House Committee Backs Forest Restoration Opponents Fear Proposal Would Lead To Greater Logging By Building, Upgrading Roads And Trails

The House Agriculture Committee on Tuesday approved Rep. Bob Smith’s proposal to expedite logging and restoration projects intended to reduce fire risks and improve the health of national forests.

The bill requires the federal agriculture secretary to designate special areas for forest-health projects. It allows citizens to petition for the projects and designates potentially millions of dollars in existing roads and trails funds to pay for them.

Opposed by environmentalists who fear it will be used to accelerate logging, the measure passed the panel on a voice vote with little opposition and was sent to the floor of the House, where its fate is uncertain.

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has expressed a number of reservations about the bill.

Smith, R-Ore., chairman of the committee, said he had made several changes in the bill to meet the concerns of conservationists and the few Democrats on the panel who earlier objected.

“It is a balanced and timely answer to the problem of our deteriorating national forests,” Smith said today.

“Much of this precision forest resource is degraded and threatened by catastrophic fire, insects, disease and other natural and human-caused events,” he said.

The bill is the first major legislation to clear the full House Agriculture Committee this year and reflects one of Smith’s top priorities before he is scheduled to retire at the end of this year.

Smith said all the projects would be subject to existing environmental laws, but critics said opponents would have no avenue to file administrative appeals or lawsuits challenging the secretary’s designations.

“It is phony,” said John Leary, the Sierra Club’s forest-policy specialist. “It pays lip service to forest protection and does real damage at an expense to taxpayers.”

The panel rejected, on a voice vote, an amendment by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., that would have prohibited any new road-building as part of the pilot projects. His amendment also would have banned the projects in areas 1,000 acres or larger that currently have no roads.

“Road building is expensive. I don’t think we should be using our hard earned dollars to build roads when other restoration projects need money,” Farr said.

Despite changes, Rep. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said she still opposed the financing mechanism she said would serve as an incentive to do more commercial logging in order to raise money for the restoration projects.

Smith dropped a section of the bill that would have made a one-time transfer of $50 million out of the roads and trails fund as seed money for a revolving fund to finance the projects.

Instead, about half that much would be made available annually in the form of a percentage of the roads and trails fund.

Glickman said in a letter to Smith last week that the bill would duplicate existing efforts to improve forest health and likely lead to new lawsuits.

“Instead of creating this ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ scenario, Congress should appropriate adequate funds,” Glickman said.

Smith said the Forest Service’s plans currently address only about 1 million acres annually of the 40 million in need of treatment.