PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 17, 1998
California Spotted Owl Interim Protection Act of 1998 - Directs the U.S. Forest Service: (1) within six months, to begin using the preferred alternative contained in the revised version of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the Service in 1996 for the California spotted owl as its interim management direction for the owl in the ten national forests in the Sierran Province of Region 5 of the Service; and (2) to use such preferred alternative, modified as required below, as its interim management direction until such time as a final EIS and record of decision are released. Directs the Service: (1) before implementation of the preferred alternative, to evaluate and modify the assessment regarding fire and fuels reduction contained in the revised draft EIS to address the concerns raised in the December 1997 final report of the panel of scientists that was appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to review the revised draft EIS; (2) within 18 months, to complete a final EIS and record of decision; and (3) within 12 months, to issue a proposed final EIS for public comment and review. Specifies that: (1) nothing in this Act shall preclude the Service from developing a long-term conservation strategy for the Sierra Nevada Mountains; and (2) the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report every six months describing the Service's progress toward completion of the final EIS within the specified time periods.
People & committees
Rep. Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3467 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3467 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3467 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3467 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.