rehabilitation account'.
After
The section title is 'Burned area rehabilitation'.
This modification clarifies the administrative placement of the account and significantly broadens its accessibility, allowing both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to utilize the funds for rehabilitation projects, promoting inter-agency collaboration.
Before
The account was established 'for the Department of Agriculture'.
After
The account is established 'under the Wildland Fire Management account for the Department of Agriculture, which shall be available to the Secretaries'.
This change broadens the responsibility for submitting budget requests to include both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, aligning with the account's availability to both Secretaries. The removal of the 'in accordance with subsection (b)' clause reflects the deletion of the specific authorization of appropriations.
Before
The Secretary of Agriculture was to submit budget requests 'in accordance with subsection (b)' (which was the authorization of appropriations).
After
The 'Secretary concerned' shall submit budget requests, with the reference to 'in accordance with subsection (b)' removed.
This modification adds a crucial safeguard, ensuring that rehabilitation activities on non-Federal lands can only proceed with the explicit permission of the landowner. This protects private property rights but could introduce additional administrative steps and potential delays for such projects.
Before
Rehabilitation projects could include areas 'on non-Federal land'.
After
Rehabilitation projects may include areas 'on non-Federal land (with the express consent of the landowner)'.
This modification introduces flexibility to the 5-year completion target, acknowledging that some projects may face unforeseen challenges. While it provides realism, it also makes the deadline less rigid, potentially allowing for longer project durations under certain circumstances.
Before
Projects were to 'be completed not later than 5 years after the date on which the wildfire was contained'.
After
Projects are to 'be completed, to the extent practicable, not later than 5 years after the date on which the wildfire was contained'.
This modification broadens the authority to enter into agreements to both Secretaries (Interior and Agriculture) and expands the range of non-Federal partners to include States, local governments, and Indian Tribes. This promotes broader collaboration and resource leveraging for rehabilitation projects.
Before
The Secretary of Agriculture could enter into agreements with 'non-Federal entities'.
After
The 'Secretary concerned' may enter into agreements with 'States, local governments, Indian Tribes, and other non-Federal entities'.
This creates a potential inconsistency where the general agreement authority is with the 'Secretary concerned' but the savings provision specifically mentions only the 'Secretary of Agriculture'. This might lead to ambiguity regarding the mandatory nature of agreements for the Secretary of the Interior.
Before
The savings provision stated that nothing 'requires the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements'.
After
The savings provision still states that nothing 'requires the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements'.
This modification expands the criteria for prioritizing rehabilitation projects from a specific focus on water resources to a broader consideration of overall 'landscape and watershed benefits'. This allows for a more holistic assessment of project value, potentially supporting a wider range of ecological and environmental outcomes.
Before
Prioritization of funding was based on 'downstream effects on water resources'.
After
Prioritization of funding is based on 'landscape and watershed benefits'.
Scope
Meaningful expansion or narrowing — Changes are scattered throughout all three titles of the bill, including definitions, preparation, detection/suppression support, and post-fire recovery sections. — v2 represents a meaningful refinement and some narrowing of policy direction. While the core purpose remains, the shift from 'post-disaster' to 'post-wildfire' assistance, the changes in National Forest System exclusions, and the removal of specific funding authorizations and a prize program indicate a more focused and potentially less expansive approach in certain areas. — The changes in definitions (e.g., 'Secretary', 'Federal land', 'National Forest System', 'resource management plan') have ripple effects throughout the bill, altering the interpretation and application of numerous provisions that reference these terms. The shift in lead agencies for studies also impacts inter-agency coordination.
Impact analysis
Federal land managers (Department of Interior and Agriculture)
Procedural changes and some expanded authority, with extended timelines for certain tasks, potentially reducing immediate pressure but delaying implementation.
The definition of 'Federal land' is streamlined, and the exclusion criteria for 'National Forest System' are changed. Deadlines for strategic planning and study submissions are extended. The authority for burned area rehabilitation is broadened to both Secretaries.
State, local governments, and Indian Tribes
Increased involvement and consideration in federal planning and recovery efforts, with potential for more tailored support and collaboration, but also new requirements for cost analysis.
Coordination requirements for strategic wildland fire management planning are expanded to explicitly include local governments and Indian Tribes. The study on integrating local firefighters now explicitly examines costs and federal integration methods for these entities. Agreement authority for burned area rehabilitation is expanded to include these entities.
Communities and individuals impacted by non-wildfire disasters
Loss of access to a dedicated federal resource for online guides for recovery funding and resources for non-wildfire major disasters or emergencies.
The scope of online guides for post-disaster assistance is narrowed to focus exclusively on 'post-wildfire' and 'catastrophic wildfire' assistance.
Companies developing wildland fire technology
Loss of a mandated, dedicated platform for direct engagement with federal fire managers, potentially reducing opportunities for showcasing and integrating new technologies.
The requirement for an annual forum to engage with wildland fire managers was removed.
Researchers and developers of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for fire applications
Loss of a dedicated funding stream, potentially making it more challenging to secure funding for UAS research and development in this area.
The explicit authorization of appropriations for UAS research and development was removed.
Landowners of non-Federal land adjacent to burned areas
Increased protection of property rights, ensuring that federal rehabilitation activities on their land cannot proceed without explicit permission.
Rehabilitation projects on non-Federal land now explicitly require 'the express consent of the landowner'.
Innovators in wildfire-related invasive species reduction
Loss of a dedicated prize competition and associated incentives for developing technological advancements in this specific area of post-fire recovery.
The entire 'Theodore Roosevelt Genius Prize for the management of wildfire-related invasive species' program was deleted.
Congressional oversight committees
Reduced transparency and oversight for burned area recovery funding and activities, but increased awareness for the local firefighter integration study among additional relevant committees.
The annual reporting requirement on burned area recovery work was removed, and the submission committees for the local firefighter integration study were expanded.