Action Versus No Action Act
Action Versus No Action Act
Plain Language Summary
# Action Versus No Action Act Summary **What it does:** This bill would change how the federal government evaluates the environmental impacts of forest management projects on public lands. Currently, agencies must consider multiple alternatives when deciding whether to approve logging or other forest activities. This bill would limit those options to just two: approve the proposed forest management project or take no action at all. This applies specifically to forests designated for treating insect and disease problems, projects developed through community input, or areas covered by wildfire protection plans. **Who it affects:** The bill primarily impacts the Forest Service and Department of Interior, which manage millions of acres of public forests.
It affects communities near public forests, timber companies, environmental groups, and the general public who use or care about these lands. The bill aims to speed up decision-making for projects targeting forest health and wildfire prevention, but environmental organizations argue it could limit their ability to propose alternative approaches. **Current status:** The bill is currently in committee (as of the 119th Congress) and has not yet been voted on by the full House. It was introduced by Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA). The bill reflects ongoing debates about how to balance forest management efficiency with environmental review requirements.
CRS Official Summary
Action Versus No Action ActThis bill limits the scope of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for forest management activity on certain public lands to only the following two alternatives: (1) the effects of the forest management activity, and (2) no action.The bill applies to any EA or EIS prepared by the Forest Service or the Department of the Interior for a forest management activity on public land that is suitable for timber production and thatoccurs on land designated as an insect and disease treatment area under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,is developed through a collaborative process,is proposed by a resource advisory committee, oris covered by a community wildfire protection plan.In the case of the alternative of no action, the Forest Service or Interior must consider whether to evaluatethe effect of no action on forest health, potential losses of life and property, habitat diversity, wildfire potential, insect and disease potential, and timber production; andthe implications of a resulting decline in forest health, loss of habitat diversity, wildfire, or insect or disease infestation on potential losses of life and property, domestic water supply in the project area, wildlife habitat loss, and other economic and social factors.
Latest Action
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.