PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-430, Part I.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Proven Forest Management Act of 2025
This bill sets forth provisions to expedite the approval and implementation of forest management activities and establishes related requirements.
First, the bill categorically excludes a forest management activity conducted on National Forest System land for reducing forest fuels from certain environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if the activity (1) does not exceed 10,000 acres (including not more than 3,000 acres of mechanical thinning), (2) is developed in a collaborative manner, and (3) is consistent with the forest plan developed for the relevant National Forest System land.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Next, the bill directs the Forest Service to conduct forest management activities in a manner that attains multiple ecosystem benefits unless the costs associated with attaining such benefits are excessive.
Additionally, the Forest Service must (1) establish any post-program ground condition criteria for a ground disturbance caused by a forest management activity required by the applicable forest plan, and (2) provide for monitoring to ascertain the attainment of relevant post-program conditions.
The bill also allows the Forest Service or the Department of the Interior, as appropriate, to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with certain entities to provide for fuel reduction, erosion control, reforestation, and similar activities on federal and nonfederal lands within land adjustment programs.
Finally, the bill directs the Forest Service, when conducting a forest management activity on National Forest System land, to coordinate with impacted parties to increase efficiency and maximize the compatibility of management practices across such land.
People & committees
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-430, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-430, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 15.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 11, 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.179 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.179 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.179 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.179 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 Proven Forest Management Act of 2025 would set requirements for managing National Forest System land, including coordination with affected parties and pursuing several environmental benefits unless costs are deemed excessive. It would categorically exclude qualifying forest-fuel reduction projects from National Environmental Policy Act requirements. It would also allow cooperative management work on federal and nonfederal land within land adjustment programs.
This Act may be cited as the Proven Forest Management Act of 2025.
In conducting a forest management activity on National Forest System land, the Secretary concerned shall, as appropriate, coordinate with impacted parties to increase efficiency and maximize the compatibility of management practices across National Forest System land.
in conducting a forest management activity on National Forest System land, the Secretary concerned shall conduct such activity in a manner that attains multiple ecosystem benefits
Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the Secretary concerned determines that the costs associated with attaining multiple ecosystem benefits are excessive.
A forest management activity conducted on National Forest System land for the purpose of reducing forest fuels is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The Secretary concerned, in conjunction with land adjustment programs, may enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with a qualified entity to provide for fuel reduction, erosion control, reforestation, Stream Environment Zone restoration, and similar management activities on Federal land and non-Federal land within the programs.
For forest management activities on National Forest System land, the responsible secretary would have to coordinate with affected parties as appropriate, seeking greater efficiency and compatible management practices across that land.
In conducting a forest management activity on National Forest System land, the Secretary concerned shall, as appropriate, coordinate with impacted parties to increase efficiency and maximize the compatibility of management practices across National Forest System land.
Activities would have to achieve multiple environmental benefits, including reducing forest fuels, maintaining biological diversity, improving wetlands and water quality, including in Stream Environment Zones, and increasing resilience to changing water temperature and precipitation. This requirement would not apply when the secretary determines that its costs are excessive; the bill supplies no numerical cost threshold.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), in conducting a forest management activity on National Forest System land, the Secretary concerned shall conduct such activity in a manner that attains multiple ecosystem benefits, including— (A) reducing forest fuels; (B) maintaining biological diversity; (C) improving wetland and water quality, including in Stream Environment Zones; and (D) increasing resilience to changing water temperature and precipitation.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the Secretary concerned determines that the costs associated with attaining multiple ecosystem benefits are excessive.
Consistent with applicable federal law and the relevant forest plan, the secretary would have to establish any plan-required criteria for ground conditions after management work disturbs the ground and arrange monitoring to check whether the relevant conditions are achieved.
Consistent with applicable Federal law and the forest plan developed for the relevant National Forest System land, the Secretary concerned shall— (1) establish any post-program ground condition criteria for a ground disturbance caused by a forest management activity required by such plan; and (2) provide for monitoring to ascertain the attainment of relevant post-program conditions.
The bill would provide a categorical exclusion from National Environmental Policy Act requirements for qualifying forest-fuel reduction activities on National Forest System land. Projects could cover no more than 10,000 acres, including no more than 3,000 acres of mechanical thinning. The acreage provision would apply notwithstanding section 423 of the cited 2009 appropriations law. That law is not supplied, so the change relative to its requirements cannot be determined here.
A forest management activity conducted on National Forest System land for the purpose of reducing forest fuels is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if the forest management activity— (1) notwithstanding section 423 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (division E of Public Law 111–8; 123 Stat. 748), does not exceed 10,000 acres, including not more than 3,000 acres of mechanical thinning;
To qualify for the exclusion, a project would also have to be developed in coordination with affected parties, specifically including local government representatives, and in consultation with other interested entities. It would have to be consistent with the relevant forest plan.
(2) is developed— (A) in coordination with impacted parties, specifically including representatives of local governments, such as county supervisors or county commissioners; and (B) in consultation with other interested entities; and (3) is consistent with the forest plan developed for the relevant National Forest System land.
The bill's list of interested entities includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's administrator; state, local and Tribal governments; local fire departments; and other relevant volunteer groups.
The term interested entities includes— (A) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (B) State, local, and Tribal governments; (C) local fire departments; and (D) other relevant volunteer groups.
In conjunction with land adjustment programs, the secretary could enter contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified entities for fuel reduction, erosion control, reforestation, Stream Environment Zone restoration and similar work. This authority would cover federal and nonfederal land within those programs; entering agreements would be optional. Stream Environment Zones are defined as areas whose biological and physical characteristics generally derive from surface water or groundwater.
The Secretary concerned, in conjunction with land adjustment programs, may enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with a qualified entity to provide for fuel reduction, erosion control, reforestation, Stream Environment Zone restoration, and similar management activities on Federal land and non-Federal land within the programs.
The term Stream Environment Zone means an area that generally owes the biological and physical characteristics of the area to the presence of surface water or groundwater.
The bill defines the responsible secretary as the Agriculture secretary for National Forest System land and the Interior secretary for public lands. A covered forest management activity is defined as a project or activity carried out by the responsible secretary on National Forest System land and consistent with its forest plan.
The term Secretary concerned means— (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System land; and (B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public lands.
The term “forest management activity” means a project or activity carried out by the Secretary concerned on National Forest System land and consistent with the forest plan covering such land.
The bill would incorporate referenced statutory definitions of National Forest System and public lands, while expressly including Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands and Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands in its public-lands definition. The referenced definitions are not supplied, so the scope of any change from existing law cannot be fully assessed.
The term “National Forest System” has the meaning given that term in section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
The term “public lands” has the meaning given that term in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702), except that the term includes Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands and Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands.
The supplied action snapshot, updated June 11, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the Agriculture and Natural Resources committees on January 3, 2025, followed by referral to the Forestry and Horticulture Subcommittee on April 4, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-06-11T05:06:25Z.
2025-01-03: Introduced in House
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.
2025-04-04: Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
The June 11, 2026 action snapshot records committee consideration and markup on July 23, 2025, and a 24–15 vote that day ordering the bill reported in the nature of a substitute. It also records that the Natural Resources Committee reported the bill as amended on January 8, 2026. These entries describe committee action and do not establish enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-06-11T05:06:25Z.
2025-07-23: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
2025-07-23: Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 15.
2026-01-08: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-430, Part I.
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 unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
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 particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Formal earmark status cannot be conclusively determined without the missing disclosures and accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption or preferential treatment warranting a finding was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI