PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 2, 2017
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017
This bill prohibits any further consultation from being required by the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) or the Interior after the approval of land and resource management plans for National Forest System (NFS) lands or land use plans for public lands, respectively, with respect to: (1) the listing of a species as threatened or endangered or a designation of a critical habitat, if such a plan has already been adopted; or (2) any provision of such plan.
Interior shall develop one or more categorical exclusions, from requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to conduct environmental assessment and environmental impact statements, for specified vegetative management activities that are carried out to establish or improve habitat for the greater sage-grouse or mule deer.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Forest Service shall prepare an environmental assessment for each ecosystem restoration project, stewardship contracting project, and project under a good neighbor agreement on certain NFS land. Under the assessment, it shall study and describe in each project both the proposed action and a no-action alternative.
The Forest Service shall establish an arbitration pilot program as an alternative dispute resolution process in lieu of judicial review for such projects.
The Forest Service shall prioritize and carry out ecosystem restoration projects to accomplish one or more of specified objectives.
A categorical exclusion is made available for certain forest management activities in order to: (1) expedite specified critical response actions, (2) meet forest plan goals for early seral and early successional forests, (3) improve wildlife habitats, and (4) thin forests.
The bill makes permanent USDA's authority to designate treatment areas that are experiencing an insect or disease epidemic.
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held prior to introduction and/or referral. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 115-227.
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.2068 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.2068 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.2068 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.2068 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.