68 



Dr. Sedell. 



Dr. Sedell. The gang of four recommendations for watershed 

 and fish were basically an attempt to tie that fish part, at congres- 

 sional direction, into a solution to old growth jobs and owls. So it 

 required a widening of buffer strips. 



We recommended minimizing disturbance by extended rotations 

 in watersheds, key watersheds, that were identified. 



Mr. Vento. One-hundred-and-eighty-year rotations; is that right? 



Dr. Sedell. Right. And no new roads in roadless areas. That 

 strategy was then more and more protection was added by layering 

 on old growth reserves. 



Under the strategy that we are working up through our Pacific 

 fisheries management, habitat management strategy within the 

 Forest Service, that option is one of the options being considered 

 in terms of the eight that we are examining. 



And the approach we are taking is more from a watershed proc- 

 esses and functions point of view, again looking at the big gang of 

 four as one of those options. But we would be looking at trying to 

 maintain watershed processes and functions, primarily maintaining 

 those kinds of processes and events that shape and maintain habi- 

 tat in the long-term. 



We have truncated a lot of those with roads, or we have acceler- 

 ated the scour or we have cleaned up and whatnot. And so it is 

 taken from how fish habitat is created and maintained and then 

 managing in accordance with that. 



Mr. Vento. So you obviously 



Dr. Sedell. We would be very sensitive to the key watersheds 

 and, obviously, you would have to know a lot about, through water- 

 shed analysis, your roadless areas. 



Mr. Vento. You agree with that, Mr. Williams? You are obvi- 

 ously familiar with that, too. 



I am sorry I am not familiar with your work in these areas. Dr. 

 Sedell. 



Mr. Williams. Comment? The question was the recommendations 

 for the gang of four. Do you want to add anything to what Dr. 

 Sedell had commented concerning no roads in watershed areas spe- 

 cifically and roadless watershed areas? 



Mr. Williams. I don't think I really have anything to add. Our 

 western Oregon draft RMPs we currently have, I think, deal with 

 some road closure areas. We are not as large a player in the 137 

 key watersheds as the Forest Service, 



Mr. Vento. You have some different problems in terms of part- 

 nership, as Mr. Penfold pointed out? 



Mr. Williams. Very fragmented land management. 



Mr. Vento. Let me yield to my colleague from Utah. He still 

 hasn't moved to Idaho, I g^ess. It is on his mind, though. 



Mr. Hansen. Only during the salmon run when I am fishing. 



Mr. Edwards, I really appreciated your testimony, and on page 

 6, where you talked about the idea of a balance, it made a lot of 

 sense to you. I think that is probably one of the best statements 

 I have heard, when you said the Service and other resource man- 

 agement agencies are not advocating the cessation of logging, graz- 

 ing, or mining in the Pacific Northwest. We are strong fish and 

 wildlife advocates and, by mandate, but we also recognize the need 



