230 



2 Testimony of Kathryn Troll 



I appreciate this opportunity to testify on two aspects of the Tongass that are of 

 critical importance to the groups I am representing today Commercial salmon 

 fisheries rely on thousands of large and small stream systems in Southeast to provide 

 fish for harvest (Sports fishermen have their own economic story to tell, but they, 

 too. are dependent on the streams of Southeast for the pursuit of their interests ) It is 

 the accumulated production from all these streams that makes for a viable salmon 

 fishing industry. Is there any wonder why we are so concerned that appropriate 

 stream and watershed area protections be legislated as part of Tongass Timber 

 Reform? This can. and should, be accomplished while assuring a multi-faceted 

 economy in Southeast Alaska. 



Let me present our views on buffer strips and watershed protection. 



Buffer Strip Provision 



Ccommercial fishermen have consistently sought streamside buffers in the Tongass 

 National Forest, in direct response to the Forest Service's inadequate 

 protection/managment of streams in Southeast Alaska. A minimum 100 foot no-cut 

 buffer is advocated for areas that will be logged. It is a management tool for logging 

 in a multiple use manner Given the minimal amount of timber needed for 

 streamside retention. (See Attachment A) UFA clearly views the buffer strip provision 

 as a pro-logging/ pro-multiple use managment tool. The question then becomes why 

 is this prescriptive managment tool necessary, rather than the site-specific 

 approach The answer lies in an explanation of past and current Forest Service 

 practices and management and implementation advantages With the exception of 

 recent fish kills, this testimony will leave the science behind buffer strips for the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to amplify. 



Forest Service Practices 



The Forest Service has used a 3 inch handbook called Aquatic Habitat Management 

 Units (AHMU's) to guide site-specific streamside management/protection along fish 

 streams and tributatires. The AHMU approach does not mandate any exclusive zone 

 of no harvesting. Along with this handbook, the Forest Service mapped out AHMU's 

 according to their fisheries values: 



Class 1 - anadromous streams, including those streams that have the potential 

 to become anadromous with enhancement work 

 Class 2 - resident fish streams 

 Class 3 - all other non-fish streams 



While the professional tools to manage wisely for riparian habitat may be present in 

 this cumbersome approach, it is only successful if there are enough fisheries 

 biologists to be present for enforcement in the field on all units. The first flaw is 

 that the fisheries biologists do not make the decisions on riparian management; the 

 district ranger does. The second flaw is in a commitment to adequate non-timber 

 staffing over the life of the timber sales. These flaws are apparent in the Forest 

 Service's track record, which is best exemplified in this statement from the Forest 

 Service's Final EIS on the Long Term Timber Sale for Ketchikan Pulp Company: 



"As of 1988, one-third of the existing AHMU's has been harvested Past harvest 

 in the AHMU has been concentrated on sensitive, anadromous channels with 

 two thirds of the past harvest taking place on Class I streams." 



