40 



Mr. RiGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer. 



Mr. COOLEY. Mrs. Chenoweth? 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Geisinger, I thought your testimony was very, very interest- 

 ing and I wanted to delve into this a little bit more. We heard it 

 testified to that the failure of the Clinton plan was on the salvage 

 rider and that is what prompted your response, I am sure. But as 

 you said, almost all of the old growth sales authorized under the 

 salvage rider were assumed to be harvested under Option 9, and 

 as Ms. Phillips testified, that one of the problems was with the En- 

 dangered Species Act. 



I have here, for the record, the record of decision for Option 9. 

 It is the standards and guidelines issued by the administration for 

 management of habitat for late successional and old growth forest 

 related species within the range of the Northern spotted owl. I 

 would like to read that in this administration's decision, it states, 

 "The late successional and old growth habitat in late successional 

 reserves that might be harvested, assuming that these areas meet 

 ESA requirements, represents about one-third of one percent of the 

 total of this habitat in reserves in the preferred alternative." 



Furthermore, it states in the administration's record of decision, 

 and I am just continuing on from where you made your very good 

 point, Mr. Geisinger. Timber sales awarded prior to the effective 

 date of this record of decision are not altered by this record of deci- 

 sion, ESA or anything. At the time they were awarded, these tim- 

 ber sales were consistent with the planning documents then in ef- 

 fect, complied with the Endangered Species Act, and all other laws, 

 and the environmental effects of these sales were considered as 

 part of the baseline for the biological opinion for the final SEIS. 



Furthermore, it states that under the timber sales sold but 

 unawarded, the administration's own record of decision stated, 

 with one exception, as described below, and that happened to be 

 the Seattle Audubon Society v. Lanz, all planned and sold but 

 unawarded timber sales were reviewed and adjusted, as needed, 

 following publication of the draft SEIS pursuant to the process de- 

 scribed above. The review ensured that these sales would not pre- 

 vent the attainment of the environmental objectives of a selected 

 alternative. The environmental effects of these timber sales were 

 disclosed in site-specific NEPA documents and subsequent review. 

 Some of these sales have subsequently been awarded and some 

 have not yet been awarded. 



So I think that that ought to clarify very carefully for the record, 

 and I would like to enter this document into the record, the point 

 that you were trying to make, Mr. Geisinger. You are absolutely 

 right, and I thank you for bringing that point up. 



Mr. Geisinger. If I may. Representative Chenoweth, during most 

 of 1994, my time was consumed trying to convince the administra- 

 tion that that is what they had written, to try to resolve the 318 

 sales through normal administrative channels. Congressman Norm 

 Dicks was very involved and very instrumental in bringing those 

 discussions forward. But in the final analysis, they looked at us in 

 the face and said, yes, that is what we wrote, but that is not what 



