H.R.184 - Action Versus No Action Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 184, the "Action Versus No Action Act," aims to streamline environmental assessments and environmental impact statements for certain collaborative forest management activities. Specifically, it mandates that only two alternatives be considered: the proposed forest management activity and the alternative of no action. This applies to activities on lands suitable for timber production that meet specific criteria, such as being designated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, developed collaboratively, proposed by a resource advisory committee, or covered by a community wildfire protection plan.
The bill directs the Secretary concerned (either the Secretary of Agriculture for National Forest System lands or the Secretary of the Interior for public lands) to evaluate the effects of no action on factors like forest health, potential losses of life and property, habitat diversity, wildfire potential, insect and disease potential, and timber production. It also requires consideration of the implications of resulting declines in forest health, habitat loss, wildfire, or insect/disease infestation.
The Act defines key terms such as "collaborative process," "community wildfire protection plan," and "resource advisory committee" by referencing existing legislation.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to expedite the environmental review process for specific forest management activities. By limiting the alternatives considered to only 'action' or 'no action,' the bill could potentially accelerate project implementation.
However, this could also lead to less comprehensive environmental analysis and potentially overlook alternative approaches that might be more beneficial or less harmful. The bill could also reduce public input and consideration of diverse perspectives in forest management decisions.
Potential Benefits
- Expedited Project Implementation: Streamlining the environmental review process could lead to faster implementation of forest management activities.
- Reduced Administrative Costs: Limiting the scope of analysis could potentially reduce the costs associated with preparing environmental assessments and impact statements.
- Focus on Key Outcomes: The bill directs consideration of specific factors, such as forest health and wildfire potential, which could lead to more targeted management decisions.
- Support for Collaborative Processes: The bill emphasizes collaborative forest management activities, potentially fostering greater community involvement.
- Potential for Increased Timber Production: By facilitating forest management activities, the bill could support timber production on suitable lands.
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Environmental Analysis: Limiting the alternatives considered could result in a less thorough understanding of potential environmental impacts.
- Oversimplification of Complex Issues: Reducing the analysis to only 'action' or 'no action' may oversimplify complex ecological and social considerations.
- Potential for Unintended Consequences: Inadequate consideration of alternatives could lead to unintended negative consequences for forest ecosystems and communities.
- Reduced Public Input: Limiting the scope of analysis could reduce opportunities for public input and consideration of diverse perspectives.
- Legal Challenges: The limited scope of analysis could make projects more vulnerable to legal challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with Congress's power to legislate regarding the management of federal lands under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution (the Property Clause). This clause grants Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.
However, the bill's potential impact on environmental protection could raise questions related to the government's responsibility to promote the general welfare, as articulated in the Preamble of the Constitution. Whether the bill adequately balances economic interests with environmental stewardship could be a subject of debate.
Furthermore, the bill's potential to limit public input in environmental decision-making could raise concerns related to the First Amendment rights of citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).