46 



That is a regulation that could be changed, theoretically, with a 

 Federal Register notice and a 60-day public input period, but it 

 has become such a volatile issue and so important to the environ- 

 mental community as a tool to stop land management activities 

 that it would prove very controversial to do it in such a manner. 



Quite briefly, the National Forest Management Act requires the 

 Forest Service to maintain a diversity of plant and animal commu- 

 nities consistent with the multiple use purposes of the forest plan 

 and to the extent practicable, and I do not think anyone in this 

 room could disagree that that is a laudable goal. But when the reg- 

 ulations to implement that provision were written, it required the 

 Forest Service to provide habitat to sustain viable populations of 

 native species throughout the planning area. We were told in 1981 

 when that provision was written that the planning area was the re- 

 gion, whether it be Region 5, as California, or Region 6, in Wash- 

 ington and Oregon. You had to have a viable population someplace 

 in that region. 



The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, subsequently inter- 

 preted that to mean that viable populations had to exist on every 

 single national forest and every single ranger district in the region, 

 and that is what brought the gridlock to the Pacific Northwest 

 through court order. 



I am not suggesting the ESA does not need reforming; it does. 

 It does need to be streamlined and more workable. But it is not the 

 cause of the gridlock that occurred in the Pacific Northwest. 



Mr. RiGGS. We will pursue that in a minute. Thank you, Madam 

 Chair. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Riggs. 



Mr. Vento. Madam Chair? 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes. I would like to call on Mr. Vento now. 



Mr. Vento. Thank you. 



I found it interesting, the discussion on the salvage rider. Obvi- 

 ously, the salvage existed before the rider and probably will exist 

 after it. It is a question of how you proceed. Clearly, what the in- 

 tent of the rider is, is to dispense with the processes that were in 

 place and to override them and to subsume them into this trun- 

 cated process. So it basically abandons the effort to implement a 

 range of different laws, including laws that affect small businesses 

 and the extension of and dispersal of the jobs and contracts within 

 that context. It does that. It enters into roadless areas. It has spe- 

 cial provisions with regards to Montana, with regards to 318. 



I would just point out that there was a good faith effort in 1990 

 and other times to write 318. I actually had worked with Congress- 

 man Dicks at that time, who was on the conference committee, to 

 provide for it, but the news we kept getting back in terms of the 

 science was that, of course, things did not work out so we could 

 achieve the types of harvests. 



I find this whole discussion, incidentally, in reference to my col- 

 leagues with regards to fire, very interesting, because, of course, we 

 have an environment in which we have heavily been influenced by 

 the activities of the Forest Service and others to extinguish fires, 

 and to suggest now that is simply the result of inadequate harvest, 

 I think, and/or salvage types of problems, is, I think, a real prob- 

 lem, because the areas you might salvage are not necessarily the 



