44 



that salvage sale due to their stated fear that it would affect the 

 grizzly bear habitat, which is their primary excuse for no activity 

 in the Yak country. 



And even the judge said two things. He said, in fact, that the 

 Forest Service would not have had to go through the environmental 

 analysis to determine whether it was having a negative effect on 

 the grizzly bear under the salvage rider. But they did, and they 

 had very good information that said that, in fact, there would be 

 no effect on grizzly bear habitat. 



The Yak area is an area that has looked bad from the air be- 

 cause it has been heavily cut in certain areas because the timber 

 has been heavily diseased, dead, and has burned, and is still in 

 danger of catastrophic fire, and just simply needs to be taken out 

 or burned out — one or the other. And the situation in the Yak is 

 still critical. It is still critical, and it needs to be resolved. And the 

 exemption from administrative appeals has helped resolve a good 

 deal of that. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. That is good. Nadine, it is so good to see you 

 again. You know, I met you when you lived in California, and you 

 were a witness before our committees. You have lived through the 

 dismantling of the timber industry infrastructure, and it was sad. 

 You now live in the Great Lakes region. Do you see anything occur- 

 ring in the Great Lakes area that would lead you to believe that 

 what has happened to us out West could possibly happen out there 

 too? 



Ms. Bailey. Well, just in the last three months, I have seen two 

 appeals on two different forests, one on the Ottawa and one on the 

 Hiawatha, that the appeals were almost verbatim. And this has 

 kind of made everybody a little concerned because there have not 

 been a great deal of appeals, and those appeals that have been 

 filed, the Lake States have won. 



So this is a concern because even when you win, you lose because 

 you have delayed the process, and our volumes are not that high 

 in the Lakes States as they were in the West. So if you impact that 

 smaller volume, the impacts could be very significant so we are 

 concerned. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank you, Nadine, and thank you, Mr. 

 Chairman. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Let me point out to the committee and 

 our witnesses that we have first a vote on right now. It is the 

 Parker amendment followed by two additional votes. I think we 

 have got time if it is OK with the witnesses and Mr. Vento that 

 we turn to him at this point. Is that OK, Bruce? 



And let me just beg the indulgence after Mr. Vento. A lot of us 

 have some other questions. If we could prevail upon you to stay 

 with us, we will be over on the Floor for about 20 minutes, and we 

 will all come right back, and I hope Mr. Pombo will. And so if that 

 is OK, we would ask you to stay. We would be very appreciative 

 of it. Mr. Vento. 



Mr. Vento. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think that, obvi- 

 ously, the testimony reaches back a long ways in terms of problems 

 that are clearly in the appeal process, of course, has been around 

 since the turn of the century. It is not new. It has been an adminis- 

 trative appeal process. And what has happened, I think, is the 



