The "Action Versus No Action Act" would limit environmental impact studies for certain forest management activities to analyzing only two options: taking action or taking no action, while requiring consideration of the consequences of inaction.
Tom McClintock
Representative
CA-5
The "Action Versus No Action Act" streamlines environmental impact studies for certain collaborative forest management activities by limiting the analysis to only two options: taking action or taking no action. When considering the "no action" option, the Act requires the evaluating body to consider the effects on forest health, potential losses, habitat diversity, wildfire, and timber production. This focused approach aims to expedite collaborative forest management projects while still considering potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
New 'Action Versus No Action Act' Limits Environmental Reviews for Forest Projects: Focuses on Timber and Wildfire Risk
The "Action Versus No Action Act" significantly narrows the scope of environmental reviews for certain forest management projects on federal lands. Instead of considering a range of options, the law mandates that the government only analyze two alternatives: implementing the proposed project ("action") or doing nothing ("no action").
Cutting Through the Red Tape – Or Just Cutting Corners?
This bill applies to projects on lands designated as "suitable for timber production" and those that meet at least one of the following criteria:
- Occur on lands designated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
- Are developed through a "collaborative process."
- Are proposed by a resource advisory committee.
- Are part of a community wildfire protection plan.
When evaluating the "no action" alternative, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior (whoever is relevant) must consider the potential impacts on:
- Forest health
- Loss of life and property (from events like wildfires)
- Habitat diversity
- Wildfire, insect, and disease outbreaks
- Timber production (SEC. 2)
Real-World Impact: Faster Logging, Fewer Environmental Checks?
Imagine a logging company proposing a major timber harvest in a national forest. Under this new law, the environmental assessment wouldn't need to consider alternatives like selective logging, habitat conservation measures, or different road access plans. It's a straight-up yes or no. If the "no action" scenario is painted as leading to increased wildfire risk or lost timber revenue, the project is far more likely to be approved, even if there are significant environmental concerns. For example, a project that could impact a local water supply or a critical wildlife habitat might be pushed through because of the potential for increased wildfire risk if no timber harvest takes place. The law specifically requires consideration of the impact of 'no action' on "domestic water supply in the project area" and "wildlife habitat loss." (SEC. 2)
The Bottom Line: Streamlining or Skirting?
While the bill's proponents might argue it streamlines necessary forest management, particularly for wildfire prevention, there is concern it could be used to prioritize timber production and expedite projects with potentially harmful environmental consequences. By restricting the scope of environmental reviews, the law may prevent the consideration of less damaging alternatives, essentially giving a green light to projects that might otherwise face tougher scrutiny. The definition of a "collaborative process" is broad, meaning "interested persons" (SEC. 2) could potentially be limited to those already in favor of the project, further reducing the opportunity for genuine public input and balanced decision-making.