92 



THE NEEDS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED 



THE ECOLOGICAL NEEDS: Numerous scientific panels have confirmed thai only a few pockets of healthy habitats 

 and ecosystems remam regionwide (Scientific Panel on late Successional Forests. 1992 and Amencan Fisheries Society, 

 1993 m press). These "key watersheds" act as physical refuges for fishenes and biodiversity and as a source of species to 

 recolonize degraded areas once restored. These areas also are the key to mamlauung the existmg levels of health for the 

 systems, and hence are the "anchors" for watershed restoration programs. It is imperative that these best remaimng key 

 watersheds be quickly identified and protected at the watershed level to provide a basis to mamtam and restore the 

 region's nvenne systems and biodiversity. In addition, ecologically based npanan and floodplain protections must be 

 immediately implemented across the landscape on federal lands. 



Once protected, the key watersheds must be "secured" which means threats to the remainmg healthy areas must be 

 defused or eliminated. 



Watershed level restoration plans should then be crafted and implemented. Each plan should be based on a watershed 

 level analysis of the specific needs and varymg conditions of the watershed. Long term momtormg is vital to insure that 

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

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

 doing unmediately is to stop the hemorrhaging of the systems by identifymg. protectmg and securing the remainmg 

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



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

 example, the United States has no national goal to protect or restore nvenne ecosystems or riverine-npanan biodiversity 

 and no national pohcies that mandate coordinated federal, state, and pnvate management and conservation of whole 

 riverme systems. Traditional river assessments have been biologically meffective. No pohcies require the identification 

 and protection of the remainmg healthy nvenne habitats. No effective nverine restoration policies exist at any level of 

 government. Finally, no policies effectively integrate nverine protection and restoration with local job creation and 

 community revitalization. 



Internal reviews by the Forest Service concede that maintenance of physical riverine habitat on national forest lands 

 cannot be assured under current management direction. 



Federal Land Management Policies and Guidelines are Inadequate: Despite the need to quickly identify, protect and 

 secure the best remainmg habitats, and to implement watershed level restoration strategies, current federal land 

 management pohcies, standards and guidelines fail to address these needs. 



A complete exposition on the failures of federal land management laws to protect riverine ecosystems and fish habitat at 

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

 managers lack some of the authority to protect these resources. The majonty of the problem is that existmg authonty 

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

 missions, goals and management pohcies within watersheds. We know that the agencies have not used the power they 

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

 decisive action without stronger, clearer statutory guidance requuing specific actions to address the current crisis facing 

 river ecosystems and fish habitat on federal lands. A few examples of existing authority which has not been fully 

 exercised follow: 



(I) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) prohibits timber harvest where "watershed conditions" will be 

 "irreversibly damaged" or where "water conditions or fish habitat" will be "senously" or "adversely affected." The Act 

 al.so requires the identification of marginal lands deemed "unsuitable for timber production," such as where "resource 

 protection or reforestabon cannot be insured." In practice, neither of these provisions has prevented timber harvests 

 which significantly degrade water quality and fish habitat. 



