PRIA Logo™
119-hr-184119th Congress

Action Versus No Action Act

Sponsored By: Representative McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]

In Committee

Summary

limits NEPA environmental reviews to only two alternatives for certain forest management projects: the proposed activity and the no-action option. It applies to projects on public lands suitable for timber production that meet at least one of four conditions: designation as an insect and disease treatment area under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, development through a collaborative process, proposal by a resource advisory committee, or inclusion in a community wildfire protection plan.

Show full summary
  • Federal land managers (the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior) must study and describe only the project alternative and the no-action alternative when preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for covered projects.
  • The rule of two alternatives applies only to forest management activities on public lands identified as suitable for timber production and that meet one or more of four statutory criteria.
  • For the no-action alternative, the agencies must consider whether to evaluate effects on forest health, potential losses of life and property, habitat diversity, wildfire and insect or disease potential, timber production, domestic water supply, wildlife habitat loss, and other economic and social factors.

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

1 provisions identified: 0 benefits, 0 costs, 1 mixed.

Fewer review options for forest projects

If enacted, this bill would limit environmental reviews for many forest projects to only two choices: the proposed project and a no-action baseline. It would apply when an agency prepares an EA or EIS for a project on lands the agency has marked suitable for timber that meets at least one listed condition. These conditions include lands designated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, projects developed through a collaborative process, projects proposed by a resource advisory committee, or projects covered by a community wildfire protection plan. For the no-action alternative, the agency would have to consider whether to evaluate effects on forest health, losses of life and property, habitat diversity, wildfire risk, insects and disease, and timber production. This change would take effect upon enactment and could speed approvals for timber work while narrowing the alternatives agencies must study.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]

CA • R

Cosponsors

There are no cosponsors for this bill.

Roll Call Votes

No roll call votes available for this bill.

View on Congress.gov
Back to Legislation