TORCH Act
Summary
What This Bill Does
This bill changes federal forest management rules. USDA must develop within one year a categorical exclusion for high-priority hazard tree activities up to 3,000 acres near National Forest roads, trails, and developed recreation sites. The Forest Service must develop a strategy to use livestock grazing for wildfire-risk reduction, including vacant allotments after drought or disasters, targeted grazing, temporary permits for invasive annual grasses, and postfire restoration. Good Neighbor Agreement timber sale receipts can be retained and used by governors, Indian tribes, or counties for restoration under the same or other agreements. Utility-line vegetation management plans and routine implementation receive a NEPA categorical exclusion without extraordinary-circumstances review, while permanent roads are barred and temporary roads must be decommissioned within three years. Forest Service permits and easements may allow utilities to cut and remove vegetation near distribution and transmission lines without separate timber sales, with sale proceeds returned to the Secretary after transportation costs. The bill also says Forest Service and BLM land plans need not reinitiate Endangered Species Act consultation solely because a new species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or new information emerges.
Who Benefits and How
Forest Service managers, counties, Indian tribes, electric utilities, recreation users, Good Neighbor restoration partners, and communities facing wildfire risk benefit from faster hazard-tree work, grazing fuels tools, retained restoration revenue, and streamlined utility corridor vegetation management.
Who Bears the Burden and How
USDA, Forest Service offices, BLM offices, environmental reviewers, endangered species regulators, utility companies, and conservation litigants must apply new categorical exclusions, road limits, timber proceeds rules, permit terms, and consultation limits.
Key Provisions
- Directs USDA to create a categorical exclusion for high-priority hazard tree activities up to 3,000 acres.
- Requires the Forest Service to develop a grazing strategy for wildfire-risk reduction, vacant allotments, targeted grazing, temporary permits, and postfire recovery.
- Expands Good Neighbor Agreement timber-revenue retention for governors, Indian tribes, and counties.
- Creates a categorical exclusion for utility-line vegetation management plans and routine implementation on federal forest lands.
- Authorizes utility permits to include tree and vegetation removal near lines without separate timber sales.
- Limits additional ESA consultation duties for Forest Service and BLM land plans when species or critical habitat information changes.
Evidence Chain:
This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
At a Glance
What This Bill Does
Creates forestry and wildfire-risk authorities for hazard-tree categorical exclusions, grazing as fuels reduction, Good Neighbor timber revenues, utility rights-of-way vegetation management, utility permits, and limits on additional ESA consultation for land plans.
Key Policy Areas
Forestry, Wildfire, Energy, Environment
Primary Purpose
Creates forestry and wildfire-risk authorities for hazard-tree categorical exclusions, grazing as fuels reduction, Good Neighbor timber revenues, utility rights-of-way vegetation management, utility permits, and limits on additional ESA consultation for land plans.
Policy Domains
Bill-wide scope
Identified Gains
- Forest Service managers
- Counties using Good Neighbor agreements
- Indian tribes
- Electric utilities
- Recreation users
- Communities facing wildfire risk
Identified Costs
- USDA
- Forest Service offices
- Bureau of Land Management
- Environmental reviewers
- Endangered species regulators
- Utility companies
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeReferred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to …
Introduced in House
Mr. Kennedy of Utah introduced the following bill; which was …
Stakeholder Effects
cui bono?How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.
Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service offices
Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service offices face effects in multiple directions
Communities facing wildfire risk, Conservation litigants, Endangered species regulators
Environmental reviewers faces effects in multiple directions
Positive-direction: Communities facing wildfire risk, Endangered species regulators
Negative-direction: Conservation litigants
Counties using Good Neighbor agreements, Indian tribes, State governors
Grazing allotment users, Livestock permit holders
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "ESA"
- → Endangered Species Act
- "NEPA"
- → National Environmental Policy Act
- "primary_beneficiaries"
- → Forest Service managers, Counties using Good Neighbor agreements, Indian tribes, Electric utilities, Recreation users, Communities facing wildfire risk
- "primary_burden_bearers"
- → USDA, Forest Service offices, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental reviewers, Endangered species regulators, Utility companies
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology