Legislative history of the timber and salvage amendments enacted in the 104th Congress: a small victory for timber communities in the Pacific Northwest.

• Author: Gorton, Slade
• Position: Response to article by Michael Axline in this issue, p. 613 - Salvage Logging: Point & Counterpoint

In 1995, after years of frustration, the voices of the people who live and work in Pacific Northwest timber communities were finally heard. That year marked the first time since the listing of the northern spotted owl as a threatened species(1) that these communities could claim a small victory and hope to return to work harvesting forest products for the benefit of all Americans.

Salvage and timber provisions were included in the Fiscal Year 1995 Rescissions Act(2) - a bill that rescinded well over $10 billion of 1995 appropriations in an effort to provide a modest down payment to reduce the nation's deficit. The two driving forces behind the provisions were to create much-needed jobs in timber communities and to reduce the fire hazard presented by dangerous amounts of dead and dying timber built up on the floors of our national forests.

In 1994, devastating wildfires ravaged forests in western states.(3) Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands were particularly ripe for forest fires because of the excessive fuel load built up on the forest floor.(4) This fuel, composed of dead, dying, insect-infested, and diseased timber, had built up due to a lack of active management of federal forest lands. Active management entails the thinning and removal of insect-infested trees to promote forest health.(5)

After the 1994 wildfires, timber still remained on the forest floor, much of it retaining some of its economic value. Litigation by environmentalists and overly burdensome regulatory requirements have slowed the ability of even President Clinton's land management agencies to prepare, offer, and award salvage timber sales. With each passing day, salvage timber loses economic value.

The timber and salvage amendments included in the Rescissions Act were developed in order to expedite agency efforts to prepare salvage sales and also to limit the opportunity for frivolous lawsuits, while still providing environmental protections in an expedited period of time. The House of Representatives initiated the legislative activity on the timber and salvage amendments included in the Rescissions Act.(6) The House Resources Committee held hearings on the need for salvage legislation and developed its amendments to the Rescissions bill based upon the hearings' findings.(7)

The primary difference between the House and Senate versions of the timber and salvage provisions was that the House bill included a mandatory salvage board foot harvest requirement.(8) The Senate version, however, did not include a board foot mandate, but instead directed the appropriate Secretary to harvest salvage timber to the "maximum extent feasible."(9) The Senate version did not include a mandatory board foot requirement for two reasons. a mandatory board foot requirement would have reduced the likelihood of garnering enough support for the provision in the Senate, and further, the discretionary language provided an opportunity to illustrate the Clinton Administration's commitment, or lack of commitment, to timber-dependent communities in the Northwest.

When the Rescissions legislation came to the floor of the Senate, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to replace the timber and salvage provisions included in the bill with essentially meaningless and hortatory language.(10) The Senate rejected the Murray amendment by a vote of 49-48.(11)

In the end, the version signed into law by the President did not include a mandatory board foot harvest requirement.(12) By opting for discretionary language, Congress created an opportunity to assess the Administration's commitment to conducting a salvage timber program. After the 1994 wildfires, Administration officials stated that they would implement an aggressive, salvage program.(13) Even with the flexibility provided to the Administration in the Rescissions Act, the Administration has yet to meet even its own modest board feet projections for salvage harvest in fiscal year 1995.(14)

While the salvage provision was national in scope, two other provisions were included in the Rescissions Act relating to timber sales in the Pacific Northwest.(15) Subsection 2001(d) addresses timber sales prepared under the President's Forest Plan for the Pacific Northwest,(16) and subsection 2001(k) addresses federal timber sales awarded but not released in the region of Oregon and Washington.(17)

Subsection 2001(d) originated in the Senate Rescissions bill and contained language that would provide legal sufficiency for individual timber sales prepared under the President's Forest Plan, otherwise known as Option...