84 



added eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho; and we are doing the 

 same effort looking at Alaska. 



Mr. DeFazio. And what will Pac-fish result in? Will they be put 

 into categories, priority, rank, or otherwise commented upon? Or 

 what are you developing? 



Dr. Sedell. Probably the priority rank. The basis for them was 

 basically a well-distributed network of key watersheds for these 

 anadromous fish. The ones on the Snake River, they are already 

 in consultation with Dr. Tillman's agency. And so those, of course, 

 worked jointly with them. 



In terms of priorities, those have not been established yet, other 

 than on the basis of the 1991 document that indicated the risk 

 level for many of those stocks. Many of those stocks are being re- 

 evaluated in terms of risk level, and I assume those would be inte- 

 gral in terms of importance and priority, we would put on some of 

 those watersheds. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Thank you. 



Mr. Vento. Does anyone else want to add anything else? Mr. 

 Penfold. 



I wanted to conclude because I know that there is a suggestion 

 about monitoring programs and the status of monitoring programs 

 and the lack of 150 years of data — which I guess you would have 

 to say you don't have 150 years of data — but can the scientists give 

 us a general idea of the importance of that and the adequacy in 

 terms of plotting our policies on the existing data and what we 

 would have to do in the future in order to be certain that we are 

 staying on course and achieving the goals? 



Dr. Sedell, a microphone has been passed to you. Nobody else — 

 this is obviously not an easy question. 



Dr. Sedell. No. But in terms of change in the way we have been 

 doing some of those things, I think there is enough technical infor- 

 mation and science around. 



Our options are kind of limited in some places. In terms of ac- 

 quiring an information base to see if we are going to do a high-risk 

 land management change and be more conservative or protective of 

 that and we are going to get the benefits. Yes, I think we have 

 that, and we are going to monitor. In the past we have not. 



And we are going to have to do a better job of looking at it not 

 only in terms of habitat but some of the biological components that 

 we are, obviously, trying to protect. So I think any change of direc- 

 tion is going to have to be figured very, very closely with good, reli- 

 able monitoring that has some integrity to the data set and atten- 

 tion to maintaining it through time. 



Mr. Vento. Mr. Williams. 



Mr. WlLLLy^s. Too often I think our monitoring that we have 

 done has been limited to a prescriptive monitoring. In other words, 

 have we done what we said we were going to do. 



Another important element of that is sort of effectiveness mon- 

 itoring. Did we do what we said we were going to do, what affect 

 did that have on the landscape? 



And I think when we are talking about ecosystem management 

 and implementing that, one of the key features and the concept of 

 adaptive management and you have got to monitor the landscape 

 out there and be committed to being able to change your manage- 



