336 



protect specific resources in specific areas. In our 



opinion, studies have shown that a minimum of 100 feet is 



always required to protect fishery resources. Thus, the use 



of minimum 100-foot buffer strips in Alaska, as advocated by 



NMFS ' policy, would manage riparian areas for "multiple use 



and sustained-yield" as indicated in the National Riparian 



Policy. Additionally, NMFS' policy meets the National 



Riparian Policy's suggestion that "preferential 



consideration" be given to "riparian-dependent resources 



when conflicts among land use activities occur." Fishery 



resources are riparian-dependent resources. 



We believe, however, the policy should also address the need 



for adequate monitoring of the Forest Service's (USFS) 



riparian management activities to address any adverse 



effects on fishery resources. 



10. If not, then, if I understand it, NMFS is proposing a change 

 in Section 6 of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to 

 require prescribed buffer strips? How will this affect 

 riparian management in Idaho? 



If so, the above policy I quoted, of course says nothing 

 about buffer strips. So, if I understand your last answer, 

 buffer strips are not necessary to meet national riparian 

 policy? 



NMFS' buffer-strip policy does not propose modification of 



Section 6 of the National Forest Management Act. The policy 



states that, in Alaska, NMFS advocates the retention of 



minimum 100-foot buffer strips along anadromous streams and 



their tributaries to maintain fishery production. The NMFS' 



policy is specific to Alaska and is based on extensive 



