PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 111-364.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 20, 2009
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 - Directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to select areas on which to carry out, through the use of stewardship contracts or other contracting mechanisms, landscape-scale restoration projects on National Forest System land, and which may include other federal, state, tribal, or private land, in Montana for reclaiming or converting roads into recreational trails, restoring fish and wildlife habitat, replacing or resizing culverts, generating revenue for the investment of funds into fish and wildlife restoration and maintenance initiatives, and maintaining the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities. Provides for specified forest management activities on the stewardship areas selected under this Act.
Establishes resource advisory committees for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Three Rivers Ranger District in Kootenai National Forest.
Requires the Secretaries to report every five years on implementation of such projects.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the use of certain funds for payment of the federal cost share for the installation of combined heat and power biomass system projects. Requires a specified biomass study.
Designates specified forest and public lands in Montana as wilderness areas and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Releases specified wilderness study areas from further study for designation as wilderness.
Designates or establishes the: (1) Lost Creek Protection Area; (2) West Big Hole National Recreation Area; (3) West Pioneers Recreation Management Area; (4) Thunderbolt Creek Recreation Area; (5) Three Rivers Special Management Area; and (6) Otatsy Recreation Area.
People & committees
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 111-364.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 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 S.1470 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 S.1470 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 S.1470 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 S.1470 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.