Sponsors (3)
Ask me to break this bill down.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Creates a new categorical exclusion from NEPA for certain hazardous-fuel reduction projects on Federal lands that meet defined criteria to speed up work near communities and infrastructure, improve forest and wildland health, and support recovery of threatened or endangered species (including the sage‑grouse). It also lists locations where the exclusion cannot be used, such as designated wilderness, places where law prohibits vegetation removal, and specified National Monuments as of enactment.
To expedite wildfire prevention projects to reduce the risk of wildfire on certain high-risk Federal land adjacent to communities, private property, and critical infrastructure.
To improve forest and wildland health.
To promote the recovery of threatened or endangered species and other species under consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act, including the sage‑grouse species, whose habitat is negatively impacted by wildland fire.
Redesignate subsections (e) through (h) of Section 104 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 as subsections (f) through (i), respectively.
In subsection (c)(1)(C)(i) of Section 104, strike "subsection (f)" and insert "subsection (g)".
Federal land management agencies (notably the U.S. Forest Service and BLM) will be the primary implementers; they can use the new categorical exclusion to accelerate hazardous-fuel reduction projects that meet the law’s criteria. Nearby communities and infrastructure stand to benefit from quicker hazard‑reduction work that lowers wildfire risk. Wildland firefighting and incident-management organizations may see operational benefits from reduced fuel loads and fewer large fires. Threatened and endangered species that are harmed by wildfire (including the sage‑grouse) are an explicit focus; faster, well‑targeted treatments could help protect or restore habitat, but reduced NEPA review raises concerns among conservation groups about potential oversights of site‑level environmental impacts. Tribal governments and other local stakeholders will still be affected by on‑the‑ground activities and should expect consultation and planning interaction with agencies, though some procedural review under NEPA may be shortened for qualifying projects. The legislation does not itself create new spending authority or detailed technical standards; agencies must implement the exclusion consistent with the statutory eligibility criteria and with other applicable law.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced February 4, 2025 by Cynthia M. Lummis · Last progress February 4, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate