80 



The primaiy reasons for lliese losses are increased sedimoits, loss of stream sinuosity by channelization and loss of 

 woody d^nis and other pool forming structures. Only in a few watersheds are exceptions to diis trend: the Metfaow and 

 Wenatchee rivers in Washington boA of which contain large roadless areas. 



THE NEEDS THAT MUSTT BE ADDRESSED 



THE ECOLOGICAL NEEDS: Numerous scientific panels have ctxifirmed that only a few pockets of healthy habitats 

 and ecosystems remain regionwide (Scientific Panel on late Successional Forests, 1992 and American Fisheries Society, 

 1993 in press). These 'key waterdieds' act as physical refuges for fisheries and biodiversity and as a source of q>ecies to 

 recolonize degraded areas once restored. These areas also are the key to maintaining die existing levels of healdi for the 

 systons, and hoice are the 'anchors' for water^ed restoration programs. It is imperative that ttiese best remaining key 

 watersheds be quickly idoitified and protected at (he watershed level to provide a basis to maintain and restore the 

 region's riverine systrans and biodiversity. In additioi, ecologically based riparian and floodphun protections must be 

 immediately implemented across the landscape on federal lands. 



Once protected, the key watersheds must be 'secured" which means threats to the remaining healdiy areas must be 

 defused or eliminated. 



Watershed level restoraiioa plans should ttien be crafted and implemented. Each plan should be based on a watershed 

 level analysis of die specific needs and varying conditions of the watershed. Long term monitoring is vital to msure that 

 die restoration treatments are successful and to provide feedback for strategic changes in restoraiioa goals and strategies 

 over time. It is important to note that there are no quick fixes available. Restoration is a long term process. What needs 

 doing immediately is to stop the hemorrhaging of die systems by identifying, protecting and securing the remaining 

 healthy watersheds and riparian areas. Restoration efforts will provide more effective if built around the healdiier areas. 



THE POLICY NEEDS: The National ProMem: In part, the problem is symbolic of problems nationwide. For 

 example, die United Stales has no national goal to protect or restore riverine ecosystems or riverine-riparian biodiver8ity 

 and no national policies dial 'fiK*'*'^ coordinated federal, state, and private management and conservadon of whole 

 riverine systems. Traditioaal river assessments have been biologically ineffective. No policies require the identificalion 

 and protectioa of the remaining healdiy riverine habitats. No effective riverine restoraiioa policies exist at any level of 

 government. Finally, no poUcies effectively integrate riverine protection and restoration with local job creation and 

 community revitahzation. 



Internal reviews by the Forest Service concede ttiat maintenance of physical riverine habitat on natioaal forest lands 

 cannot be assured under current managemmt direction. 



Federal Land Management IHrtkics and Gmdelines are Inadequate: Decile die need to quickly identify, protect and 

 secure die best remaining habitats, and to implement watershed level restoration strategies, current federal hmd 

 managemeat policies, standards and guidelines fail to address these needs. 



A conqilete exposilioa on the faihues of federal land management bnvs to protect riverine ecosystems and fish habitat at 

 the watershed level is beyond die scope of this testimony. Suffice it to say that die problem is not that federal land 

 managers lack some of the authority to protect these resources. The majority of the problem is that existing audiority 

 leaves too much to agency discretion. Some poUcy gaps do exist however, including legislative mandates to align agency 

 missions, goals and management policies within watersheds. We know ttiat the agencies have not used the power diey 

 clearly have to provide an adequate level of protection and to compel restoration. We conclude that they will not take 

 decisive action wifliout stronger, clearer statutory guidance requiring specific actioDS to address die current crisis facing 

 river ecosystems and fish habitat c« federal lands. A few examples of existing authority vtliich has not been fiiUy 

 exercised follow: 



(1) The National Forest Managonent Act (NFMA) pn^bits timber harvest where 'watershed conditions' wiB be 

 'irreversibly damaged' or where 'water conditions or fish habitat' will be 'seriously' or 'adversely affected.' The Act 

 also requires die idenlificalioa of marginal lands deemed 'unsuitable for timber prodiKtion,' such as where 'resource 

 protectioa or reforestatioa cannot be msured. ' In practice, neidier of these provisions has prevented limber harvests 

 which significanlly degrade water quaUty and fish habitat. 



