Fix Our Forests Act: Core Provisions, Support, and Opposition

The Fix Our Forests Act is a bipartisan federal bill that would speed up wildfire risk reduction on national forests, Bureau of Land Management holdings, and tribal lands by streamlining environmental review, expanding prescribed fire and fuels treatment, and giving federal agencies new tools to manage overgrown, fire-prone landscapes. The House passed it 279–141 in January 2025, and the Senate Agriculture Committee voted 18–5 to advance a companion version in October 2025. As of mid-2026, it has not received a Senate floor vote and has not been signed into law.¹

Representative Bruce Westerman of Arkansas and Representative Scott Peters of California reintroduced the bill as H.R. 471 on January 16, 2025, after an earlier version stalled in the Senate at the end of the 118th Congress.² The Senate companion, S. 1462, was introduced by Senators John Curtis of Utah, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Tim Sheehy of Montana, and Alex Padilla of California.³

What the Bill Would Change

The bill rests on the argument that more than 117 million acres of U.S. forest are overgrown and that existing review processes slow treatment past the pace of the wildfire threat.⁴ Its response works through several tools.

Fireshed Management Areas

The bill creates “fireshed management areas,” defined as the top 20 percent of firesheds ranked by wildfire risk exposure. Designations rely on a 2019 Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station report and the agency’s 2022 Wildfire Crisis Strategy, and updated maps must be published every five years. Governors may request expansions to add nearby firesheds.⁵

Because the designations use existing analyses rather than propose new projects, they are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act. Within the areas, agencies may use expedited authorities from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act when an emergency exists or is likely. Projects must still be consistent with applicable forest plans and cannot be undertaken for the sole purpose of timber production.⁵

Larger Categorical Exclusions Under NEPA

Categorical exclusions let agencies proceed with certain projects without preparing a full environmental impact statement. The bill raises the acreage limit for exclusions covering wildfire resilience, fuel breaks, and insect and disease projects from 3,000 acres to 10,000 acres. A separate 7,500-acre threshold applies to projects involving greater sage-grouse and mule deer habitat, and eligibility extends to lands classified under Fire Regime IV, which were not previously covered.⁶

The Secretary of Agriculture is also directed to create a new 6,000-acre categorical exclusion for managing hazard trees within 300 feet of roads, trails, or recreation sites in national forests. It cannot be used in wilderness areas, roadless areas, or lands where vegetation removal is legally restricted.⁶

Endangered Species Act Consultation

The bill reverses the Ninth Circuit’s 2015 decision in Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service, which required Endangered Species Act consultations at both the forest plan level and the individual project level. Under the bill, ESA consultations would be required only for restoration projects with on-the-ground impacts. Supporters estimate the change would affect roughly 100 forest plans.⁷

Litigation Rules

Plaintiffs seeking to halt forest management projects would have to show a likelihood of success on the merits, matching the standard used in most federal circuits. Legal challenges to fireshed management project decisions would have to be filed within 150 days.⁶

Longer Stewardship Contracts and Good Neighbor Authority

Maximum stewardship contract duration would double from 10 years to 20 years, aimed at drawing longer-term private-sector and timber industry participation in restoration. Good Neighbor Authority, which lets states, counties, and tribes carry out restoration on federal land, is also strengthened.⁷

Other Programs

A Fireshed Center offering decision-support tools for first responders and coordinating technology across the wildfire lifecycle.⁸
A Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program focused on the wildland-urban interface.⁴
A Wildfire Intelligence Center for interagency coordination, added in the Senate committee version.⁹
A biochar partnership program for demonstration projects using the charcoal-like byproduct of forest thinning.⁸
Authorization for targeted livestock grazing to reduce fuel loads and aid post-fire recovery.⁸
Provisions to boost seed and sapling supply chains, including capacity at state, tribal, and private nurseries.⁹
A wildland fire casualty assistance program for families and colleagues of fallen firefighters.⁸

How It Would Affect Tribal Lands

Tribal forest management plans would count as equivalent to federal forest plans for the bill’s purposes, making tribal lands eligible for the same expedited authorities. Tribes could enter memorandums of understanding with the Fireshed Center and conduct their own fireshed assessments. The Good Neighbor Authority and stewardship contracting changes are written to enable partnerships between federal agencies and tribes on cross-boundary wildfire risk, and the Secretary must coordinate with tribes during fireshed assessments. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the National Indian Carbon Coalition are among the bill’s supporters.¹⁰

Where It Stands Now

The House passed H.R. 471 on January 23, 2025, by a vote of 279–141. Every Republican who voted supported the bill, and 64 Democrats joined them.¹¹ On October 21, 2025, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry voted 18–5 to favorably report S. 1462, reconciling the Senate text with the House-passed bill and adding the reforestation nursery and Wildfire Intelligence Center provisions.⁹ The bill is eligible for consideration by the full Senate but has not yet received a floor vote.¹²

Who Supports It

Western governors including Spencer Cox of Utah, Jared Polis of Colorado, Gavin Newsom of California, and Greg Gianforte of Montana have endorsed the bill, along with their state forestry agencies.¹³ In October 2025, a coalition of 29 organizations urged Senate leaders to pass it, citing the Palisades and Eaton fires and the loss of hundreds of millions of trees to insects and disease.¹⁴

Several major environmental groups back the Senate version: the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, and the National Audubon Society. In a joint statement, they said the bill “is not perfect” but argued the wildfire crisis is “too serious and too dangerous” to wait, and credited Senate sponsors with adding guardrails around emergency authorities, strengthening the Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program, broadening tribal and stakeholder input requirements, and extending the statute of limitations for legal challenges.¹⁰ Other supporters include the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of State Foresters, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Citizens’ Climate Lobby.¹³

Who Opposes It and Why

The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, the League of Conservation Voters, and more than 80 allied environmental organizations oppose the bill. Critics call it a giveaway to the timber industry that uses wildfire mitigation as a pretext for expanded logging. Biodiversity scientist Dominick DellaSala has argued that increased logging will worsen, rather than prevent, fire risks. Zack Porter, executive director of Standing Trees, called the legislation a “treacherous bill” that replaces agency accountability with stripped-down management authority.¹⁵

Opponents argue the bill weakens NEPA by tripling the categorical exclusion threshold to 10,000 acres, removes ESA consultation on millions of acres of federal land, and weakens National Historic Preservation Act protections within fireshed areas.¹⁶ The Sierra Club also objects that the 150-day filing window shortens what had been a six-year statute of limitations for legal challenges, and argues that review processes are not the cause of the delays proponents point to.¹⁷ Environmental advocates have also raised concerns that road construction encouraged by the bill can be counterproductive, since new roads often facilitate human-caused ignitions.¹⁵

Capacity Questions

The bill does not appropriate new funds, so its expanded authorities depend on existing agency budgets and staffing. Forest Service hazardous fuels reduction work was down 38 percent in 2025 compared with the previous four-year average, according to reporting by the Daily Montanan. Riva Duncan of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters attributed part of the drop to budget cuts and Department of Government Efficiency actions that she said had hollowed out the “network of specialists and biologists” needed for fuels mitigation.¹⁸

1
Federation of American Scientists. Fix Our Forests Act S. 1462 Clears Senate Committee
2
House Committee on Natural Resources. Fix Our Forests Act
3
Office of Senator John Curtis. Curtis, Western Senators Introduce Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act
4
House Committee on Natural Resources. Fix Our Forests Act Toolkit
5
Office of Senator Alex Padilla. Senate Fix Our Forests Act Section by Section
6
Office of Senator John Curtis. Fix Our Forests Act Senate Section by Section
7
Property and Environment Research Center. Fix Our Forests Act Explained
8
Federation of American Scientists. H.R. 471 Fix Our Forests Act
9
Office of Congressman Scott Peters. Senate Committee Sends Fix Our Forests Act to Full Chamber for Action
10
Office of Senator Alex Padilla. FOFA Support Book National Groups
11
Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. Roll Call Vote 25
12
GovTrack. H.R. 471 Fix Our Forests Act
13
Office of Senator John Curtis. Support Builds for Fix Our Forests Act
14
American Forests. Broad Coalition Calls on Congress to Back Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act
15
Sierra Club. Fix Our Forests in Name Only
16
Earthjustice. Earthjustice Statement on Senate Fix Our Forests Act
17
Sierra Club. Opposition to H.R. 8790
18
Daily Montanan. Prescribed Burns a Focus as Fix Our Forests Act Moves Through Congress