HR 184 · 119th CongressIn Committee

Action Versus No Action Act

Latest updateMay 12, 2026

Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.

Public Lands and Natural Resources

Sponsor

Tom McClintock

Introduced

January 3, 2025

Latest action

May 21, 2026

Legislative Progress

How far this bill has traveled through Congress

Introduced

Bill filed in chamber

Committee

Reviewed & reported

Passed Chamber

House or Senate vote

Passed Both

House & Senate agree

President

Sent to White House

Enacted

Signed into law

Introduced

Bill filed in chamber

Committee

Reviewed & reported

Passed Chamber

House or Senate vote

Passed Both

House & Senate agree

President

Sent to White House

Enacted

Signed into law

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

Plain-Language Summary

AI Generated

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), federal agencies must prepare environmental assessments or environmental impact statements before approving major forest management projects. These documents typically analyze multiple alternatives to the proposed action, allowing decision-makers and the public to compare different approaches. Currently, agencies have discretion to develop and evaluate numerous alternatives—ranging from modest modifications to the proposal through substantially different management strategies—based on what they determine is reasonable and necessary to inform the decision.

The Action Versus No Action Act requires the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior to narrow this analysis significantly for certain collaborative forest management activities on timber-suitable lands. When a forest project meets specific criteria—including those developed through collaborative processes, proposed by resource advisory committees, covered by community wildfire protection plans, or designated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act—the responsible Secretary must study and describe only two alternatives: the proposed forest management activity itself, and the alternative of taking no action. The "no action" alternative must evaluate potential effects on forest health, wildfire risk, insect and disease potential, habitat diversity, timber production, and property losses, as well as downstream implications for water supply and wildlife habitat.

Implementation begins upon enactment with no specified funding requirement, as the bill modifies existing NEPA procedures rather than creating new programs. Agencies will apply this two-alternative framework to qualifying projects going forward, potentially streamlining environmental review timelines. The change affects how federal land managers present options to the public and decision-makers, reducing the range of alternatives formally analyzed in environmental documents for projects meeting the bill's criteria. This may accelerate approval of collaborative forest management proposals while limiting consideration of alternative management approaches in the formal environmental review process.

Key Provisions

1Requires the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior to analyze only two alternatives—the proposed forest management activity and no action—in environmental assessments and impact statements for collaborative forest management projects on timber-suitable lands.
2Directs the Secretaries to evaluate the no-action alternative's effects on forest health, wildfire potential, insect and disease risk, habitat diversity, timber production, and potential losses of life and property.
3Applies the two-alternative requirement to forest management activities developed through collaborative processes, proposed by resource advisory committees, covered by community wildfire protection plans, or designated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
4Defines key terms including "collaborative process," "community wildfire protection plan," and "resource advisory committee" by reference to existing federal statutes governing forest management and rural community engagement.

★ Why this matters

The bill streamlines environmental review for certain forest projects by limiting the alternatives that federal agencies must formally analyze and present to the public. Instead of evaluating multiple management scenarios, agencies will compare only the proposed action against no action, potentially reducing the time and resources required to complete environmental reviews. This narrower analysis framework may accelerate project approval timelines for qualifying collaborative forest management activities.

● Who this affects

Forest managers and timber companies proposing collaborative forest management projects will face faster environmental review processes. Local communities and resource advisory committees involved in collaborative forest planning will see their projects move through federal approval more quickly. Environmental and conservation organizations that typically review multiple alternatives in environmental documents will have fewer options formally analyzed. The Department of Agriculture (managing National Forest System lands) and Department of the Interior (managing public lands) will implement the new two-alternative requirement for qualifying projects.

Bill Text

View on Congress.gov

Show / hide bill text preview

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 184

  To require that only two alternatives be considered with respect to 
 certain proposed collaborative forest management activities, and for 
                            other purposes.

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. McClintock introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

                                 A BILL

 
  To require that only two alternatives be considered with respect to 
 certain proposed collaborative forest management activities, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Action Versus No Action Act''.

SEC. 2. ANALYSIS OF ONLY TWO ALTERNATIVES (ACTION VERSUS NO ACTION) IN 
              PROPOSED COLLABORATIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

    (a) Application to Certain Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements.--This section shall apply whenever the 
Secretary concerned prepares an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement pursuant to section 102 of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) for a forest 
management activity that--
            (1) will occur on lands identified as the Secretary 
        concerned as suitable for timber production; and
            (2) meets at least one of the following conditions:
                    (A) The forest management activity will occur on 
                lands designated by the Secretary (or designee thereof) 
                pursuant to section 602(b) of the Healthy Forests 
                Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591a(b)), 
                notwithstanding whether such forest management activity 
                is initiated prior to the date of enactment of this 
                Act.
                    (B) The forest management activity is developed 
                through a collaborative process.
                    (C) The forest management activity is proposed by a 
                resource advisory committee.
                    (D) The forest management activity is covered by a 
                community wildfire protection plan.
    (b) Consideration of Alternatives.--In the case of an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement described in subsection 
(a), the Secretary concerned shall study, develop, and describe only 
the following two alternatives:
            (1) The forest management activity.
            (2) The alternative of no action.
    (c) Elements of No Actio…

Auto-Whip

Where House representatives currently stand

Built from official statements, public releases, and voting records where they exist. Members without enough evidence are marked as no position.

448 tracked

Support

448

No Position

Oppose

Support

Members whose public record points toward backing the bill.

No members in this group yet.

Opposition

Members whose public record points toward opposition.

No members in this group yet.

No Position

Members we are still tracking, but without enough public evidence yet.

448

Alma Adams

D-North Carolina · District 12

No position

Action Versus No Action Act

Legislative Progress

Plain-Language Summary

Key Provisions

★ Why this matters

● Who this affects

Bill Text

Where House representatives currently stand

Support

Opposition

No Position

Party Positions

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Take Action

Active Organizations

Action Versus No Action Act

Legislative Progress

Plain-Language Summary

Key Provisions

★ Why this matters

● Who this affects

Bill Text

Where House representatives currently stand

Support

Opposition

No Position

Party Positions

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Take Action

Active Organizations