Troy Downing (R-MT)
Accelerating Forest Management Act
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Subcommittee Hearings Held
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 Accelerating Forest Management Act seeks to codify a categorical exclusion for salvage harvesting activities within the Bureau of Land Management. This exclusion allows certain harvesting actions to bypass the preparation of environmental assessments or impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill covers the removal of dead or dying trees resulting from disturbances like fire, insects, or drought. It also permits specific road construction and maintenance to support these harvesting activities. Finally, the act extends the life of the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund through the year 2033.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Provides economic activity and improves forest health and safety in rural areas.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Positive for owners of logging and forest service companies due to increased harvesting opportunities.
- Scored +3
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Accelerates the removal of hazardous dead/dying trees to improve forest health and resilience.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Categorical exclusions reduce the level of environmental assessment and oversight required under NEPA.
- Scored -2
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The use of categorical exclusions reduces the public transparency and documentation associated with NEPA assessments.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Streamlined Forest Management: By categorizing salvage harvesting as excluded from environmental assessments, the bill allows for faster actions regarding dead or dying trees (Section 2(a)).
-
Resource Re-establishment: The definition of covered actions includes seeding or planting which is necessary to accelerate the re-establishment of native species (Section 2(c)(2)).
-
Extended Funding: The bill extends the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund to the year 2033, providing continued financial support for forest ecosystems (Section 3).
-
Controlled Road Infrastructure: The bill allows for the maintenance of existing roads and the construction of new permanent or temporary roads to facilitate harvesting (Section 2(b)(1) and (2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Reduced Environmental Review: Salvage harvesting activities will be exempt from the preparation of environmental assessments or environmental impact statements (Section 2(a)).
-
Land Disturbance Requirements: Harvesting activities involve the cutting, yarding, and removal of both dead or dying trees and live trees needed for operations (Section 2(c)(2)).
-
Road Construction and Use: The bill allows for the construction of up to 1 mile of new permanent roads and various temporary roads to facilitate harvesting (Section 2(b)(2)(A) and (C)).
-
Resource Management Requirements: Actions must include documentation regarding several resource considerations, such as soil compaction, erosion control, and invasive species (Section 2(b)(2)(D)).
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? — Provides economic activity and improves forest health and safety in rural areas. Would business owners be better off under this? — Positive for owners of logging and forest service companies due to increased harvesting opportunities. Would farmers be better off under this? — Indirectly positive for rural land-based industries. Would union members be better off under this? — Potential increase in work for unionized logging and construction crews.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Logging and forestry contractors may benefit from increased opportunities for salvage harvesting. Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased salvage harvesting activities may create short-term employment in forestry and logging. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Facilitates timber extraction and forest management which can provide modest economic activity.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Accelerates the removal of hazardous dead/dying trees to improve forest health and resilience. Does this invest in rural communities? — Supports forestry activities and funding in rural areas managed by the BLM. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Provides for the maintenance and limited construction of roads for forest management access. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Categorical exclusions reduce the level of environmental assessment and oversight required under NEPA.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The use of categorical exclusions reduces the public transparency and documentation associated with NEPA assessments.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/21/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 5/12/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
- 5/7/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
Mike KennedyRepublican · Utah