Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)
Health Forests Incentives Act of 2026
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Health Forests Incentives Act of 2026 aims to promote forest health and reduce wildfire risks by targeting high-risk areas known as fireshed management areas. The bill prioritizes long-term stewardship management strategies and hazardous fuels reduction projects on federal and non-federal lands. It provides tax incentives and grants to support biomass energy production and the economic utilization of forest products removed during these activities. Additionally, the legislation updates community wood and wood innovation grant programs to prioritize fireshed projects. Finally, the bill mandates a Government Accountability Office study to evaluate federal forest restoration and wildfire management efforts.
Yes· 3 of 36
- Scored +7
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill directly targets rural forested communities with wildfire risk reduction, grant programs for local sawmills, and economic support for wood economies.
- Scored +7
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
Section 4 explicitly provides a 30 percent energy investment credit and production credits for open- and closed-loop biomass facilities.
- Scored +7
Does this invest in rural communities?
The bill updates community wood facilities programs and wood innovation grants to support infrastructure and economic development in rural forested communities.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Exempting fireshed management area designations from NEPA reviews removes important public safeguards and environmental evaluations on federal lands.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Tax Credits for Biomass Facilities: Section 4 provides a 30 percent energy investment credit and production credits for specified biomass facilities built after the bill's enactment that process forest products from designated fireshed management areas. This could benefit local economies by encouraging private investment in renewable energy and supporting jobs tied to forest management.
-
Community Wood Grants: Section 5 updates the Community Wood Facilities Program to increase grant limits and directs that not less than 50 percent of program funds be used for projects that process forest products removed through hazardous fuels reduction activities within designated fireshed management areas. This helps local communities fund infrastructure that utilizes cleared brush and timber to reduce wildfire risks.
-
Wood Innovation Grants: Section 6 gives priority to wood innovation grant proposals that facilitate the collection, transportation, processing, or commercial utilization of forest products removed through hazardous fuels reduction activities in designated fireshed management areas. This provision supports local wood economies and community health by turning hazardous brush removal into useful building materials.
-
Public Transparency via Registry: Section 3 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain a publicly accessible website providing interactive geospatial data on individual firesheds, past hazardous fuels management activities, and wildfire exposure risks. This ensures everyday people can easily access critical safety and environmental data regarding wildfire risks in their regions.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Exemption from Environmental Review: Section 3(d) explicitly states that the designation of fireshed management areas shall not be subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Bypassing these environmental reviews could remove important safeguards that allow the public to challenge or evaluate potential ecological harms on federal lands.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill directly targets rural forested communities with wildfire risk reduction, grant programs for local sawmills, and economic support for wood economies. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners in forestry, wood processing, sawmills, and biomass energy benefit significantly from tax credits, grants, and stewardship contracts. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Fireshed management areas explicitly include Indian forest lands or rangelands, and protections cover municipal and tribal water supplies. Would children be better off under this? — Reducing wildfire risks and hazardous smoke exposure improves health and safety outcomes for children living in fire-prone regions. Would farmers be better off under this? — Grazing is included as an authorized hazardous fuels management activity, and programs support rural agricultural and forested communities. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Homeowners and residents benefit from enhanced wildfire risk reduction and protection of property in fireshed management areas. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Protecting community structures and municipal watersheds from wildfire safeguards middle-class homes and local infrastructure. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees living in or near forested regions benefit from increased safety measures against catastrophic wildfires and property loss. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Mitigating catastrophic wildfires and harmful smoke exposure protects vulnerable senior populations residing near forested areas. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Job creation in forestry, biomass energy, and wood products manufacturing creates employment opportunities for young adults in rural areas. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Corporate entities and large-scale investors in biomass and renewable energy infrastructure gain financial incentives under the bill. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Property owners in high-risk fireshed areas benefit from increased federal efforts to clear hazardous fuels and reduce wildfire destruction. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Real estate and business investments in timber and biomass facilities receive favorable tax credits and economic support. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Targeting economic development initiatives and wood innovation grants to high-unemployment counties supports low-income communities. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Investors in energy production and commercial forestry enterprises benefit from newly reinstated investment and production tax credits. Would union members be better off under this? — Expanded infrastructure, construction, and manufacturing activities in wood products and biomass sectors support skilled labor jobs. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Reducing large-scale wildfires helps decrease regional smoke pollution that frequently impacts urban air quality. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Rural economic development and job creation in forestry and biomass sectors can benefit veterans residing in rural communities.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill updates community wood facilities programs and wood innovation grants to support infrastructure and economic development in rural forested communities. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Section 4 explicitly provides a 30 percent energy investment credit and production credits for open- and closed-loop biomass facilities. Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Mandating hazardous fuels reduction projects and long-term stewardship management strategies actively works to mitigate wildfire risks and protect communities. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Establishing fireshed management areas and requiring long-term stewardship management strategies improves active management of public forest lands. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Encouraging biomass energy production and preventing catastrophic wildfires helps reduce overall carbon emissions from uncontrolled burns. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Promoting biomass energy as an alternative energy source supports a transition away from traditional fossil fuels. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Exempting fireshed management area designations from NEPA reviews removes important public safeguards and environmental evaluations on federal lands.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Grants and expanded community wood programs directly assist small businesses and sawmills engaged in forest product utilization. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill supports forest management jobs, biomass facilities, and local wood economies through grants, tax incentives, and stewardship contracts. Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — Section 4 provides a 30 percent energy investment credit and production credits for biomass facilities that process forest products from designated fireshed management areas. Is this likely to grow the economy? — By encouraging private investment in biomass and wood innovation, the bill stimulates economic activity in rural and forested regions. Does this cut the tax on profits from selling investments? — Tax credits for renewable energy and biomass investments create favorable economic conditions for capital deployment in forestry and wood processing.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires a publicly accessible Fireshed Registry with interactive geospatial data and mandates a GAO evaluation of federal restoration programs. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Hazardous fuels reduction and wildfire mitigation activities are required to be carried out in coordination with State, local, and Tribal governments. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation increases federal direction for high-risk firesheds and mandates specific federal studies and registry maintenance.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — Section 3 requires the maintenance of a publicly accessible website providing interactive geospatial data on individual firesheds and wildfire risks. Does this put more money into scientific research? — Section 7 mandates a comprehensive GAO study to evaluate federal forest restoration, wildfire management, and program performance measures.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Wood innovation grants supporting sustainable building materials can enhance the supply and affordability of wood products for housing. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Targeting grants to high-unemployment counties helps support local economic development and reduce poverty in forested regions.
- 11/2/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and 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