# Plain Language Summary: Action Versus No Action Act

This bill changes how the federal government evaluates forest management projects on public lands. Currently, when the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management plans a forest project—like thinning trees, removing dead wood, or managing for wildfire prevention—they must study multiple different approaches and alternatives before deciding what to do. This bill would cut that down to just two options: either do the proposed forest management activity or do nothing at all. No other alternatives would need to be considered.

The bill applies specifically to forest projects that happen on lands suitable for timber production and meet certain conditions, such as projects developed through community collaboration, proposed by local resource committees, or covered by community wildfire protection plans. For these qualifying projects, officials would only have to analyze the impacts of their proposed action versus the impacts of taking no action at all.

When analyzing the "no action" option, the bill requires officials to consider what happens if they don't manage the forest—things like whether forest health declines, wildfire risk increases, insect and disease problems spread, or wildlife habitat is lost. They'd also need to think about how these changes might affect nearby communities, water supplies, and property safety. The idea behind the bill is to streamline the approval process for collaborative forest projects by reducing the number of alternatives that need detailed study, making it faster to move forward with management activities that local communities have already agreed on.

Action Versus No Action Act

McClintock, Tom

Action Versus No Action ActThis bill limits the scope of an environmental assessment (EA)&nbsp;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&nbsp;that is suitable for timber production and that<ul><li>occurs on land designated as an insect and disease treatment area under the&nbsp;Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,</li><li>is developed through a collaborative process,</li><li>is proposed by a resource advisory committee, or</li><li>is covered by a community wildfire protection plan.</li></ul>In the case of the alternative of no action, the Forest Service or Interior must consider whether to evaluate<ul><li>the effect of no action on forest health, potential losses of life and property, habitat diversity, wildfire potential, insect and disease potential, and timber production; and</li><li>the 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.</li></ul>