101 



roadless areas, each one of which has been targeted for extensive 

 logging and roading in the future. One has an active 10 program 

 ready to go when the Dwyer injunction is lifted. But perhaps we 

 will see a change on the Forest Service's part there, but we have 

 not seen that on the Forest Service level. Things are ready to roll 

 by all appearances. These are the steepest most highly erosion- 

 prone areas. 



These areas have been stayed out of because of the problems in 

 the past relating to logging and road construction. And it appears 

 that there are no risk-free kinds of activities that we can do be- 

 cause this is where the last fish are left, and it is also where the 

 most sensitive groimds are located. I would be probably more con- 

 servative in the recommendations than the Gang of Four about the 

 management of those areas because of that sensitive nature of the 

 lands; and there really are no risk-free activities. 



So including the proposed changes in logging that have occurred 

 under now prospectives or ecosystem management programs, those 

 are not free lunch to cut trees on steep lands. We don't know what 

 the effect that business will have on the sensitive lands. And we 

 don't think that we can afford, from the fish's standpoint, to risk 

 the watershed on such experiments. I think they are important ex- 

 periments. But I think we should do them when their risk to other 

 species is probably lower. 



There are a lot of very key and good people in the agencies. For- 

 est Service and BLM; and they are starting to play a more active 

 role in the direction that the agencies are taking. But based on the 

 past 20 years of direction, we have had 20 years of cooperation. Os- 

 tensibly, we have had 20 years of habitat improvement. And it has 

 been a failure. And I think it is going to be difficult for the agen- 

 cies, internally, without direction from outside, to just turn around 

 20 years of bad planning and start doing the right thing next year. 

 The signs are good, but the signs are not so good in other cases 

 when you look at it from what is going on on the ground, which 

 is where I have been mostly in the past seven years. 



So Bob basically covered the general aspects of the watershed 

 restoration strategy. That was pretty embedded in the Gang of 

 Four and seems to be very scientifically defensible. And it is a con- 

 servative strategy in that the capital that is invested in that pro- 

 gram has the high probability of getting the effect that we want; 

 stabilizing the species. 



But I should point out that it is not going to get us very far to 

 restoring the species. So historical abundances or high levels of 

 fishery production, that is going to require going into downstream 

 areas and Federal areas and habitats that have been, for a long 

 time, degraded in the loss of these species. And that is going to re- 

 quire a whole different kind of approach than we have talked about 

 today. And I don't think anybody knows how to do that. 



It is going to be a long-term proposition to get that habitat back. 

 And it is going to be tricky from the cultural and social standpoint. 

 So what we can do now is secure what we have left and make sure 

 that we don't lose it. 



Mr. Vento. Thank you. Dr. Frissell. 



[Prepared statement of Dr. Frissell follows:] 



