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. 112-131.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 3, 2011
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2011 - Establishes the Montana Forest Jobs and Restoration Pilot Initiative under which the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA), through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall implement authorized forest and watershed restoration projects and other land management projects on certain eligible lands within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests in Montana to achieve the specified purposes of the Initiative and specified performance requirements.
Permits the inclusion of the Seeley Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest within the Initiative.
Requires the identification of one or more collaborative groups or resource advisory committees for each national forest within the Initiative.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) annually implement one or more authorized forest and watershed restoration projects on the eligible lands; (2) implement, in one or more certain watershed areas, those projects that provide landscape-scale work in order to minimize watershed entries; and (3) enter into stewardship contracts or agreements to carry out authorized forest and watershed restoration projects.
Designates specified lands administered by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Montana as wilderness areas and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS).
Releases: (1) certain BLM wilderness study areas from further study for designation as wilderness, and (2) the Sapphire and West Pioneer Wilderness Study Areas from further study for inclusion as components of the NWPS.
Designates specified federal lands in Montana as special management or recreation management areas.
Requires a specified all-terrain vehicle study and report.
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. 112-131.
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.268 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.268 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.268 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.268 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.