Forest bill would speed up thinning

WASHINGTON — A compromise forest bill being pushed in the Senate would sharply increase spending for tree-thinning and other projects to reduce the risk of wildfire in national forests, key senators said Wednesday.

The Senate bill, the result of bipartisan talks among 10 senators and the Bush administration, would authorize $760 million a year for so-called hazardous fuels reduction projects — a $340 million increase over current funding.

About half the work would be restricted to areas near homes and communities, while the other half could occur in more remote areas of the forests where larger, more commercially valuable trees grow.

Senators from both parties said last week they had a tentative agreement on a forest-health bill, but had released few details.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who helped negotiate the agreement, called it a balanced bill that would help restore overgrown forests while protecting old-growth trees. Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Mike Crapo, R-Idaho and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also were involved in the talks.

Wyden and other advocates said the bill streamlines the appeals process to eliminate unnecessary delays, while preserving the public’s right to participate in forest decisions.

They said the bill’s most important feature was the increased funding for thinning and other fuels reduction work, which involves removal of small trees and underbrush that can feed fires. The Senate bill rejects a House plan that would rely primarily on commercial sales of larger trees to fund the fire-prevention work — answering a key complaint of environmentalists.

"Our work over the last week rejects the notion that we can protect communities from catastrophic fires solely by relying on commercial sales to fund that important work," Wyden said.

Environmentalists welcomed the increase in funding but questioned why only 50 percent of the work would be limited to areas near homes and communities. That leaves millions of acres of remote forests open to logging, they said.

The groups also called language protecting old-growth forests weak.

"I think it’s dangerous," said Jay Ward, conservation director of the Oregon Natural Resources Council.

The bill has no set limits on the age or diameter of trees that can be cut, he said. It also is silent on logging in roadless areas of the forest, a key concern of environmentalists.

Crapo, whose state was damaged by a number of wildfires this year, called such criticism offbase.

"The compromise here, which I think is viable, is to let forest managers make the decisions, but with a requirement that they protect the old-growth," he said.

The Senate bill also would locate a forest health research center near Prineville, Ore., in the Ochoco National Forest. The center would be in addition to a proposed Starkville, Miss., research center included in a bill approved by the House in May.