231 



Testimony of Kathryn Troll 



Under the AHMU flexibility system, the logging interests win over fisheries, when 

 push comes to shove for the valuable riparian Umber The Forest Service is quick to 

 respond that that is not true today They are quick to point out that the logging 

 practices which decimated the Staney Creek and Harris River watershed are no 

 longer practiced Yet. a recent review of the '54-89 long term timber sale by Alaska 

 Department of Fish and Game ( ADF&.G ) biologists revealed that many salvage areas' 

 for old growth retention and buffer strips had in fact been logged subsequent to 

 having been reserved" (See Attachment B) Another monitoring report by ADF&tG 

 reveals that they are still cutting right up to the streambank on some anadromous 

 streams (See Attachment C) With these ongoing violations and inadequate measures 

 to protect anadromous streams. UFA believes that a minimum buffer strip policy is 

 still essential The site specific approach is clearly not working 



Future Forest Service's practices are likely to remain the same as they are today The 

 ongoing revision of TLMP does not include the NMFS's buffer strip policy as a 

 management option for generating alternatives and benchmarks In essence, we are 

 not certain the NMFS policy is even being evaluated for region-wide implications 

 Given the high political and judicial profile this issue has been receiving, it is 

 insulting to the fishing industry and the commmunities dependent on it to exclude 

 the NMFS policy in the TLMP planning process It is obvious that the fishermen of 

 Southeast Alaska need Congressional action on the buffer strip policy now Waiting 

 for TLMP means accepting status quo. which is unacceptable to UFA. 



Management and Implementation Advantages of NMFS's Buffer Strip Policy 



The minimum 100 foot no-cut buffer strip along Class I, II, and important Class III 

 streams has the following advantages: 



1 ) Establishes a clear, consistent policy easily understood by biologists, 

 rangers, operators, and fishermen 



2) Makes more efficient use of fisheries biologists by freeing their time to 

 concentrate on the maximum width of the buffer.and on enhancement and 

 restoration projects 



3) In times of lean budgets a minimum level of protection is assured, even with 

 reductions of staff 



4) Everybody, especially the timber operator, will know "up-front" what is 

 expected of timber harvesting along these streams. 



5) Monitoring of compliance can be more easily conducted through aerial 

 surveys. 



EiahJiiiis 



With the headlines this summer about fish kills, the question of logging killing fish 

 has surfaced again. First let me set the record straight, no one is saying that logging 

 caused the fish kills in Southeast - not the ADF&G biologists, not the fishermen, and 

 certainly not the loggers Because the Forest Service has never conducted the 

 research and monitoring program, (they claimed they were going to establish such a 

 program two years ago) no one can say with any certainty that logging causes fish 

 kills However, current science and common sense tells us that logging tends to 

 exacerbate the life threatening effects of low-water volume Science and common 

 sense also tell us that one way to minimize the threat of fish kills within stream 

 systems slated for logging is to establish a 100 foot buffer strip along fish streams 



