258 



fv i c »■ "ieei 



-4- 



June 



. 989 



Ma 

 -or 

 1 oq 

 som 

 muc 

 bui 

 thr 

 imp 

 t he 

 pr i 

 que 

 t hi 

 For 

 pla 

 dr a 

 I ev 

 hao 

 Div 



1 sn 

 dir 



Pro 



■j s p e c t 

 her 1 e 

 est Se 

 gp d pr 

 e t i"ies 

 h chea 

 1 d add 

 ough-s 

 ac t s t 

 c oope 

 v a t e 1 v 

 s t i on 

 s base 

 est Se 

 ces in 

 l naqe 

 el of 

 l t a t s • 

 1 S 1 on 

 o^case 

 ec'. I v 

 9k • 



th 



ve 1 



rvi 

 l va 



po 

 per 

 it l 

 t r e 

 o s 

 rat 

 -ou 

 t ha 

 d o 

 rv i 



th 

 sys 

 cr: 

 I 

 st a 

 " u 

 thr 



at a th 



or c r o 

 c e f i s h 



t e prop 

 l n t f ; n 

 t o /ar 

 ona 1 t a 

 am yard 

 t r earns 

 ion • j e 

 ned Ian 

 t t he F 

 n some 

 ce land 

 e St ane 

 terns uh 

 ss-s t re 

 n fact, 

 ff took 

 nits ue 

 ouqh p^ 



orouqh survey u c u I d ~ e >/ e a 1 a significantly 

 ss-streao yarding through uncataloaed 

 habitats than is ^ e e n on intensively 

 er t i e s (lands Forest Service employees 

 gers at to divert public criticism). It is 

 d through uncataloged fish habitat than 

 r.dings and split-line streams, though 

 ing is one of the most damaging logging 

 and their aquatic resources. Oftentimes, 

 get for spl it-lining streams on 

 ds is quite good, uh i 1 e I seriously 

 orest Service has an equal uillingness to dc 

 unit layouts I've seen. Uh l I e flying over 

 s earlier this month. I observed several 

 y Creek, Shaheen. Thome River, and Logjam 

 ich seemed to have involved a significant 

 am yarding in suspected uncataloged fish 

 during the joint fie'd trip Habitat 

 uith the Forest Service in 1987, one of the 

 uere taken to included cross-stream yarding 

 oductive trout and char habitat on Steelhead 



nORE EXAMPLES 



n t k e recent past ue have seen numerous encounters involving 

 I m i 1 a r conflicts uith fisheries habitats on Forest Service 

 ands in southern Southeast Alaska. Some of these are briefly 

 escribed in rough chronological order as follous: 



In 

 s 



la 

 des 



Lancas t er Cove : 

 contractually ob 

 crossings outsid 

 Additionally, t h 

 inadequate for t 

 Reportedly, the 

 discussion durin 

 contacted during 

 contentious road 

 intervened . some 

 ve r v difficult n 

 uhile sal mo n egg 

 A0F?.G felt other 

 t o our d l sagr ee l 

 i nst a 1 1 at i ons uh 

 Thi s type of pro 

 po 1 l c v- I eve I pla 

 each t ime part o 

 period gets cons 



This spring the Forest S 

 ligated to allow installa 

 e of tircing reguested by 

 e designs approved for co 

 he protection of fisherie 

 designs and timing uere a 

 g the prior summer, thoug 

 this pre-construction ph 

 ing plan for this area- 

 design changes uere impi 

 egotiation process, but c 

 s uere still incubating i 

 design changes were also 

 ng uith timing uindou dat 

 ere timing uas applied, t 

 blem should be addressed 

 nning so that ue are not 

 f the 350-400 miles of ro 

 t r u c t e d . 



er vi ce uas 



tion of stream 



their fisheries staff. 



nst ruction uere also 



s hab l t at • 



n item of considerable 



h ADF&.G uas never 



ase of an apparent 



After ADF8.G 



emented follouing a 



onstruction occurred 



n spauni ng habi tat. 



needed . l n add i t i on 

 es on other 

 hough too liberally, 

 by better 



forced to deal uith it 

 ad per operat ing 



S tream Crossings at Roads : Road crossing designs on Prince of 

 Uales uere recently found uhich uould block fish passage. At 

 several other locations, bridge removals uere scheduled to be 



