PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Targeted Operations to Remove Catastrophic Hazards Act or the TORCH Act
This bill establishes requirements concerning forest management on federal land, including provisions to expedite the approval of forest management activities.
Specifically, it expands exclusions from environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for certain forest management activities, including by directing the Forest Service to develop a categorical exclusion for forest management activities that mitigate the risks associated with high-priority hazard trees. A categorical exclusion is a class of actions that a federal agency has determined do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and, thus, do not require an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also exempts the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from the requirement to reinitiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 on an approved, amended, or revised land management plan when (1) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated, or (2) new information reveals that the land management plan may affect a listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.
It also creates and modifies requirements related to vegetation management practices and forest management activities, such as activities to reduce wildfire risks. For example, the bill modifies the treatment of certain revenue under good neighbor agreements, which allow federal agencies to partner with state and local governments to carry out certain restoration services.
People & committees
Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.168 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.168 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.168 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.168 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-01-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed bill would change federal land management to address wildfire risks, including requiring a strategy to increase livestock grazing opportunities. It appears intended to create exemptions for certain utility vegetation-management activities from environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, and other legal requirements, but inconsistent subsection references leave their precise scope uncertain. It would also provide exceptions from reopening specified endangered-species consultations on federal land plans. Federal land agencies, grazing permit holders, and electric utilities are among those addressed.
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, in coordination with holders of permits to graze livestock on Federal land, shall develop a strategy to increase opportunities to utilize livestock grazing as wildfire risk reduction strategy
Forest management activities described in subsection (c) are a category of activities designated as being categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
(b) Forest management activities designated for categorical exclusion The forest management activities designated as being categorically excluded under subsection (b) are— (1) the development and approval of a vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)) by the Secretary concerned; and (2) the implementation of routine activities conducted under the plan referred to in paragraph (1).
A forest management activity designated under subsection (c) shall not be subject to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, or any other applicable law.
the Secretary shall not be required to reinitiate consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
Section 1 would name the bill the Targeted Operations to Remove Catastrophic Hazards Act, or TORCH Act.
This Act may be cited as the Targeted Operations to Remove Catastrophic Hazards Act or the TORCH Act.
Section 101 would require the Agriculture Secretary, within one year after enactment, to develop a categorical exclusion for qualifying hazard-tree work. Projects could cover no more than 3,000 acres. The Secretary would still have to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and apply procedures addressing extraordinary circumstances when deciding whether to use the exclusion.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop a categorical exclusion
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and (B) apply the extraordinary circumstances procedures under section 220.6 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), in determining whether to use the categorical exclusion.
A project to carry out high priority hazard tree activities to which a categorical exclusion under subsection (a) is applied may not exceed 3,000 acres.
Qualifying hazard trees would have to present a visible danger, be highly likely to fail and, if they failed, be highly likely to injure people or damage federal property. They would also have to stand within 300 feet of specified National Forest roads, a National Forest trail, or an agency-operated and maintained developed recreation site on National Forest lands. Covered work would include pruning, felling, and disposal.
presents a visible hazard to people or Federal property due to conditions such as deterioration of or damage to the root system, trunk, stem, or limbs of the tree, or the direction or lean of the tree, as determined by the Secretary
is determined by the Secretary to be highly likely to fail and, if it failed, would be highly likely to cause injury to people or damage to Federal property
is within 300 feet of a National Forest System road with a maintenance level of 3, 4, or 5, a National Forest System trail, or a developed recreation site on National Forest System lands that is operated and maintained by the Secretary.
including pruning, felling, and disposal of those trees
The hazard-tree exclusion would not cover work in wilderness, wilderness study areas, or inventoried roadless areas; construction of permanent roads or trails; work inconsistent with the land management plan; or work on federal land where Congress or a presidential proclamation restricts or prohibits vegetation removal.
does not include any activity— (i) conducted in a wilderness area or wilderness study area; (ii) for the construction of a permanent road or permanent trail; (iii) conducted on Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited; (iv) that would be inconsistent with the applicable land and resource management plan; or (v) conducted in an inventoried roadless area.
Section 102 would replace $10,000 with $50,000 in an existing National Forest timber-sale provision. The supplied text does not reproduce that provision, so it does not establish what the dollar threshold controls.
Section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a) is amended— (1) in subsection (d) by striking $10,000 and inserting $50,000
Section 102 would also allow the Secretary to sell or otherwise dispose of portions of trees or forest products without an appraisal when National Forest land faces extreme risks, or to avoid impacts from those events. This would be discretionary and subject to rules prescribed by the Secretary.
In the event of extreme risks to a unit of National Forest System land, including catastrophic wildfire, insect and disease outbreak, wind, hurricane, flood, drought, or to avoid impacts from such extreme events, the Secretary may, without an appraisal and under such rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary, dispose of by sale or otherwise, portions of trees, or forest products located on such unit of National Forest System lands.
Section 103 would require the Agriculture Secretary, acting through the Forest Service Chief, to develop a grazing strategy with federal grazing permit holders. It would include environmental reviews for using vacant allotments when disasters disrupt existing permitted grazing, targeted grazing, more temporary permits for reducing fuels and invasive annual grasses, appropriate grazing for recovery after fires, and use of all applicable legal authorities.
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, in coordination with holders of permits to graze livestock on Federal land, shall develop a strategy
completion of reviews (as required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)) to allow permitted grazing on vacant grazing allotments during instances of drought, wildfire or other natural disasters that disrupt grazing on allotments already permitted
(2) use of targeted grazing; (3) increase use of temporary permits to promote targeted fuels reduction and reduction of invasive annual grasses; (4) increased use of grazing as a postfire recovery and restoration strategy, where appropriate; and (5) use all applicable authorities under the law.
Section 104 would replace 2023 with 2030 in an existing provision labeled here as cross-boundary wildfire mitigation. The underlying provision is not reproduced, so the precise deadline or termination condition being changed cannot be determined from this bundle.
(a) Promoting cross-Boundary wildfire mitigation Section 103(e)(5) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6513(e)(5)) is amended by striking 2023 and inserting 2030.
Section 104 would increase the acreage figure in the cited wildfire-resilience project provision from 3,000 to 10,000 acres. The surrounding eligibility requirements are not reproduced.
(b) Wildfire resilience project size Section 605(c)(1) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591d(c)(1)) is amended by striking 3000 acres and inserting 10,000 acres.
Section 105 would increase the acreage figure in the cited provision for fuel breaks in forests and other wildland vegetation from 3,000 to 10,000 acres. The underlying provision is not reproduced.
105. Amendment to fuel breaks in forests and other wildland vegetation Section 40806(d)(1) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16 U.S.C. 6592b(d)(1)) is amended by striking 3,000 acres and inserting 10,000 acres.
Section 201 would require governors, Indian tribes, and counties to retain timber-sale receipts under good neighbor agreements, which the text connects to restoration services. They would have to use the money first for authorized restoration under the same agreement, then use any remainder for authorized restoration under other good neighbor agreements.
Funds received from the sale of timber by a Governor, an Indian tribe, or a county under a good neighbor agreement shall be retained and used by the Governor, Indian tribe, or county, as applicable— (I) to carry out authorized restoration services under the good neighbor agreement; and (II) if there are funds remaining after carrying out subclause (I), to carry out authorized restoration services under other good neighbor agreements.
Section 201 would also insert Indian tribes into several existing good neighbor provisions, remove a reference to tribes from another provision, and delete subsection (b)(4). Because the affected provisions are not reproduced, these edits alone do not establish their complete legal effect.
(1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking or Indian tribe
in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting , Indian tribe, after Governor
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting , Indian tribe, after Governor; and (D) by striking paragraph (4).
Section 8206(a) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a(a)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting , Indian tribe, after Governor; and (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting , Indian tribe, after Governor.
Section 201's effective-date language says amendments made by the Act would apply to good neighbor projects begun on or after enactment, and to earlier projects begun after enactment of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. Its wording refers to amendments made by the entire Act, rather than expressly limiting itself to section 201.
The amendments made by this Act apply to any project initiated pursuant to a good neighbor agreement
(1) before the date of enactment of this Act, if the project was initiated after the date of enactment of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334; 132 Stat. 4490); or (2) on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 301 would change a hazard-tree distance figure associated with electric power lines from 10 to 50 feet. The heading identifies the distance, but the underlying statutory language is not reproduced.
(a) Hazard trees within 50 feet of electric power line Section 512(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking 10 and inserting 50.
Section 301 would add a requirement to consult private landowners about hazard trees identified for removal from their property.
consulting with private landowners with respect to any hazard trees identified for removal from land owned by such private landowners.
Section 301 would require automatic approval of the covered plans 60 days after review if submitted without the referenced modification, or 67 days after review if submitted with it. The text measures these periods from review, not submission, and does not reproduce the underlying provisions defining the covered plans and modifications.
(c) Review and approval process Clause (iv) of section 512(c)(4)(A) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(4)(A)) is amended to read as follows: (iv) ensures that— (I) a plan submitted without a modification under clause (iii) shall be automatically approved 60 days after review; and (II) a plan submitted with a modification under clause (iii) shall be automatically approved 67 days after review.
Section 302 appears intended to exempt development and approval of electric-line vegetation, inspection, operation, and maintenance plans, and routine work under those plans, from environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. The exclusion would be available upon enactment, administered by Agriculture for National Forest lands and Interior for public lands. Inconsistent subsection references leave uncertainty about its precise scope.
Forest management activities described in subsection (c) are a category of activities designated as being categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
(b) Forest management activities designated for categorical exclusion The forest management activities designated as being categorically excluded under subsection (b) are— (1) the development and approval of a vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)) by the Secretary concerned; and (2) the implementation of routine activities conducted under the plan referred to in paragraph (1).
On and after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned may use the categorical exclusion established under subsection (b)
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System lands; and (2) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public lands.
Subject to the uncertainty from its inconsistent references, section 302 states that its utility exclusion would not be subject to the specified extraordinary-circumstances procedures, unlike the hazard-tree exclusion in section 101. It would not apply in the National Wilderness Preservation System or on National Forest lands where an act of Congress restricts or prohibits vegetation removal.
Use of the categorical exclusion established under subsection (b) shall not be subject to the extraordinary circumstances procedures in section 220.6, title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, or section 1508.4, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
shall not apply to any forest management activity conducted— (1) in a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; or (2) on National Forest System lands on which, by Act of Congress, the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited.
apply the extraordinary circumstances procedures under section 220.6 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), in determining whether to use the categorical exclusion.
Section 302 would prohibit new permanent roads for the activities it references, allow necessary maintenance and repair of existing permanent roads for those activities, and require temporary roads to be decommissioned within three years after the work ends. These provisions also use the inconsistent reference to subsection (c), leaving their precise coverage uncertain.
A forest management activity designated under subsection (c) shall not include the establishment of a permanent road.
The Secretary concerned may carry out necessary maintenance and repair on an existing permanent road for the purposes of conducting a forest management activity designated under subsection (c).
The Secretary concerned shall decommission any temporary road constructed for a forest management activity designated under subsection (c) not later than 3 years after the date on which the action is completed.
Section 302 also purports to exempt the activities it references from section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and "any other applicable law." That last phrase is broader than an environmental-review exemption. The inconsistent reference to subsection (c) leaves the activities covered uncertain.
A forest management activity designated under subsection (c) shall not be subject to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, or any other applicable law.
Section 303 would allow the Agriculture Secretary to authorize electric utilities, through National Forest special-use permits or easements, to cut and remove vegetation near distribution or transmission lines without a separate timber sale. The work would have to comply with the applicable land management plan.
the Secretary of Agriculture may provide permission to cut and remove trees or other vegetation from within the vicinity of distribution lines or transmission lines, including hazardous vegetation that increases fire risk, without requiring a separate timber sale if that cutting and removal is consistent with the applicable land management plan.
In any special use permit or easement on National Forest System lands provided to an electric utility company
Utilities would not have to sell the removed material. If they did sell it, their permits or easements would have to require payment of the proceeds to the Forest Service, after deducting transportation costs incurred in the sale.
if the applicable electrical utility sells any portion of the material removed under the permit or easement, the electrical utility shall provide to the Secretary, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, any proceeds received from the sale, less any transportation costs incurred in the sale.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the sale of any material removed
Section 401 would provide that the Secretary need not reopen specified endangered-species consultations on Forest Service land management plans and Bureau of Land Management land use plans when a new species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or new information reveals previously unconsidered effects on listed species or designated habitat. This language addresses consultations on plans.
the Secretary shall not be required to reinitiate consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) or section 402.16 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), on a land management plan approved, amended, or revised under this section when— (A) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or (B) new information reveals effects of the land management plan that may affect a species listed or critical habitat designated under that Act in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.
the Secretary shall not be required to reinitiate consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) or section 402.16 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), on a land use plan approved, amended, or revised under this section when— (1) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or (2) new information reveals effects of the land use plan that may affect a species listed or critical habitat designated under that Act in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.
Section 402 would increase the acreage figure for the cited categorical exclusion for collaborative restoration projects from 3,000 to 10,000 acres. The other conditions of that existing exclusion are not reproduced.
402. Amendment to categorical exclusion for collaborative restoration projects Section 603(c)(1) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591b(c)(1)) is amended by striking 3000 acres and inserting 10,000 acres.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated April 21, 2026, records House introduction and referral to the Agriculture and Natural Resources committees on January 3, 2025. Its latest listed action is referral to the Forestry and Horticulture Subcommittee on April 4, 2025. This snapshot does not establish subsequent legislative status.
Source snapshot updated 2026-04-21T01:15:56Z. 2025-04-04: Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-01-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision meeting the rider definition was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to this version and does not establish the absence of riders in other versions or accompanying materials, or establish amendment attachment history.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place meeting the earmark definition was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; formal earmark disclosures are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The findings identify narrow procedural treatment and legal exceptions related to the bill's main policy. Classification does not establish improper purpose, a financial windfall, or whether the exceptions are justified.
Section 301 would give proponents of covered electric-utility rights-of-way plans specific automatic-approval treatment: approval 60 days after review for plans submitted without the referenced modification, or 67 days after review for plans submitted with it. This is a procedural benefit tied to utility vegetation management, inspection, operation, and maintenance. The underlying statutory provisions defining the plans and modifications are not supplied, limiting conclusions about eligibility and the full change from existing law.
301. Vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance relating to electric transmission and distribution facility rights-of-way
(c) Review and approval process Clause (iv) of section 512(c)(4)(A) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(4)(A)) is amended to read as follows: (iv) ensures that— (I) a plan submitted without a modification under clause (iii) shall be automatically approved 60 days after review; and (II) a plan submitted with a modification under clause (iii) shall be automatically approved 67 days after review.
Section 302 appears intended to give electric-line management plans and routine work special exemptions from environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, extraordinary-circumstances procedures, and other laws. This would favor a defined category of utility-related work within the bill's vegetation-management policy. Inconsistent subsection references make the exact coverage uncertain, and the text excludes wilderness and certain National Forest lands where Congress restricts vegetation removal.
302. Categorical exclusion for electric utility lines rights-of-way
Forest management activities described in subsection (c) are a category of activities designated as being categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
(b) Forest management activities designated for categorical exclusion The forest management activities designated as being categorically excluded under subsection (b) are— (1) the development and approval of a vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance plan submitted under section 512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1772(c)(1)) by the Secretary concerned; and (2) the implementation of routine activities conducted under the plan referred to in paragraph (1).
Use of the categorical exclusion established under subsection (b) shall not be subject to the extraordinary circumstances procedures
A forest management activity designated under subsection (c) shall not be subject to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, or any other applicable law.
shall not apply to any forest management activity conducted— (1) in a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; or (2) on National Forest System lands on which, by Act of Congress, the removal of vegetation is restricted or prohibited.
Section 303 would give electric utilities a specific route to cut and remove vegetation near power lines on National Forest lands without a separate timber sale, subject to discretionary permission and consistency with the land management plan. This exception relates directly to utility vegetation management and fire hazards. Utilities selling removed material would have to remit the proceeds after transportation costs; the provision does not require a sale.
In any special use permit or easement on National Forest System lands provided to an electric utility company
the Secretary of Agriculture may provide permission to cut and remove trees or other vegetation from within the vicinity of distribution lines or transmission lines, including hazardous vegetation that increases fire risk, without requiring a separate timber sale if that cutting and removal is consistent with the applicable land management plan.
the electrical utility shall provide to the Secretary, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, any proceeds received from the sale, less any transportation costs incurred in the sale.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the sale of any material removed
Section 401 would give the federal administrators of Forest Service land management plans and Bureau of Land Management land use plans a specific exception from reinitiating consultation under the cited endangered-species provisions. The exception would apply when a new species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or new information reveals effects on listed species or designated habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered. This is targeted procedural relief for the specified federal plans within the bill's land-management policy. The language addresses reinitiation of plan-level consultation; it does not establish a blanket exemption for individual projects. Because the existing provisions are not reproduced, the full change from current law cannot be determined from the supplied text.
(a) Forest Service plans Section 6(d)(2) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows: (2) No additional consultation required under certain circumstances Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not be required to reinitiate consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) or section 402.16 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), on a land management plan approved, amended, or revised under this section when— (A) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or (B) new information reveals effects of the land management plan that may affect a species listed or critical habitat designated under that Act in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.
(b) Bureau of Land Management plans Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) is amended by adding at the end the following: (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not be required to reinitiate consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) or section 402.16 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), on a land use plan approved, amended, or revised under this section when— (1) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or (2) new information reveals effects of the land use plan that may affect a species listed or critical habitat designated under that Act in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 21, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI