RIP salvage bill.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., is well justified in lamenting the failure of Congress to continue federal payments to rural counties hurt by diminished federal logging. But he's wrong to bemoan the demise of his misguided proposal to fast-track salvage logging by shortcutting environmental protections - and he's even more wrong to attempt to link the two ill-fated bills.

First, county payments.

After an initial stumble early in the session, Smith joined the rest of Oregon's congressional delegation in a concerted push for renewal of the Secure Rural Schools Act. Without the $500 million program, Lane County and its rural counterparts across the nation will suffer cuts in public safety, public works and other county services, as well as reductions in already-stressed school budgets.

Lawmakers, who still have time to approve a one-year extension before Congress adjourns, should remember that this program fulfills a century-old federal commitment to counties with national forests within their boundaries. The GOP majorities in the House and Senate should also consider the potential for backlash from voters in these traditionally red counties in the 2008 elections.

Second, the salvage proposal.

Smith, along with Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, introduced a bill approved earlier by the House that would accelerate the logging and replanting of burned forests after wildfires and other natural disasters. It would accomplish this by exempting salvage projects from the full review procedures of both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

The Smith-Crapo proposal was both unnecessary and unwise. The current system allows salvage pro- jects to be considered in a deliberate and transparent public process. Loggers, conservationists, wildlife specialists, residents of nearby communities and others can all have an opportunity to fully analyze projects and then make a case either for and against them.

The Smith-Crapo salvage bill would accelerate this review process dramatically, and would require federal agencies to issue decisions on timber sales within as little as 30 days. There is no need to weaken these time-tested environmental and public-review safeguards.

Smith and Rep. Greg Walden, the Oregon Republican who sponsored the House version, cite costly delays in salvaging timber from Oregon's 2002 Biscuit fire as a prime example of the need for this legislation. But a recent report by the Government Accountability Office undermined that claim, blaming much of the delay on the Bush administration's midstream decision to vastly expand the scope of the logging. (The GAO report also noted that the federal government will lose nearly $2 million on the sale of Biscuit-salvage timber - a loss that reflects the Forest Service's eagerness to cater to timber-industry interests.)

The salvage bill also ignores the fast-growing body of scientific evidence that says forest health is often best served by allowing damaged forests to recover on their own - and that salvage projects can actually cause more damage than the natural disasters that prompted them.

A last-minute move to include partial funding for the Secure Rural Schools Act failed to make the salvage bill any more palatable. Funding for rural counties shouldn't depend on passage of a misguided logging bill, and Smith's attempt to link the two this week is misleading and manipulative.

"Now we have an expired county payment safety net and are not even allowed to remove dead trees from our forests," Smith said this week. "This isn't going to work and shows a lack of understanding of the West.''

Last time we checked, there's no ban on removing dead trees from federal forests - just a process for doing it in an orderly and environmentally sound fashion. Nor is there any problem in completing justifiable salvage projects in a timely manner. The Forest Service reported last July that it had completed 90 percent of post-Hurricane Katrina logging, the largest salvage logging effort in the nation's history.

But Smith is right to point out that the failure to renew the county payment safety net reveals a lack of understanding by Congress. The senator should convince his Republican colleagues to do something about it while there's still time.