Action Versus No Action Act
The Action Versus No Action Act would change how certain forest management projects are analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). When a forest management activity is proposed on lands suitable for timber production and one of several trigger conditions is met (such as being designated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, developed through a collaborative process, proposed by a resource advisory committee, or covered by a community wildfire protection plan), agencies would be required to consider only two NEPA alternatives: the proposed action and the no-action alternative. The no-action analysis would require evaluating the potential impacts of not pursuing the project, including effects on forest health, wildfire risk, habitat, water supply, and other economic and social factors. The bill defines key terms and identifies which agencies ( Interior or Agriculture) administer the affected lands.
Key Points
- 1The bill is titled the “Action Versus No Action Act” and amends NEPA analysis requirements for certain forest management activities.
- 2Applies to environmental assessments (EAs) or environmental impact statements (EISs) for forest management on lands suitable for timber production, under specific trigger conditions.
- 3Required alternatives: only two—(1) the forest management activity as proposed, and (2) the no-action alternative.
- 4The no-action alternative must consider impacts on forest health, wildfire/pest risk, habitat diversity, timber production, and related life/property and socio-economic effects.
- 5Trigger conditions include lands designated under HFRA, activities developed through a collaborative process, proposals from a resource advisory committee, or coverage by a community wildfire protection plan.
- 6Definitions align with existing laws (HFRA, Secure Rural Schools Act) and specify who the “Secretary concerned” is (Agriculture for National Forest System lands; Interior for public lands).