This bill creates a new Treasury-based Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund designed to finance restoration and resilience projects on both Federal and non-Federal land. It establishes two main funding tracks: a Restoration and Resilience Grant Program to build capacity and fund on-the-ground restoration on non-Federal land, and a Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program to carry out projects in designated partnership areas that include both Federal and non-Federal land.
A Restoration Fund Advisory Council helps set priorities, and an Inspector General report requirement provides performance scrutiny.
Funding comes from a total appropriation of $60 billion, split into $20 billion for the grant program and $40 billion for the partnership program, with at least $20 billion of the latter reserved for restoration on Federal land. The bill emphasizes complementing existing federal programs, allowing eligible entities to partner with other authorities, and ensuring funds supplement rather than supplant existing conservation and restoration spending.
Eligibility includes State agencies, units of local government, Tribal governments, regional bodies, special districts, and nonprofit organizations, with flexibility to accept non-Federal contributions and to use pay-for-performance contracting to achieve outcomes.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates the Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund and two grant tracks: a non-Federal land capacity/implementation program and a joint Federal/non-Federal restoration program guided by an advisory panel. It also establishes oversight and interagency flexibility to maximize results.
Who It Affects
Eligible entities include State agencies, local governments, Tribes, regional or quasi-governmental bodies, special districts, and nonprofits that pursue restoration and resilience projects across forested, watershed, and rangeland landscapes.
Why It Matters
Provides a large, coordinated funding stream to accelerate ecological restoration, wildfire risk reduction, and outdoor access, while aligning with existing authorities and creating national leadership in landscape-scale resilience.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act stands up a new Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund within the Treasury to finance restoration and resilience work. It splits funding into two tracks: a grant program focused on non-Federal lands to build capacity and support planning, coordination, and implementation; and a Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program that carries out projects on Federal land and in collaboration with non-Federal partners.
The financing is substantial: $60 billion total, with $20 billion for the grant program and $40 billion for the partnership program, at least $20 billion of which is channeled to restoration on Federal lands.
A key governance feature is the Restoration Fund Advisory Council, which will advise on fund disbursement, landscape prioritization, and monitoring of project outcomes. The Council is composed of Secretary-designated members, industry representatives, natural-resource and economic experts, conservation and watershed group members, and representatives from State, local governments, and Tribes, ensuring broad input into how projects are selected and evaluated.Projects funded under the grant program are intended to increase capacity for planning, coordinating, and monitoring restoration and resilience on non-Federal land and to support collaboration on Federal land.
The partnership program directs resources to designated partnership areas, prioritizing wildfire hazard reduction, habitat improvement, water quality and quantity, and community resilience. Exclusions are explicit: restoration projects may not occur in wilderness areas or where vegetation removal is prohibited, cannot construct permanent roads, and must respect roadless and other protections.
Oversight includes regular Inspector General reporting on program use and any misuse of funds, reinforcing accountability across all activities. The Act also envisions leveraging existing authorities and encouraging contributions from non-Federal sources to maximize impact.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill establishes the Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund in the Treasury, totaling $60,000,000,000, available until expended.
Funds are split into $20B for a grant program and $40B for a Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program (with at least $20B for Federal-land projects).
It creates two coordinated programs: a capacity-building grant program for non-Federal land and a joint restoration program involving Federal and non-Federal sites.
A Restoration Fund Advisory Council, including representatives from industry, conservation, State and Tribal interests, will guide disbursement, landscape prioritization, and monitoring.
Restoration projects are restricted from wilderness areas, permanent roads, and certain roadless areas; the bill includes explicit exclusions and protection provisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
This section defines key terms that shape the Act’s scope: the Council, eligible entities (State agencies, local governments, Tribes, regional bodies, special districts, and nonprofits), the Fund, the grant program, and the Restoration and Resilience Project. It also ties ecological integrity to the standards reflected in applicable Federal regulations and identifies what counts as restoration and resilience.
Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund established; use and savings
Section 3 creates the Fund in the Treasury to finance the grant and partnership programs, sets the general use rules (coordinated by the Secretary and the Council), and provides savings provisions to ensure compatibility with existing conservation authorities and laws. It clarifies that Fund activities supplement existing funding and are not intended to replace current programs.
Restoration Fund Advisory Council
This section establishes the Council and details its composition, including representatives from resource-based industries, experts in restoration and resilience, conservation groups, State and local government representatives, and optionally other Federal agencies. It requires the Council to advise on disbursements, landscape priority, and monitoring, and to help align resources across authorities.
Restoration and Resilience Grant Program
The grant program aims to increase capacity for non-Federal land restoration and resilience work, including pay-for-performance mechanisms. It outlines an application process, criteria for funding (including collaboration, scientific basis, and job estimates), and a training-based approach to include lower-capacity or underserved groups. Priority considerations include job creation, collaboration, and alignment with broader resilience and outdoor-access goals.
Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program
This program funds restoration and resilience projects designated in partnership areas on Federal and non-Federal land. It sets designations procedures, eligibility criteria (wildfire potential, high-priority habitats, and WUI considerations), project priorities (fuel reduction, habitat improvement, water outcomes, and measurable success), and coordination requirements with both Federal and non-Federal participants.
Oversight
Not later than 60 days after enactment, and annually thereafter, the Inspector General must report to Congress on the use and potential abuse of Fund resources related to the grant program and the partnership program, including compliance with applicable authorities and programmatic outcomes.
Funding
The Act appropriates $60B for the Fund, split as $20B for grants and $40B for the partnership program, with at least $20B of the latter allocated to Federal-land restoration. It also provides for workforce needs and expenses to administer the programs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State forestry agencies gain dedicated funding to plan and implement restoration projects aligned with state-level forest health objectives.
- Tribal governments gain access to grant and partnership opportunities designed to support tribal land management and resilience planning.
- Units of local government and regional authorities gain capacity-building funds to coordinate cross-boundary restoration efforts.
- Conservation and watershed organizations gain a formal pathway to participate in priority landscapes and contribute expertise.
- Outdoor recreation and forest-product industries benefit from job creation and longer-term restoration activity across landscapes.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Treasury must fund the $60B appropriation, representing a substantial fiscal outlay and trade-off with other priorities.
- Eligible entities will bear time, administrative effort, and compliance costs to apply for grants and to implement awarded projects.
- Federal agencies will incur coordination, reporting, and oversight costs to manage cross-agency restoration efforts.
- Community and local economies may experience disruption during on-the-ground restoration activities and project construction.
- Where waivers are not provided, matching or cost-sharing requirements may impose additional resource commitments on applicants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is whether a massive federal investment can be efficiently directed to diverse landscapes without undermining local autonomy and accountability, while still delivering measurable ecological and social outcomes.
The Act creates a large-scale, cross-cutting funding mechanism intended to accelerate restoration and resilience across federal and non-federal lands. It relies on interagency coordination and collaboration with a broad set of partners, which raises questions about how to align authorities, avoid program duplication, and measure real ecological outcomes.
While the bill emphasizes supplementing existing programs, the scale of funding and the rapid establishment of new partnership areas could strain interagency processes and state or tribal governance structures if not paired with clear milestones, transparent metrics, and robust capacity-building.
A central policy tension is how to balance federal leadership with local granularity. The design incorporates flexibility for pooled funding and waivers for some capacity-limited applicants, but that raises concerns about equity, access, and consistent standards across landscapes.
The act also creates exclusions—no permanent roads, no actions in wilderness areas, and limits in inventoried roadless areas—which may constrain restoration in some priority regions, requiring careful prioritization and alternative strategies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.