80 



that we can impress upon the administration that these are areas 

 of investment that are needed to avoid other public costs and advo- 

 cate strongly for you. 



Another question, and I don't know who would most appro- 

 priately address it on the panel. But if I could, Mr. Chairman, we 

 are going to hear from Mr. Doppelt who represents Pacific Rivers 

 Council, and I would like to get a response in advance of that. They 

 have taken a contrary — I guess contrary is not the right word— but 

 a different view of restoration, watershed restoration. 



And the point that they make is that we have all got limited re- 

 sources, the needs are great; but we should first deal with ensuring 

 that those areas that are still pristine, relatively pristine, or pro- 

 ductive are protected against degradation. That may require not 

 only enhanced riparian protections but also require some invest- 

 ment in terms of removing a problem or potential problem roads 

 or other activities that have gone on in proximity to some of these 

 still pristine and productive areas. And then we work down or 

 backwards and finally get to those areas that are most blown out 

 or degraded or relatively spoiled. 



My understanding or reading of the existing strategy of the agen- 

 cv is more that we begin the restoration activities in those areas 

 tnat are most spoiled and would work the other way. 



And I would like any member of the panel who would like to re- 

 spond to that rather simplistic view of the position of the govern- 

 ment. And I am told that I should ask — particularly since I have 

 not been here and I am not full integrated in this — Dr. Swanson's 

 thoughts on the Pacific Rivers program; there he is. And then any 

 other members of the panel. 



Mr. SWANSON. I believe you could look at the Gang of Four Re- 

 port and other activities that are now under way as indicating that 

 the Forest Service is attentive to identifying the best basins and 

 giving them an extra measure of attention. 



I guess I would ask Jim Sedell or George Leonard to comment 

 further on that. But I would say that the Forest Service's approach 

 is not necessarily one of going from the worst to the best. But some 

 activity is dispersed across the range of conditions. 



Mr. DeFazio. Would anyone else like to respond? 



Mr. Leonard. Mr. DeFazio, in my prepared statement, I say that 

 we will assign priorities to watersheds that are in good condition. 

 I don't think it needs to be an absolute priority though because 

 some of the stocks most at risk are found only in those habitats 

 that are degraded, and it would be a shame if we let them go away 

 because we didn't take some timely actions there. So I think we 

 have got the resources to do both. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. I just want to be certain that there is some 

 awareness. Is there some other? 



Mr. Williams. Mr. DeFazio, I would like to comment that I think 

 the Pacific Rivers philosophy, in terms of restoration, is reflecting 

 growing consensus in the scientific community and within the 

 agencies in terms of a change in approach to fisheries restoration, 

 moving from the in-stream work to the more proactive watershed 

 phases. Not that I think that necessarily means a complete aban- 

 donment of in-stream work, but certainly there needs to be a pre- 

 requisite or reliance on overall changes in terms of land manage- 



