99 



Dr. Brooks. Research has led us to the conclusion that a 100-foot 

 is the minimum needed, and in connection with that there should 

 not be any salvage operations within the 100-foot. 



Senator Wallop. But you cite extensive research. 



Dr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 



Senator Wallop. But in response to a February of this year Free- 

 dom of Information Act request for that research, you produced an 

 eleven-page 1986 article which appeared in the Canadian Journal 

 of Fisheries and an article accepted for publication, but not yet 

 published, and that was it. 



That is hardly extensive research. 



Dr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer that to Dr. 

 Koski. 



Dr. Koski. That Freedom of Information Act did not request all 

 the printed information on the buffer zone issue. We submitted the 

 two documents that we thought were most pertinent. 



If you look at our policy statement, it says research done in 

 Alaska, and we cite six references in our policy statement. We also 

 refer to other research on the outside. And if you are familiar with 

 the research in the Pacific Northwest, you realize that there is a 

 considerable amount of research which talks about buffer zones 

 and the need or utility for buffer zones for protection of stream 

 habitats. Many of those are referring to different zones, many of 

 them referring to a 30 meter classification. 



We did submit two different Freedom of Information requests, 

 and one of them was a little bit more detailed than the other. But 

 basically, we submitted information we had on our research. 



But I am saying there is additional information outside of our re- 

 search that supports the NMFS policy. 



Senator Wallop. It is a pity you did not supply it. 



Dr. Koski. Well, again, we were not asked for everyone's re- 

 search. We were asked for what we did and what we had, and we 

 submitted our policy, which had references to six. And then we 

 submitted the two most pertinent ones, the 1986 research by 

 Murphy et al. 



Senator Wallop. In fact what you are saying, you did the abso- 

 lute minimum necessary, relying on not the research, but your just 

 statement that it exists. 



Dr. Koski. I do not think we did the absolute minimum. We gave 

 you the most important two pieces, and that was with cross-refer- 

 ences. 



Senator Wallop. One was an article that has not been published 

 and one that is hardly the most important, just by your own re- 

 sponse to this question. 



Dr. Koski. Well, the 1986 article is a very important document. 

 The one in press has been accepted, peer reviewed, and will be ap- 

 pearing this year. So for all practical purposes it has been accepted 

 and published. 



Senator Wallop. Well, on page 2 of that same testimony, Dr. 

 Brooks, you claim to have worked closely with the Forest Service 

 in this area. 



Dr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 



Senator Wallop. And yet the September 15th, 1989, letter to Dr. 

 John Knauss, from the Chief of the Forest Service, invites "the in- 



