ONE DEPARTMENT FOR WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT

Wildfires know no boundaries; but for decades, federal wildland fire management has been constrained by an outdated, fragmented structure that divides decision making between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). This bureaucratic split has led to inefficiencies, inconsistent strategies, and delays in wildfire preparedness, suppression, and recovery. The newly introduced Fit for Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act of 2025, led by Senators Tim Sheehy and Alex Padilla, takes a major step toward fixing this broken system by directing the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to "jointly develop a plan to consolidate the authorities of the Secretaries relating to Federal wildland fire preparedness, suppression, and recovery efforts under an agency of the Department of the Interior." By proposing to unify wildfire decision making under one department and centralize technological decision support under a unified Wildfire Intelligence Center—Senators Sheehy and Padilla have prompted Congress to fundamentally reimagine how the federal government plans for and responds to wildfire.[1] [2] [3] 

The Fit for Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act of 2025 marks the new beginning[4] [5] [6]  of a broad discussion among Congress, federal agencies, firefighters, land managers, Tribes, and forestry/wildfire policy groups on how to best modernize and streamline federal wildland fire mitigation and management. The bill directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior submit a plan with three primary elements—

‍

1. a budget for the National Wildland Firefighting Service;
2. a description of the qualifications required for an individual to be appointed to be the Director of the National Wildland Firefighting Service, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ;and
3. a description of the resources and authorities necessary to consolidate Federal wildland fire response efforts of the Secretaries in the National Wildland Firefighting Service.

‍

‍The plan that comes out of this process will require careful coordination and input from all stakeholders. For nearly a year, Megafire Action has been researching past proposals to reorganize and improve the federal wildland fire response. Our assessment has included proposals to relocate the Forest Service under DOI and the creation of a “National Wildland Firefighting Service’’ as envisioned by Senators Sheehy and Padilla.

Based on extensive analysis—including insights from a landmark 2009 GAO report on the feasibility of moving the Forest Service to DOI—we believe the proposal put forward by Senators Sheehy and Padilla has strong potential to create a more cohesive, accountable, and cost-effective wildfire management system.

This blogpiece will examine:

1. The historical development of the Department     of the Interior and the Forest Service.
2. The benefits of moving Forest Service’s wildfire preparedness,     suppression, and recovery capabilities from USDA to DOI.
3. The 2009 GAO report on consolidating federal land management     agencies.
4. The cost synergy potential of restructuring     federal wildfire response.

We have been asking overburdened federal firefighters to do the impossible without an organization capable of success. The time for action is now. As wildfires intensify, communities and landscapes are suffering from a management system that is no longer fit for purpose. Megafire Action looks forward to engaging with Congress, USDA, DOI, Tribes, scientists, advocates, and firefighter groups to advance the bold reforms envisioned by Senators Sheehy and Padilla. This legislation is a critical step toward a more effective, accountable, and well-resourced federal wildfire response.

In 1905,Congress transferred control of the forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture, creating the United States Forest Service. This move reflected scientists' and policymakers' belief that forests and timber supply would be better managed under USDA's agriculture and conservation mission. While the Forest Service's placement in USDA made sense at the turn of the 20th century, the mission of the agency has since undergone significant transformations driven by social, political, economic, ecological, and legal shifts. The passage of landmark environmental legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, National Forest Management Act of1976, and Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 reflect an evolving public expectation that the Forest Service prioritize sustainable, multifaceted, and multiuse approaches to land management beyond the protection of timber stands for harvesting. Today, the mission of the Forest Service is most closely aligned to the missions of the DOI and its agencies.

The Forest Service's location within USDA may have worked well during the early 1900’swhen its mission was mainly focused on ensuring a continuous supply of timber as a key agricultural commodity driving economic development.²However, since the 1960’s, the Forest Service's focus has shifted to sustainable management of multiple resources and wildland fire management. Today, the mission of the Forest Service is closely aligned with the DOI’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for current and future generations. This includes the protection of our public lands from devastating high-severity wildfires. As the Forest Service’s mission has shifted away from USDA’s mission of managing agricultural commodity resources to be more in line with Department of the Interior natural resource priorities (see table below), reorganization must beconsidered.³

In 1905,Congress transferred control of the forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture, creating the United States Forest Service. This move reflected scientists' and policymakers' belief that forests and timber supply would be better managed under USDA's agriculture and conservation mission. While the Forest Service's placement in USDA made sense at the turn of the 20th century, the mission of the agency has since undergone significant transformations driven by social, political, economic, ecological, and legal shifts. The passage of landmark environmental legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, National Forest Management Act of1976, and Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 reflect an evolving public expectation that the Forest Service prioritize sustainable, multifaceted, and multiuse approaches to land management beyond the protection of timber stands for harvesting. Today, the mission of the Forest Service is most closely aligned to the missions of the DOI and its agencies.

The Forest Service's location within USDA may have worked well during the early 1900’swhen its mission was mainly focused on ensuring a continuous supply of timber as a key agricultural commodity driving economic development.²However, since the 1960’s, the Forest Service's focus has shifted to sustainable management of multiple resources and wildland fire management. Today, the mission of the Forest Service is closely aligned with the DOI’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for current and future generations. This includes the protection of our public lands from devastating high-severity wildfires. As the Forest Service’s mission has shifted away from USDA’s mission of managing agricultural commodity resources to be more in line with Department of the Interior natural resource priorities (see table below), reorganization must beconsidered.³

The Forest Service struggles to flourish as the only land and wildfire management agency within USDA’s organizational structure, where its mission is misaligned and deprioritized. USDA Secretaries are typically chosen for their expertise in agriculture, not forestry or wildland fire management, leaving the Forest Service without the critical departmental leadership it needs. The Forest Service’s challenges are further exacerbated by its budgetary isolation within USDA. With a FY 2025 budget request of just $8.9 billion—less than 5% of USDA’s$213.3 billion total—the agency operates on the margins of the Department’s larger priorities such as crop production and school lunch programs.⁵ Forest Service funding is managed by the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior (along with DOI), separate from the Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture that oversee most USDA programs, further complicating congressional efforts to effectively oversee Forest Service’s budget and mission. The bifurcated appropriations process for wildland fire management is modeledbelow.⁶

While the2009 GAO report did not attempt to evaluate the potential cost synergies achievable by relocating the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior, there are several key funding streams where significant overlap exists between the agencies. The “budget for the National Wildland Firefighting Service” requested  by the Fit for Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act should include an extensive inventory of where cost synergies can be achieved and reinvested into the creation of a world class wildfire management agency.

Cost-saving opportunities across four key funding streams—Wildland Fire Management, Hazardous Fuels Management, Research and Technology, and IT/Administrative Services—include leveraging shared resources, aligning administrative functions, consolidating contracts, and streamlining R&D. Estimating total cost synergies will require extensive analysis, and should form part of the plan requested by the Fit For Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act. We expect cost synergies across these streams to represent a significant opportunity to optimize resource allocation and address the current $658.5 million budget shortfall afflicting critical hiring for fuels management and wildfire suppression at the Forest Service.¹⁴ In the GAO report, the Forest Service claimed (without providing any analysis or justification) that integrating the Forest Service into DOI could have a one-time cost of $300-500million ($439-732 million in 2025 dollars). Potential annual cost synergies from relocating all or parts of the Forest Service under DOI should more than cover initial integration costs.¹⁵

The biggest potential cost savings of the reorganization, however, are expected to come from the benefits of improved fuels reduction and wildfire management. Extensive research finds that fuels reduction treatments can yield additional savings by lowering the suppression costs and damages of subsequent wildfires while also increasing their ecological benefits.¹⁶ If the creation of a National Wildland Firefighting Service improves the efficiency of landscape-scale fuels management and reduces uncontrolled megafires, it could lead to long-term savings by lowering the costs of destructive wildfires and increasing the benefits of ecologically appropriate fire. A 2024 analysis of arid Western forests found that every dollar invested in fuels treatments yields up to seven dollars in benefits, a 600% return on investment.¹⁷After covering integration costs, we recommend allocating the annual cost synergies from the creation of a National Wildland Firefighting Service to expand ecologically sound fire management and fuels reduction, potentially saving billions and transforming our response to the megafire crisis.

‍

Establishing a National Wildland Firefighting Service is an enormous undertaking that will require a phased approach involving both executive action and legislative approval. This operational plan requested by the Fit For Purpose Wildfire Readiness Act should assess the legal, financial, and operational impacts of transitioning wildland fire preparedness, suppression, and recovery from the Forest Service to DOI. The plan should also assess potential cost savings, performance improvements, and challenges associated with the reorganization. Moreover, the plan should assess multiple options for reorganization, including the relocation of the entire Forest Service under DOI.

In forming the plan the Administration will provide to Congress, it should consult state governments, tribes, conservation groups, wildland firefighters, advocacy groups and industry representatives to address concerns and build support. Public input should be solicited through notices in the Federal Register and proactive community engagement.

Establishing a National Wildland Firefighting Service offers a historic opportunity to unify wildfire mitigation and management, addressing inefficiencies that have long hindered an effective response to the megafire crisis. By streamlining operations, leveraging cost synergies, and fostering collaboration across agencies, this reorganization could save billions while improving outcomes for communities and ecosystems. It is a bold, necessary step to safeguard America’s landscapes and communities while delivering greater value to taxpayers.

‍

Sources

¹ United States Government Accountability Office, “Agencies Have Made Several Key Changes but Could Benefit from More Information about Effectiveness”, P. 9, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15-772.pdf.

² U.S. Forest Service, A Historical Perspective, https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/aboutus/histperspective- .shtml

³ United States Government Accountability Office, “Observations on a Possible Move of the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior”, P. 35, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-223.pdf.

⁴ Hair, Corbin, “Zinke looks West for deputies and priorities, rejected VA job”, E&E News,https://www.eenews.net/articles/zinke-looks-west-for-deputies-and-priorities-rejected-va-job/.

⁵ 2025 USDA Budget Summary, P. 1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-usda-budget-summary.pdf.

⁶ U.S. Department of the Interior, https://www.doi.gov/wildlandfire/budget.

⁷ Lozano, Alicia Victoria, “U.S. Forest Service pauses seasonal employee hiring amid budget shortfall”, NBCNews, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-forest-service-pauses-seasonal-employee-hiring-budget-shortfall-rcna170436.

⁸ U.S. Department of the Interior, https://www.doi.gov/wildlandfire/budget.

⁹ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, IIJA—Hazardous Fuels Management, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2024-11/08801-0001-21FR508FOIAsigned.pdf.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ ON FIRE: The Report of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, P. 195, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/wfmmc-final-report-09-2023.pdf.

¹² H.R.471 - Fix Our Forests Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/471.

¹³ United States Government Accountability Office, “Observations on a Possible Move of the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior”, P.15, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-223.pdf.

¹⁴ Lozano, Alicia Victoria, “U.S. Forest Service pauses seasonal employee hiring amid budget shortfall”, NBCNews, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-forest-service-pauses-seasonal-employee-hiring-budget-shortfall-rcna170436.

¹⁵ United States Government Accountability Office, “Observations on a Possible Move of the Forest Service into the Department of the Interior”, P.48, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-223.pdf.

¹⁶ Thompson and Anderson. 2015. Modeling fuel treatment impacts on fire suppression cost savings: A review. California Agriculture. 69(3):164-170. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/49956

Sánchez et. al., 2019, Do Fuel Treatments in U.S. National Forests Reduce Wildfire Suppression Costs and Property Damage?. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research; 9 (1): 42–73. https://doi.org/10.5325/naturesopolirese.9.1.0042

Hunter, Molly E., and Michael H. Taylor. 2022. "The Economic Value of Fuel Treatments: A Review of the Recent Literature for Fuel Treatment Planning" Forests 13, no. 12: 2042. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122042

¹⁷ Hjerpe, Evan E., Melanie M. Colavito, Amy E.M. Waltz, and Andrew Sánchez Meador. 2024. “Return on Investments in Restoration and Fuel Treatments in Frequent-Fire Forests of the American West: A Meta-Analysis.” Ecological Economics 223: 108244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108244.