334 



has indicated that the retention of a minimum of 100 foot 

 buffer zones or strips along certain streams is necessary to 

 protect anadromous resources. 



6. Isn't it likely then that more research would provide new 

 means of mitigating impacts of timber harvest in the 

 riparian zone? 



In our opinion, no. Additional research currently available 



from other areas and any done in the future will likely 



reinforce NMFS's policy on minimum 100-foot buffer zones. 



7. On the first page of your testimony, you point out that NMF8 

 "shares Federal responsibility for the conservation and 

 management of anadromous fish." These are salmonids that 

 populate Class I streams, right? 



Yes, as indicated in our testimony, Class I streams are 



defined as any natural freshwater body of water (including 



lakes and ponds) containing anadromous fish or eggs or high 



value resident sport fish or with habitat having reasonable 



enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish. However, as 



indicated in question number 8 below, NMFS has legitimate 



concerns with the management of Class II and Class III 



streams also. 



8. Yet your policy statement suggests that the Forest Service 

 prescribe mandatory buffer strips on Class II and some Class 

 III streams as well as Class I streams. Aren't Class II and 

 Class III streams beyond NMFS jurisdiction, and if so, why 

 are you trying to tell the Forest Service what to do on 

 those streams? 



Class II and Class III streams are not beyond NMFS' 



authority concerning anadromous resources. Under 



Reorganization Plan Number 4 of 1970 and the Magnuson 



Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NMFS has management 



