34 



from North Carolina and some of you and call it good. But based 

 on my discussion with your staff, there seemed to be some specific 

 interest in hearing about the results of the current forest salvage 

 program relative to the exemption from the administrative appeals 

 process under the timber provisions of the 1995 rescissions bill. 



Let me tell you right upfront that the general consensus of the 

 local leaders, the Forest Service personnel, and the wood products 

 industry participants in western Montana is that the current sal- 

 vage program has been the most successful, positive change in For- 

 est Service management direction in recent years. 



Now, the circumstances of my county, and certainly not dissimi- 

 lar to a host of other western rural communities, are that virtually 

 every citizen is affected in some way by the management of the 

 Federal lands, which, in my case, encompass 80 percent of Lincoln 

 County. Because of this dependence, we monitor pretty closely the 

 actions and decisions and the results of this management. 



Using the Kootenai National Forest as an example, a conserv- 

 ative allowable sale quantity, which could easily provide for a sus- 

 tained-yield timber program, was determined to be about 240 mil- 

 lion board feet annually. Industry and communities were encour- 

 aged to make long term planning decisions based on these num- 

 bers. 



After such plans were made, however, additional environmental 

 consideration, administrative appeals, and litigation quickly eroded 

 them. These appeals and litigation oftentimes do seem to be noth- 

 ing more than delay tactics and efforts to deter any utilization of 

 commodity resources. 



For example, the most recent challenges have stated that the 

 grizzly bear recovery decisions on salvage sales were arbitrary and 

 capricious. However, even the judges that reviewed these claims 

 have unanimously rejected them, inferring that it was the claims 

 themselves that were arbitrary and capricious — your 

 nonmeritorious claims, Mr. Hansen. 



In 1994, for example, Kootenai National Forest sold 59 million 

 board feet. In 1995, they sold 58 million board feet. Compare these 

 with '96 under the current exemption process. So far, 96 million 

 board feet sold, with the year-end total projected to be 167 million 

 board feet, 149 of which will be salvage. The inferences, I think, 

 are clear. 



This program is keeping many of my constituents employed. This 

 program is giving a measure of security to many of the small oper- 

 ators in our communities who are currently making major invest- 

 ments in low-impact, high-utilization machinery and equipment in 

 order to better comply with environmentally sensitive guidelines. 

 We must not allow this to be a false security. 



The owner of one of our major wood product conversion plants 

 stated unequivocally that without raw materials available as a di- 

 rect result of this salvage rider, their labor force would have been 

 reduced by a minimum of 40 percent from which, of course, would 

 have spun off many more job losses in service and support indus- 

 tries. 



He further commented, significantly, I think, for the purposes of 

 this hearing, that it has become obvious to him that the program 



