PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 6, 2017
National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2017
This bill directs the Forest Service to prioritize and carry out ecosystem restoration projects on National Forest System (NFS) land to accomplish one or more of the objectives specified in this bill, which include restoring terrestrial habitat, carrying out a needed timber stand improvement, reducing the risk or extent of insect or disease infestation, or reducing wildland fire severity potential.
The Forest Service may not carry out an ecosystem restoration project on any area of NFS land in the National Wilderness Preservation System or on which removal of vegetation is prohibited by law.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Forest Service must accomplish restoration treatments throughout the NFS on 1 million acres using certain mechanical treatment methods and on another 1 million acres using prescribed fire.
The Forest Service shall prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for each ecosystem restoration project that accomplishes objectives of this bill.
The Forest Service shall study and describe in each ecosystem restoration project both the proposed action and a no-action alternative.
The Forest Service shall establish an arbitration program as an alternative dispute resolution process in lieu of judicial review for specified types of ecosystem restoration projects.
A categorical exclusion is made available to the Forest Service 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.
For each forest management activity covered by a categorical exclusion granted by this bill, the Forest Service 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.
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.879 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.879 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.879 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.879 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.