H.R. 10952: Health Forests Incentives Act of 2026

This bill would create a new federal program aimed at reducing wildfire risk and improving forest health, mainly in the highest-risk areas. In plain terms, it would steer more federal attention, money, and tax incentives toward thinning overgrown forests, removing hazardous fuels, and finding commercial uses for the wood and biomass that gets removed.

High-risk forest areas would get special attention

The bill would designate certain “fireshed management areas” for five years. These are large forested areas identified as especially vulnerable to wildfire, including:

• areas already identified by the Forest Service as high-risk firesheds, and
• additional areas in the top 20 percent of wildfire-risk firesheds, based on risks to homes, lives, water supplies, and the chance that wildfire could permanently change the forest.

The Secretary of Agriculture would update the list every five years and maintain a public online registry showing maps and data about firesheds, wildfire exposure, past treatments, burned acreage, and planned management work.

Forest treatment projects would be prioritized

Within those designated areas, federal land managers would be directed to focus on hazardous fuels reduction and forest restoration. For National Forest System lands, the bill would require the Department of Agriculture to use long-term stewardship contracts and agreements to carry out this work. For other federal lands in the designated areas, the relevant agency would need to coordinate with Agriculture, Interior, state and local governments, tribal governments, and private landowners as appropriate.

The bill defines hazardous fuels management broadly to include mechanical thinning, mastication, prescribed burning, cultural burning, timber harvest, and grazing.

Environmental review for the designation step would be waived

The initial designation of fireshed management areas would not be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The bill does not say that all forest projects in those areas are exempt from NEPA, only the act of designating the areas.

Tax credits for biomass facilities would be expanded

The bill would restore and expand federal tax credits for certain biomass energy facilities. In general, a qualifying biomass facility built after enactment could receive a 30% investment tax credit if it is located within, or within 100 miles of, a designated fireshed management area and is certified as likely to get at least half of its biomass feedstock from forest material removed through wildfire-reduction activities.

It would also reopen and adjust production tax credit rules for new biomass facilities, with the changes applying to facilities that begin construction after enactment.

Grants for wood-related businesses would be expanded and redirected

The bill would rename and revise the existing Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Program into a broader Community Wood Facilities Program. It would:

• shift the program toward facilities that use primarily forest biomass,
• raise the maximum grant amount to $5 million,
• change selection criteria to also consider market competitiveness,
• broaden eligible projects to include construction, use, or retrofitting of forest products manufacturing facilities,
• increase the thermal/electric energy threshold for qualifying projects from 5 megawatts to 15 megawatts,
• increase the required match from 25% to 50%,
• require that at least 50% of program funds go to projects that process or use forest products removed from designated firesheds, and
• extend the program authorization through 2031.

Wood innovation grants would be targeted toward fireshed projects

The bill would also change the Wood Innovation Grant Program so that priority goes to projects involving collection, transport, processing, or commercial use of forest material removed during hazardous fuels reduction in designated firesheds. It would also allow preference for proposals that support local sawmills, job growth, increased fiber supply, and community development. The required non-federal cost share would be increased to 50% of the project amount.

GAO would study how well current wildfire and forest programs are working

The Government Accountability Office would be required to study how effective current stewardship contracts and wildfire mitigation efforts are, including:

• whether federal programs are actually reducing wildfire risk and restoring forests,
• whether reported performance data are accurate,
• what administrative or market barriers slow implementation, and
• whether current federal systems favor emergency response over long-term wildfire prevention.

GAO would have to report its findings to Congress within two years.

Relevant Companies

None found