PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 3, 2015
Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire Prevention Act
Declares that the bark beetle epidemic, drought, and deteriorating forest health conditions on National Forest System land and public lands, with the resulting imminent risk of devastating wildfires, is an imminent threat within the meaning of roadless area management regulations applicable to a state.
Allows a state governor or the Department of Agriculture, with respect the National Forest System, or the Department of the Interior, with respect to public lands, to designate high-risk areas of the national forests and public lands in the state for purposes of addressing: (1) deteriorating forest health conditions due to the bark beetle epidemic or drought, with the resulting imminent risk of devastating wildfires; and (2) the future risk of insect infestations or disease outbreaks through preventative treatments to improve forest health conditions. Excludes wilderness areas and national monuments from designation as high-risk areas. Establishes a 20-year period for such high-risk area designation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows a governor or the department concerned, upon designation of a high-risk area, to provide for the development of proposed emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects for the area. Applies the administrative and judicial review processes of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, with modifications, to such projects. Amends the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 to extend the duration of contracts to perform services to achieve land management goals for national forests and public lands that meet local and rural community needs.
People & committees
Rep. Tipton, Scott R. [R-CO-3] · R–CO
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 Federal Lands.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
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.
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 currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. 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.695 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.695 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.695 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.695 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.