PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-400.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 25, 2015
National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2015
This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA), acting through the Forest Service, to identify, prioritize, and carry out ecosystem restoration projects on National Forest System land in accordance with applicable land and resource management plans, if any, to accomplish one or more of the following objectives:
restore terrestrial habitat;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
sustain water quality, water flows, or watershed health and function;
create, improve, or increase early seral habitat;
carry out a needed timber stand improvement;
reduce the risk or extent of insect or disease infestation;
reduce wildland fire severity potential;
implement a community wildfire protection plan; or
establish, recover, or maintain ecosystem resiliency.
USDA may not carry out an ecosystem restoration project on any area of System land in the National Wilderness Preservation System or on which removal of vegetation is prohibited by law.
USDA must accomplish restoration treatments throughout the National Forest System on 1 million acres using certain mechanical treatment methods and on another 1 million acres using prescribed fire.
USDA shall prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for each ecosystem restoration project that accomplishes one or more objectives of this Act.
USDA shall study, develop, and describe in each ecosystem restoration project both the proposed action and a no-action alternative.
USDA shall establish within the Forest Service an arbitration program as an alternative dispute resolution process in lieu of judicial review for specified types of ecosystem restoration projects.
The judicial review of an action challenging an ecosystem restoration project under this Act shall be subject to specified plaintiff bonding requirements.
A categorical exclusion is made available to USDA for certain forest management activities in order to: (1) expedite specified critical response actions, (2) expedite salvage operations in response to catastrophic events, and (3) meet forest plan goals for early successional forests.
(A "categorical exclusion" under NEPA is a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementing environmental regulations and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.)
For each forest management activity covered by a categorical exclusion granted by this title, USDA shall satisfy the interagency consultation obligations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by achieving compliance with certain alternative consultation procedures established by federal regulation.
People & committees
Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-400.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1691 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 S.1691 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 S.1691 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 S.1691 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.