The National Prescribed Fire Act of 2025 directs the Department of the Interior and USDA Forest Service to encourage and expand the use of prescribed fire on lands they manage—with special emphasis on National Forest System units in the western and southeastern United States—and to acknowledge long-standing cultural burning by Indian Tribes and Indigenous practitioners. The bill creates several implementation tools: flexible use of hazardous-fuels funds, a competitive Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program, cooperative agreement authorities, workforce and training initiatives, liability guidance, and tighter coordination on smoke and environmental review.
For land managers, tribal governments, prescribed-burn associations, and local communities the bill matters because it converts the long-stated goal of more prescribed burns into concrete authorities, funding pathways, and administrative duties—while also imposing reporting, planning, and cross-jurisdictional prioritization requirements that will drive how work gets done on the ground.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to scale prescribed fire across federal lands by enabling flexible funding, creating a competitive collaborative grants program, authorizing cooperative agreements for third-party implementation, and requiring regionally specific operational strategies.
Who It Affects
Federal land managers, State and Tribal governments, prescribed burn associations and NGOs, local contracting firms and workforce programs, and State and local air quality agencies that regulate smoke will all face new roles or obligations.
Why It Matters
This bill shifts programmatic emphasis from episodic burns to planned, landscape-scale treatments and creates institutional incentives to treat more acres—while bundling workforce, liability, and smoke-management changes intended to unblock practical barriers to implementation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill sets definitions and then authorizes targeted changes to how federal land managers plan, pay for, and execute prescribed fire. It allows each Secretary to reallocate a portion of annual hazardous-fuels appropriations to prescribed-fire activities and lists a wide set of allowable expenditures—grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, pre-ignition surveys, site preparation, training, smoke outreach, and post-fire monitoring.
It also requires the Secretaries to coordinate prioritization with States, Tribes, and partners and to favor projects that are cross-boundary, large-scale, near the wildland-urban interface, protective of Tribal trust resources, or restorative of critical habitat.
Operationally, the bill mandates a stepped increase in activity: starting the first fiscal year after enactment and for nine years after, the Secretaries must increase the acreage treated with prescribed fire by 10 percent each fiscal year over the prior year. To support that ambition the law requires region- or unit-level prescribed fire operational strategies that quantify the local 'fire deficit' and identify staffing and funding needs.
It also directs the Secretaries to establish a Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program to select landscape-scale restoration proposals developed through transparent collaborations. Eligible landscape strategies must cover large areas (the bill contemplates landscapes measured in tens of thousands of acres), prioritize ecological restoration and retention of old-growth structure where appropriate, avoid permanent road construction, and commit to decommission temporary roads.The Collaborative Program builds in practical limits: nominations come through Regional Foresters or State Directors; the Secretaries shall give special consideration to strong ecological rationale, collaborative history, leveraged non-Federal investment, and geographic diversity; and the program caps funding and project size and duration.
Separately the bill authorizes long-term cooperative agreements (up to 10 years) so States, Tribes, counties, fire districts, NGOs, and private entities can lead prescribed burns on federal land if they meet applicable laws and plans. To expand and retain a prescribed-fire workforce the statute creates a menu of personnel changes and programs: hazard-pay differentials for employees performing ignition and control work, dedicated multiparty task forces within Geographic Area Coordination Centers, timelines to establish regional training centers (including an Indigenous-led center), accelerated qualifications for prescribed-fire supervisory roles, conversion of seasonal firefighters to permanent hires under specified performance conditions, and targeted pathways for veterans and formerly incarcerated people with relevant experience.On liability and environmental compliance the bill pushes several reforms designed to reduce barriers to partner-led burns.
It treats eligible non-Federal cooperators acting under direct Federal supervision as covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act for prescribed-fire activities and directs the agencies and Department of Justice to issue guidance and training on liability protections and reimbursements; the Secretaries must request appropriations to reimburse the Treasury for claims paid. For air quality the statute requires close coordination between EPA, Federal land managers, and State and Tribal air agencies: it sponsors technical tools, decision-support and exceptional-event assistance, and research on smoke prediction, public messaging, and exposure mitigation.
Finally, the bill requires federal units with prescribed-fire programs to inventory and either adopt or develop landscape-scale prescribed fire plans on a multi-year schedule, comply with NEPA and species protections during that work, and report annual accomplishments to national fire databases and to Congress.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Each Secretary may use up to 15% of annual hazardous-fuels appropriations for prescribed-fire activities, including grants, contracts, training, smoke outreach, and post-fire work.
The bill requires the Secretaries to increase the acreage treated with prescribed fire by 10% each fiscal year for 10 years (the first fiscal year after enactment and each of the 9 fiscal years thereafter).
The Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program is capped: the Secretary shall not provide more than $20 million total per fiscal year for projects, no more than $1 million per project per year, may select at most 20 proposals a year, and may stop funding projects that miss targets for 3 consecutive years.
For covered activities, non-Federal entities acting under direct Federal supervision are treated as federal employees for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act; agencies must issue guidance and seek appropriations to reimburse Treasury for claims.
The bill sets near-term deadlines: establish prescribed-fire training centers (including an Indigenous-led center) within 2 years where absent, and within 1–2 years require Secretaries to identify which units have landscape-scale prescribed-fire plans and to schedule needed revisions or develop missing plans.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Funding flexibility and eligible uses
This section authorizes each Secretary to reprogram up to 15% of hazardous-fuels appropriations for activities that expand prescribed burning on federal land and on non-federal land when it benefits federal resources. It explicitly enumerates allowable uses—procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, grants (to States, Tribes, local governments, prescribed burn associations and nonprofits), environmental reviews, site prep, pre-ignition cultural and environmental surveys, training, smoke outreach, post-burn monitoring and invasive-species work, and support for the Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program. Practically, this creates a statutory pathway to fund capacity-building and cross-boundary treatments without new, separate appropriations lines.
Targets and operational strategies
Section 103 imposes an auditable operational target: acreage treated by prescribed fire must increase by 10% each fiscal year for a decade. It also requires region-level operational strategies that quantify the region's fire deficit and outline staffing and funding needs. These provisions convert a planning exercise into a measurable performance obligation, forcing units to identify resource gaps and to prioritize where to direct the newly flexible funds.
Collaborative Prescribed Fire Program (eligibility, nomination, selection, limits)
This title establishes a competitive program to fund landscape-scale projects founded on completed or substantially complete landscape restoration strategies that typically span tens of thousands of acres. Eligibility requires transparent, multi-interest collaboration; an ecological case for prescribed fire; commitments to retain old-growth structure where appropriate; no creation of permanent roads; and annual accomplishment targets and smoke mitigation plans. The statute sets hard programmatic constraints—selection criteria emphasizing ecological and collaborative strength, a maximum of 20 proposals chosen per year, per-project annual caps ($1M), an overall program cap ($20M/year) and a statutory ten-year maximum funding window per project—while allowing the agencies to draw up to $10M/year from the reprogrammed funds in section 102(a) to run the program.
Cooperative agreements and workforce development
The bill authorizes long-term cooperative agreements (up to 10 years) and permits subcontracting by States, Tribes, and counties, enabling third parties to plan and execute prescribed burns on federal land consistent with law. It also prescribes a broad personnel strategy: hazard-pay differentials for employees on ignition and control duties, dedicated multiparty prescribed-fire task forces in each Geographic Area Coordination Center, conversion rules for seasonal firefighters to permanent status, the creation of regional training centers (including Indigenous-led centers), expedited qualification adjustments for supervisory prescribed-fire roles, and programs to recruit veterans and qualified formerly incarcerated individuals.
Liability protections and reimbursements
To lower liability barriers the bill directs agencies to treat covered non-federal entities acting under direct federal supervision as federal employees for Federal Tort Claims Act purposes. The Secretaries must coordinate with the Attorney General to provide training on liability protections and to issue contract guidance within a year. The agencies must request appropriations to reimburse the Treasury for any claims paid—an acknowledgment the change could lead to federal claim payments and that the statutory patch requires budgetary backing.
Smoke-management coordination and environmental review
This section makes smoke-management a core implementation consideration: EPA and land managers must coordinate to give State, Tribal, and local air agencies tools, modeling, and archival data to support exceptional-event demonstrations under federal air rules. The agencies must research and develop smoke-prediction tools, public messaging, mitigation strategies for communities, and emission inventories. It also requires Secretaries to inventory and either adopt or develop landscape-scale prescribed fire plans for units with existing programs on a 1–2 year timetable and to comply with NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and other laws during planning and implementation.
Reporting, databases, and accountability
The law ties funding eligibility to reporting: States must report prescribed-fire accomplishments to the National Fire Planning and Operations Database (or successor) or risk ineligibility for Act funds. Federal recipients must also submit annual project reports with acreage treated and funding used. The Secretaries must provide annual implementation reports to Congress and periodic program assessments every five years for the Collaborative Program.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Indian Tribes and Indigenous practitioners — explicit acknowledgment of cultural burning, eligibility for grants and cooperative agreements, and an Indigenous-led prescribed-fire training center raise opportunities for government-to-government partnership and capacity funding.
- State, local governments, prescribed burn associations, and NGOs — new grant and cooperative-authority pathways, plus subcontracting permissions, make them viable implementers of cross-boundary prescribed fires and eligible for technical and financial assistance.
- Local rural economies and workforce programs — the bill promotes local contracting, Youth Conservation Corps and veteran crews, and hiring pathways (including for formerly incarcerated people), generating jobs and training in communities near treatment areas.
- Federal land units and resource managers — the requirement to develop landscape-scale plans and the funding flexibility create a clearer mechanism to reduce fuels and meet restoration objectives across ownerships.
- Public health and research communities — mandated research on smoke models, public messaging, and mitigation tools will improve decision-support and community protections over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of the Interior and Forest Service — agencies must reallocate staff time, plan and implement operational strategies, stand up program offices and reporting systems, and bear administrative overhead for grants and cooperative agreements.
- State, Tribal, and local air quality agencies — tasked with exceptional-event demonstrations and closer coordination with federal land managers, adding technical workload and requiring access to modeling and data.
- Treasury and taxpayers — by treating covered non-federal cooperators as federal employees for FTCA purposes and by mandating reimbursement requests, the bill exposes the federal fisc to potential claims and requires appropriations to cover them.
- Nearby communities and sensitive populations — increased prescribed burning increases localized smoke exposures in the near term, placing health mitigation costs and communication burdens on local public-health systems and residents.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades off speed and scale of prescribed fire—aimed at reducing catastrophic wildfire risk and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems—against near-term limits on funding, workforce capacity, public-health impacts from smoke, and legal/administrative friction; it accelerates authorities and incentives but leaves unresolved whether resources, interagency coordination, and smoke-management capacity can keep pace with the statutory acreage mandate.
The bill stacks ambitious operational targets atop limited funding and administrative authorities, creating a central implementation challenge. Reprogramming up to 15% of hazardous-fuels funds and a modest dedicated pot for the Collaborative Program are meaningful but likely insufficient alone to meet the statutory 10% year-over-year acreage increases; success will depend on sustained appropriations, large-scale partner buy-in, and rapid workforce expansion.
The Congressional cap language inside the Collaborative Program—$20 million total a year with only up to $10 million drawn from the reprogrammed pool—signals that agencies will need other funding sources to fully capitalize the program, which is not guaranteed.
The bill improves legal scaffolding for partner-led burns by extending FTCA-style coverage to covered non-Federal cooperators, but implementation raises unresolved questions. The precise scope of ‘direct supervision’ and the drafting of contractual protections will matter for insurers, partners, and DOJ claim exposure.
The annual reimbursement mechanism for claims shifts fiscal risk to the appropriations process; absent timely funding requests and appropriations, agencies could face claim liabilities that outstrip available budgets. On air quality, the law relies heavily on State and Tribal exceptional-event demonstrations and EPA concurrence—processes that can be technical, time-consuming, and politically sensitive—so smoke-management coordination could become a chokepoint unless EPA and states scale capacity to deliver timely modeling and approvals.
Finally, the requirement to prepare landscape-scale NEPA documents to obviate future NEPA decisions is sensible in theory but will itself require up-front staff time and legal care to withstand challenge, meaning the statute may accelerate burns only after an initial heavy investment in planning.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.