deed, did not-result in large-scale extinction. Elsewhere, similar forest losses should-and do cause many more extinctions. 2

Question 2.

Do you agree that the science of wildlife biology is not sufficiently advanced to "construct a sensible biodiversity policy" as Mr. Fuller suggests, or do you think we know enough "about what's on the ground" to move forward with species protection programs?

Answer. Noah's Choice is not the high point of science journalism. Its error, in this case, is to confuse two very different scales.

The species-area work enables us to understand continental to global patterns of biodiversity with the hope of clarifying international priorities for biodiversity. It illuminates questions such as why, for instance, Madagascar should be a higher priority than Germany, or what areas of Brazil are most important. 3

No ecologist, to my knowledge, would apply the technique to plan how we might purchase a National Wildlife Refuge in Hawaii, set priorities for forest management in the Pacific Northwest, or water management in Florida's Everglades. For such actions we need more detailed knowledge.

Question 3. Do you have any other reactions to Mr. Fuller's critique of science of biodiversity protection? Do you agree with the horror stories that good science is not being practiced by Federal agencies in species listings? What about recovery planning? What improvements would you suggest?

Answer. I most certainly do not agree that "wildlife biology is not sufficiently advanced to construct a sensible biodiversity policy."

Noah's Choice implies that because the species-area work is not suitable to apply to problems for which it is not intended, nor to which it has never been applied in practice, that somehow the entire body of wildlife biology is flawed. This is patently silly. Aspirin stops headaches; the fact that it doesn't cure cancer does not diminish that utility nor imply that the medical profession is incompetent.

Question 4. Do we know enough "about what's on the ground" to move forward with species protection plans?

Answer. Certainly. And I do not "advocate slowing down biodiversity protection until more scientific research is done."

Question 5. Do you advocate slowing down biodiversity protection until more scientific research is done, should we move faster, or stay the same?

Answer. "Should we move faster?" Yes. From a scientist, you would not expect any other answer. My answer is not hard to justify, however. Biodiversity is valuable for a wide variety of reasons. (They are fully explored in a forthcoming report from the National Research Council. 4) Management mistakes are horribly expensive. The better our knowledge, the less likely we are to make them. Ignorance is not bliss, merely added costs and frustrations to the next generation of tax payers.

Question 6. Do you agree with the "horror stories that good science is not been practiced by Federal agencies in species listings?" What about recovery planning? Answer. I found Noah's Choice to be a grotesque caricature of the science practiced by Federal agencies. Scientists in Federal agencies should be appalled by the book's frequently botched facts and its selective and superficial reporting. My experience of biodiversity issues spans 20 years, almost all of the country, and includes many of the most contentious issues:

In Hawaii, in the late 1970s, I worked near Dr. Michael Scott of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and had frequent discussions with him. His work identified the important priorities for conservation in these islands that have such a disproportionate number of endangered species. Efficiently, and without fuss or controversy, FWS used this work to purchase key biodiversity reserves. Dr. Scott is now in Idaho; the extension of the Hawaiian work-the gap analysis program-is applied nationally.

In Hawaii, in 1990, Dr. Robert Smith (FWS) sought help from the National Research Council (NRC) in developing a plan for the 'alala-one of our most critically

1 Subsequent to the publication of Noah's Choice, the Pimm & Askins' paper appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92: 9343-9347 (1995). The paper was the subject of an article in the New York Times of Tuesday, Sept. 26th 1995.

2 Results on the global extension of the ideas appeared in Science 269: 347-350 (1995). This article was also the subject of an article in the New York Times (July 25th 1995) and was considered one of the "top 100 science stories" by Discover magazine.

3 The extension of the ideas to Brazil appeared in Nature 380: 115 (1996).

The economic and non-economic value of biodiversity. National Research Council 1997. (A report sponsored by the Department of Defense.)

endangered birds. In implementing our committee's recommendations, Dr. Smith prevented the certain extinction of this species.

My role in the management of tile spotted owl was restricted to advice about how large a population of owls was required if it were to survive. I was always impressed by the breadth and excellence of the scientists Dr. Jack Ward Thomas (Forest Service) recruited for this project. My work with Dr. Jared Verner (FS5) appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 5

In 1992, I was asked to give advice on a controversy pitting the management of Everglades National Park and the FWS' opinion on the long-term survival of the endangered snail kite. Our committee's report concluded that it was the process and not the science that was flawed. The need for multi-species planning and for all the relevant agencies to contribute was an obvious recommendation. In April this year, I attended exactly such a meeting organized by Dr. Craig Johnson (FWS). Cooperation rather than controversy characterized that meeting.

In all this experience I have seen scientific debate and decisions one might have made differently with hind sight. But horror stories? Certainly not. Indeed, I feel privileged to have worked with these gentlemen. It may be some time before these species are "recovered" in the legal sense of that word. I have no doubt whatsoever that the species involved would be very much rarer (and the 'alala probably extinct) without their efforts.

Question 7. What improvements would you suggest?

Answer. The National Research Council and the Ecological Society of America have both issued reports on how biodiversity protection may be improved and its policies better implemented. As it happened, I was a reviewer on both reports and agree entirely with their conclusions. This is not surprising: there is considerable agreement in the scientific community on what should be done. I have nothing more to add.

[The following questions were submitted by Senator Lieberman, but the answers were not available at press time. The responses will be kept in committee files.]

QUESTIONS FOR SECRETARY BABBITT AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY HALL FROM

SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Question 1. I believe that your participation in the reauthorization debate is essential. You have been responsible for implementing this Act for the last 2 years, and have the most recent experience with it. You have also attempted more innovation during that period than perhaps any other Administration. And, you represent a strong affirmative commitment to furthering the goals of this Act.

From that perspective, what guidelines or suggestions can you provide to the drafters of reauthorization legislation?

What role do you think the NAS report recommendations should play in guidelines for reauthorization? What effect would they have on implementation of the Act fully implemented?

What other specific proposals could you suggest at this point?

Question 2. The State of California has developed a Natural Communities Conservation Planning program in conjunction with Federal agencies and local governments. My understanding is that this is a very bi-partisan approach endorsed by the Governor of California, you and many others. If I understand it correctly, it uses the ESA section_4(d) rule for threatened species as a mechanism for designating a State lead for a Recovery program. I am told that this has been very successful and popular in southern California with respect to the protection of the gnatcatcher and the large ecosystem it shares with many other rare species. This must be the most expensive real estate market in the country, and quite a challenge.

Can you comment on the political and economic success of this program?

Why was the gnatcatcher chosen for this, as opposed to some other species? How many listed or candidate species have been protected in the process of protecting the gnatcatcher?

Do you think this program represents a model for all threatened and endangered species (note: it only applies to threatened species now)? If so, do we need legislative changes to make sure that this will be done where appropriate in the ESA of the future?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90: 10871-10875 (1993).

Report of the Advisory Panel on the Everglades and Endangered Species. 44 pages. National Audubon Society, New York. (1992)

Is this the proper approach to developing greater State, local and private involvement? Would you recommend it for other States and regions in the country? What are its limitations?

Are there any other State, local or private ESA approaches that are working that we should be aware of and explore for ideas for ESA reauthorization? What are they, how can they help?

Question 3. As you are painfully aware, we have heard testimony in this committee, on the Senate floor and in the media of several "horror stories" regarding implementation of the ESA. They include allegations that good science is not being used in listings or recovery plans, that private landowners are being deprived of substantial economic uses, that Federal agencies can't cope with the section 7 consultation process, that many species being protected simply aren't worth the cost, etc. I know that you have reviewed many of these stories and tried to confirm them.

Can you tell me what proportion of these horror stories are accurate, how many are simply wrong, and how many are in the gray area in between? Of what relevance are they to our reauthorization debate?

Are you aware of any academically reviewed economic studies that support the contention that the ESA is slowing down economic growth and hurting Û.S. business? What about U.S. homeowners?

Can you respond to a few stories that have been raised recently including the allegations that:

• protection of the Steven's Kangaroo rat is responsible for preventing control of the California wildfires;

• Mr. Cone of North Carolina is unable to harvest timber from his land due to the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker and has therefore suffered a massive taking of his private property;

• protection of the Pacific Northwest forests for spotted owls and salmon has cost a net of 85,000 jobs in the region;

• endangered sea turtle protection has wiped out a substantial portion of the shrimping industry on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts;

• Ms. Rector of Austin, TX, suffered a $800,000 diminution of value on her 15 acres solely due to protection of the Golden-Cheeked Warbler;

⚫ the Arkansas River Shiner will cost farmers throughout a wide region in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma $2000 each if proposed habitat protection is implemented under ESA.

Question 4. We have heard testimony suggesting that there is some difficulty on the part of some Federal agencies with interagency coordination of ESA efforts by your agencies.

If we reauthorize the ESA in such a way to make the section 7 consultation process purely voluntary by other Federal agencies, what impact will this have on your ability to provide species recovery plans? Will it force more of the focus of the Act on private lands as opposed to working through public programs first?

QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL CLEGG FROM SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Question 1. You mentioned that "the ESA was not designed to carry out all of this nation's conservation policies" and that "the ESA, by itself, cannot prevent the loss of all species and their habitats," but should be viewed as one essential part of a comprehensive set of tools for protecting them.

Can you comment on some of the other tools and policies that you see as essential to endangered species protection, including Federal legislation such as the Clean Water Act and the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program under the Farm Bill?

What would a "comprehensive set of tools" include and who would develop it?

If the ESA is reauthorized in a way that reduces habitat protection, and if other Federal legislation such as the Clean Water Act, Farm Bill, National Forest Management Act and others follow a similar course, what effect is this likely to have on the number of species in serious decline, and their chances for recovery? Conversely, if these Acts are strengthened to improve habitat protection, what effect will this have?

are

Question 2. Can you elaborate on your statement that "recovery plans developed too slowly or have provisions that cannot be justified scientifically?" Why does this happen and what problems does it cause for species recovery and landowners? What changes need to occur within the Act to resolve these problems? To what extent would resolution of these problems resolve landowner concerns about economic conflicts and uncertainty?

Question 3. You briefly mentioned the importance of market-based economic incentives.

Can you comment on the role that such incentives play, with some examples that have worked in the past, or could be expected to in the future?

Question 4. Your report encourages priority to be given to the protection of "umbrella" species that serve as indicators for larger plant and animal communities. As I understand it, management of umbrella species would protect habitat for other species with related habitat needs and give priority to the management of groups versus individual species.

Can you give some examples of umbrella species, and how they would be identified? Would they typically include animals at the top of the food chain such as large mammalian predators, owls and other birds of prey, or predator fish? Would they typically include migratory or wide-ranging species?

What are the downsides of managing for umbrella species?

Question 5. As a scientist, what is your view on the appropriateness of the recent Supreme Court Sweethome decision that concluded the ESA was intended by Congress to protect habitat, and had been properly interpreted as such by State and Federal agencies.

Is it your view that adverse modification of habitat is conceptually and scientifically just as much a threat to species survival as the application of direct force to an animal, such as by shooting or trapping?

What percentage of our current list of ESA candidates and listed species are limited primarily by habitat problems? By over harvest? By introduced species?

Question 6. Your report suggests a greater role for State government in the ESA. What role do you think States should play in implementation of the Endangered Species Act listing and recovery process?

How good is their scientific capacity for assessing the need for species listings, and how can it be best used or improved?

QUESTIONS FOR ROBERT IRVIN FROM SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Question. I'm sure you have heard several of the horror stories we have on this committee about the ESA. Can you respond to some of them, including those I listed for Secretary Babbitt?

Can you tell me what proportion of these horror stories are accurate, how many are simply wrong, and how many are in the gray area in between? Of what relevance are they to our reauthorization debate?

Are you aware of any academically reviewed economic studies that support the contention that the ESA is slowing down economic growth and hurting U.S. business?

Can you respond to a few stories that were raised recently including the allegations that:

• protection of the Steven's Kangaroo rat is responsible for preventing control of the California wildfires;

• Mr. Cone of North Carolina is unable to harvest timber from his land due to the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker and has therefore suffered a massive taking of his private property;

• protection of the Pacific Northwest forests for spotted owls and salmon has cost a net of 85,000 jobs in the region;

• endangered sea turtle protection has wiped out a substantial portion of the shrimping industry on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts;

• Ms. Rector of Austin, TX, suffered a $800,000 diminution of value on her 15 acres solely due to protection of the Golden-Cheeked Warbler;

⚫ the Arkansas River Shiner will cost farmers throughout a wide region in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma $2000 each if proposed habitat protection is implemented under ESA.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Now I'd like to introduce our first panel. We're honored to have both these gentlemen with us. We have the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, who is the Secretary, Department of Interior, and the Honorable Douglas K. Hall, Assistant Secretary, Oceans and Atmosphere, of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Gentlemen, welcome to you both, and Mr. Secretary, if you'd like to lead off with your opening comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT,

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, committee members, I would like, if I may briefly, to see if I can provide you a sense of some of the issues that we've been dealing with over the last couple of years, and the directions that we've been taking out on the ground. I agree very much with Senator Lautenberg's observation that over the 20 years of this Act, there's been a tendency I think to administer it kind of by the numbers, and to let things drift and to be passive and avoid pressing the boundaries of the Act, to see if we can make it work and fill in the spaces beyond the literal language of the Act.

Now, at the outset, I concede that we've been doing just that. A number of the issues that I will discuss briefly involve concepts that do not literally appear in the language of the Act, and that I have for the last 3 years been very aggressive about saying to the staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service, if this is a good idea, I want to do it, and I want the lawyers to come back and tell me not why I can't do it, but to do what lawyers seldom do in this world, and that is imagine and construe the Act in a way that we can fulfill what I perceive to be the congressional intent.

I say that because I think the examples I want to go through briefly really cry out for careful examination as possible source material for legislation. Because I'm not contending in any of these examples that the Act is perfectly tailored to what we're doing or that we are not in fact bumping the outer boundaries of the Act.

Now, the crucial issue that we're working with is of course habitat protection. The discussion in the Sweet Home decision by the Supreme Court goes, I think, straight to the heart of what this Act is all about. We can legislate thou shalt not kill. But that's a meaningless injunction if it is not linked to what we all know to be the truth, and that is, that the health and the success of any species is a function of habitat out on the landscape, in which that species can survive and persist as part of a functioning ecosystem.

Now, the core area where we have been attempting to push new concepts is the section 10 habitat conservation plans. The 1988 amendment to the Act explicitly authorized those. We have been pushing them very, very aggressively. I would say we probably have finished 50 or 60. We've probably got another 100, 150 in the

mill.

The ones that I would call to your attention for examination are in the Pacific Northwest, the habitat conservation plans that have been worked out of the Pacific forest plan, notably the habitat conservation plans with the Plum Creek Timber Company, Weyerhauser Timber Company, the State of Oregon. Most notably, the Murray Pacific Timber Company in Washington. It is unprecedented in its attention to multispecies and the concept of closure, a deal's a deal, finality. The Murray Pacific Company has come. halfway toward us on that one, and we have pushed this concept, I think, toward a model which ought very properly to be reflected in explicit statutory language.

The second set of habitat conservation plan that I think bear examination are in California. Now, the reason the California experience is so important is because we are doing that in the framework