This seems dangerous, and overbroad. From what I've read, the main concern the proposer of this bill has is that they won't be able to make any money off the fallen trees (which he calls simply "timber"), and so won't have the money they might have had to throw into financing the reforestation. I think the bill has the possible consequence of giving destructive logging in these areas the cover of legality. I think it might be a better move for the EPA, in this particular case of Eagle Creek, if warranted, to give a temporary pass to the salvage loggers, instead of passing a law that could ultimately be abused, to do an end-run around the EPA. Also, better, more secure funding for cleanup that doesn't rely on timber profits would probably do a lot to expedite reforestation efforts. Why not increase EPA funding?