83 



has in the past stated, "Rather than relying on guidelines that 

 have little flexibility from site to site, managers need to rely 

 on the knowledge of foresters, engineers, hydrologists, wildlife 

 and fishery biologists, and other disciplines as needed to tailor 

 forest management operations to the constantly changing 

 characteristics of the landscape and streamside areas." 



I believed this to be enlightened management, as studies indicate 

 that site specific management and in some cases removal of the 

 canopy and introduction of certain amounts of sediment will 

 enhance fisheries. 



Well, as it turns out, what I considered enlightened management 

 only means that the lights are on -- but no one is home. 



If the Forest Service lacks expertise, inadequate data, or 

 suffers from personnel or budget limitations, as the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service now suggests, those specific issues 

 should be addressed and resolved. But to come full circle and 

 now advocate a policy to maintain a 100-foot buffer zone on Class 

 I, II, and some Class III streams because the policy is 

 relatively simple to apply, does not leave room to tailor Forest 

 management operations to enhance the fishery or manage the entire 

 riparian habitat. 



If this Committee should choose to micro-manage this forest in 

 this manner, I wonder how long it will be before we choose to 



