72 



Mr. Lyons. All we are sa5dng, Mr. Herger, is that the experts 

 should determine whether or not these are appropriate salvage 

 sales. The policy decision that has been made and the direction 



Mr, Herger. And they have indicated they are. 



Mr. Lyons. And the policy decision and direction that is being of- 

 fered is that if these are, in fact, salvage sales that should proceed 

 in roadless areas, then those should go through a different process 

 than the emergency process which should apply to true emer- 

 gencies. It should apply to those sales that face an imminent threat 

 to fire or insect or disease, that pose a threat to life and property. 



Mr. Herger. Is the feeling, then, that owls and habitat will be 

 able to dwell in these areas better once a fire has completely 

 burned them down? 



Mr. Lyons. I cannot speak to the impacts of these particular 

 sales, Mr. Herger. 



Mr. Herger. Because, in essence, that is what we are doing. We 

 are dooming these forests to fires, whether it be by lightning or ac- 

 cidental causes, which will bum them completely. If that happens 

 in these areas, the sole blame will be at the feet of the Bill Clinton 

 administration. 



Mr. Lyons. Let me clarify, Mr. Herger. I believe what we are try- 

 ing to do is make sure that we proceed in a manner that protects 

 forest health, that reduces fire risk, and restores public confidence 

 in the agency. What this salvage rider has done, in fact, in an at- 

 tempt to expedite and bypass the public, has done more to upset 

 and affect the credibility of the agency than anj^hing any adminis- 

 tration has done. 



I would point to the fact that the Secretary and I both agree the 

 Forest Service has done an exemplary job in implementing the sal- 

 vage rider. The problem is that it has created tremendous public 

 concern and misperceptions about the capability of the agency, and 

 we are forced to try and address that through clarification reflected 

 in this policy document. That is what the salvage rider has done. 



Mr. Herger. I appreciate the patience of the Chairman. I have 

 gone overtime, and I appreciate your listening. 



We have heard from previous panels that those who live in the 

 areas are not happy at all with the job that the administration has 

 done with this, and I think what it boils down to is whether we 

 stall this long enough to where we can make it feasible to take out 

 these trees or whether it costs us taxpayer dollars either in fighting 

 fires or taking them out in a way that is not feasible. 



Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the panelists for their 

 patience. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you. This has been a longer hearing than we 

 expected, and I apologize to our witnesses for many of us being in 

 and out, but there are a lot of obligations on the Hill at this par- 

 ticular point. I am keeping quite a few people waiting right now. 



Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman? 



Mr. Hansen. Yes? 



Mr. Vento. I just wanted to make one comment on the last 

 thing, and I appreciate it, and I will not be long. I think that, given 

 the capability of the Forest Service, or for that matter, the BLM, 

 to deal with salvage, dealing with and recognizing the backlog of 

 salvage that exists, much of it uneconomic, probably, to remove — 



