339 



II, or III, to determine which Class III streams need 

 minimum 100-foot buffers, and to determine appropriate best 

 management practices for sites not requiring buffers. 



14. On what basis does nmfs not trust the Forest Service to do 

 an adequate job enforcing its own policy? 



The basic question here is not whether NMFS trusts the USFS. 

 Rather, it is a question of what is practical and effective 

 for protecting anadromous resources in Alaska. We do not 

 believe that it is practical to prescribe site-specific 

 buffers along all anadromous streams and their tributaries 

 in the Tongass. Also, it does not seem possible to monitor 

 adequately the myriad of resulting prescriptions for their 

 effect on anadromous fish and their habitat. In our view, 

 our research has shown that 100-foot buffer strips are the 

 minimum necessary to protect adequately anadromous resources 

 from the adverse effects of logging. In some cases, larger 

 buffers may be necessary and could be determined on a site- 

 specific basis. 



15. At pages 1 and 2 of your testimony, you cite extensive 

 research documenting the need for the 100-foot buffer strip 

 policy, right. 



This is referred to on page 2 of our testimony. 



16. But isn't it a fact that in response to a February 8, 1990, 

 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for such research, 

 you produced only an 11-page 1986 article which appeared in 

 the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and an article accepted 

 for publication but not yet published? 



The February 8, 1990, FOIA request to which you refer did 



not request information on NMFS' buffer-strip policy 



(attached). Instead, it requested only "all 'research' 



7 



