Back to all bills
Standard Summary
Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs
The TORCH Act aims to accelerate and broaden forest-fire risk reduction by giving federal land managers new authorities to act more quickly and at larger scales. Key changes include creating a new NEPA categorical exclusion for high-priority hazard-tree work (up to 3,000 acres per project), allowing certain extreme-risk timber removal without appraisals, expanding the use of grazing as a wildfire mitigation tool, raising the maximum project sizes for cross-boundary wildfire mitigation, wildfire resilience, and fuel-break efforts (to 10,000 acres), and altering how forestland-related activities with electric utilities are planned and financed. The bill also broadens Good Neighbor Authority provisions to include American Indian tribes and makes several adjustments to administrative and consultation requirements. In short, the bill seeks to speed up wildfire mitigation by expanding what can be done without full environmental reviews, increasing project-size thresholds, broadening uses of grazing and timber/habitat work, and easing utility- and intergovernmental coordination. Critics may view these changes as elevating efficiency and risk-reduction at the potential cost of environmental safeguards and species protections.
Key Points
- 1New categorical exclusion for high-priority hazard-tree activities (Sec. 101)
- 2- Establishes a NEPA categorical exclusion (CE) for high-priority hazard-tree work on National Forest System lands, up to 3,000 acres per project.
- 3- Requires NEPA compliance and applies “extraordinary circumstances” procedures to determine when the CE can be used.
- 4- Defines high-priority hazard trees (near roads/trails/sites, structurally compromised, highly likely to fail) and limits work to avoid wilderness areas, inventoried roadless areas, and certain prohibited vegetation-removal contexts.
- 5Extreme-risk timber disposal on National Forest System lands (Sec. 102)
- 6- Allows the Secretary to dispose of portions of trees or forest products on NFS land in extreme-risk situations (e.g., catastrophic wildfire, insect/disease outbreaks, severe weather) without an appraisal, under Secretary-approved rules.
- 7- Increases the monetary threshold related to these actions (by implication of broader authority to act quickly).
- 8Use of grazing for wildfire risk reduction (Sec. 103)
- 9- Requires a strategy to expand livestock grazing as a wildfire risk-reduction tool.
- 10- Includes reviews to permit grazing on vacant allotments during droughts or disasters, targeted grazing, more temporary permits for fuels reduction, and post-fire restoration when appropriate.
- 11Large-scale wildfire mitigation and fuel-break projects (Sec. 104, Sec. 105)
- 12- Amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and related provisions to raise project-size limits:
- 13- Cross-boundary wildfire mitigation projects: increase from prior cap to a 10,000-acre threshold (targeting larger, multi-jurisdiction efforts by 2030).
- 14- Wildfire resilience projects: increase eligible size to 10,000 acres.
- 15- Fuel-break projects: increase eligible size to 10,000 acres.
- 16- These changes expand how big mitigation and prevention efforts can be before triggering more stringent processes.
- 17Utilities and rights-of-way (Title III)
- 18- Expands authorities related to vegetation management around electric transmission and distribution lines:
- 19- Hazard trees within ROWs: increase the distance for hazard-tree management from 10 feet to 50 feet from lines.
- 20- New categorical exclusion for ROW-related forest management activities (plan development, approval, and routine implementation) with streamlined review (automatic approvals after 60–67 days in many cases).
- 21- Permits and easements may allow cutting/removal of vegetation near lines without separate timber sale, with requirements to sharing proceeds from removed material with the Forest Service (net of transport costs).
- 22- Provides for cross-cutting coordination with private landowners for hazard-tree removal on their land.
- 23Good Neighbor Authority revenue and governance (Title II)
- 24- Expands revenue provisions to include Indian tribes (in addition to governors and counties) and adjusts how funds from timber sales under good neighbor agreements are used—primarily to restore or support restoration projects, possibly across multiple agreements.
- 25Administrative and environmental review reforms (Title IV)
- 26- Reduces certain ESA-related consultation reinitiation requirements in forest and land-use planning when new species are listed or new information emerges.
- 27- Similar adjustments for Bureau of Land Management plans.
- 28- Expands the HFRA-collaborative restoration categorical exclusion threshold from 3,000 acres to 10,000 acres.
Impact Areas
Primary: National Forest System lands and other federal land managers (Forest Service and Department of the Interior agencies)- Short-term: Faster execution of hazard-tree work, fuel-breaks, and cross-boundary mitigation projects; potential reduction in wildfire risk and improved forest resilience in high-risk areas.- Long-term: Increased scale of projects may alter forest structure, habitat, and long-term ecological outcomes.Secondary: Electric utilities, ROW managers, grazing permittees, landowners (private landowners adjacent to federal lands), and Indian tribes- Utilities: More streamlined vegetation management near lines; potential changes in permitting and revenue sharing; broader discretion to remove vegetation without separate timber sales.- Grazing permittees and livestock operators: Expanded use of grazing as a wildfire risk-reduction tool; more opportunities for temporary permits during droughts or disasters.- Indian tribes: Included in Good Neighbor Authority revenue framework; potential for greater involvement in restoration work and funding allocations.Cross-cutting: Environmental protections and species considerations- Several provisions hinge on NEPA and ESA-related processes. The bill provides CE routes and reduces reinitiation requirements in some ESA contexts, which may influence habitat and species protections, depending on implementation and oversight.Public safety and wildfire risk- Expected to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk by enabling more rapid hazardous-wood removal, larger-scale mitigation projects, and more proactive land and utility vegetation management.Fiscal and regional effects- Could shift costs and funding toward expedited activities and may alter how revenues from timber sales and restoration work are allocated among states, tribes, and counties.
Generated by gpt-5-nano on Nov 18, 2025