Sponsor
Tom McClintock
Representative · R-CA
Representative · R-CA
The bill speeds and simplifies approval of fuel‑reduction and timber projects—reducing wildfire risk and cutting administrative costs—while narrowing environmental review, reducing public input, and raising risks to habitat, water quality, and potential litigation.
Residents in wildfire-prone rural communities and homeowners get faster approval and implementation of fuel-reduction and timber projects, reducing local wildfire risk and improving community safety.
Forest managers, local governments, and timber-dependent small businesses face a clearer, narrower NEPA review that lowers administrative costs, accelerates on-the-ground treatments, and can increase timber production and local economic activity.
Nearby residents, wildlife, and downstream water users face greater risks to wildlife habitat and water quality because fewer alternative management or mitigation approaches will be developed and analyzed.
Rural communities and stakeholders will have reduced opportunities for public input and perceived transparency in land management decisions, which can undermine local trust in agencies and outcomes.
Taxpayers and local governments could face increased litigation and legal costs from parties alleging inadequate environmental review because fewer alternatives were considered.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Limits NEPA alternatives for eligible timber/forest projects to only the proposed action and the no‑action alternative, while requiring certain effects be considered for no‑action.
Official title: To require that only two alternatives be considered with respect to certain proposed collaborative forest management activities, and for other purposes.
Introduced January 3, 2025 by Tom McClintock · Last progress January 3, 2025
Restricts environmental review for certain forest and public‑land management projects by requiring agencies to analyze only the proposed action and the no‑action alternative in NEPA environmental assessments and impact statements. The rule applies to projects on lands identified as suitable for timber production that meet one or more conditions (e.g., collaborative plans, resource advisory committee proposals, community wildfire protection plans). For the no‑action alternative the agencies must still consider specified effects (forest health, wildfire risk, timber production, water supply impacts, habitat and economic and social factors), but other alternatives are excluded from the formal NEPA alternatives analysis for covered projects.