Forestry bill divides lawmakers

WASHINGTON — The state's congressmen split over a bill passed by the U.S. House on Wednesday that would speed up salvage logging and reforestation after fires, hurricanes or other disasters.

During the House debate, Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, defended the bill he sponsored with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., saying the measure will provide quicker replanting of forests and more logging jobs.

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, denounced the bill just as vigorously.

"Now we have a forest-recovery bill that assures we'll use less science and less common sense ... on where and how to do forest-recovery plans," Inslee said. "Congress has gotten into a habit of ignoring existing environmental laws."

The bill passed 243-182.

The state delegation voted against the bill, 6-3. It now will be considered by the Senate.

Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, was the only Western Republican to vote against the bill. Spokeswoman Kimberly Cadena said Reichert thinks environmental exemptions in the bill were unnecessary to remove salvaged timber.

The bill would require land managers to create forest-recovery plans within 120 days of fires and other disasters. Any action, including salvage logging, would have to comply with current forest-management plans.

Current regulations delay salvage logging while downed trees rot, diminishing their value, and loggers go without jobs, Baird argued.

He urged legislators to "get past the rhetoric and ask themselves the simple question: We use wood, should we get it from live trees or dead trees?"

Baird said the choice Americans have is to buy wood harvested in the U.S. under environmental protections or purchase wood cut from unprotected third-world rainforests.

Inslee, however, argued that the bill guts U.S. environmental-protection laws.

K. Norman Johnson, a professor of forestry at Oregon State University, said the bill provides a quicker decision-making process than the analyses required by the 37-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

For example, Johnson said, the bill doesn't require an analysis of the cumulative environmental affects of reforestation as NEPA does.

"You're trading off [analysis of] some of the more comprehensive effects to take action," Johnson said. "I believe we should carefully think through what were giving up in order to be quicker."

Scientists disagree on the best way to help a forest recover after a fire or other disaster.

Some studies indicate salvage logging and quick reseeding leads to forest recovery. Others point to vast ecosystems of animals dependent upon dead trees left in the forest.

The forest's intended purpose should be the deciding factor in recovery plans, said Jerry Franklin, a forestry professor at the University of Washington. Franklin, who testified twice before the House subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health, said salvage logging and replanting makes sense if the forest is used for timber production.

But where land management is focused on ecological objectives, such as in national parks or designated wilderness areas, salvage logging should be avoided, Franklin said.

Information about Rep. Dave Reichert's vote is from The Associated Press.