The GROUSE Act of 2026 would amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to create a new Upland Species Habitat Restoration Program. Under the program, the Secretary of Agriculture would provide payments to private landowners who enter into contracts to restore eligible forest land by planting native vegetation that benefits upland wildlife, including native soft-mast trees, shrubs, and other early-successional habitat species.
The bill targets non-industrial private forest land of at least 10 acres that has recently been commercially logged, is currently being logged under certain conditions, or has been damaged by a major natural disaster such as a tornado, hurricane, wildfire, or insect infestation. Payments would cover 75 percent of eligible restoration costs, including labor, planting, fertilizer, seedlings, and other approved materials or practices. Contracts would last no more than five years and would require a habitat plan developed with input from wildlife biologists or foresters. The Secretary could also provide technical assistance for tree and shrub planting.
If enacted, the bill would add a new conservation and habitat-restoration program to the Food Security Act of 1985, expanding USDA authority over forest-land restoration payments. It would create a new section in the statute governing conservation programs and would affect private forest landowners, especially those with recently harvested or disaster-affected acreage. The measure would likely channel federal cost-share funding toward habitat improvement on working forest lands and post-disturbance landscapes.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be framed as a conservation and wildlife-support measure with no recorded opposition or vote history in the provided materials. Its title and structure suggest a generally supportive policy approach focused on habitat restoration, landowner participation, and technical assistance. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes included, there is no documented public debate in the supplied context.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill text alone, could include the use of federal payments for private land restoration, eligibility limits for landowners, and whether the program should prioritize recently logged lands versus disaster-affected lands. However, the record supplied does not identify any members, stakeholders, or groups taking opposing positions.