I'd like to echo your remarks about Senator Chafee.
This subcommittee has held six hearings. Senator Chafee attended all but one.
So his absence this morning, from the seat on your right, reminds us again of our sadness at his passing.
Of course, John would cheerfully tell us to "carry on."
And so we shall.
Fittingly, in the spirit of Senator Chafee, this hearing gives us an opportunity to explore ways of bringing people together, to solve problems.
Because, Mr. Chairman, as you and I and others in the West know, when it comes to the Endangered Species Act, we've got to find ways to replace confrontation with cooperation.
Habitat conseration plans may help us to do that.
In Montana, the Plum Creek timber company and the state of Montana are both working on HCPs to help us recover the Bull Trout.
It's not an easy task.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to work on a small project to restore Bull Trout habitat. It was on a ranch owned by a fellow named Geoff Foote, outside Ovando, which is about 70 miles west of Missoula, along the Blackfoot river.
A stream had been straightened, which had the effect of reducing the amount of gravel that Bull Trout need to spawn. We stabilized stream banks, added some streamside cover, and used dirt, stones, and stumps to make the stream meander.
Everybody was working together. Farmers, ranchers, environmentalists. The Montana Departement of Fish and Game. The Fish and Wildlife Service.
HCPs allow us to take the same approach, on a larger scale. Bring folks together, to try and work things out. That's the right thing to do.
However, as the use of HCPs has increased dramatically, there have been problems. We've heard about them at previous hearings. We'll hear more today.
Let me list what I think are some of the more important questions.
How do we establish a "no surprises" policy when, as the scientists constantly remind us, nature is full of surprises? How do we create adequate safeguards, so that the public has a say in the development of large HCPs?
How do we provide some consistency, so that landowners are treated pretty much alike?
What the is standard? Are we trying to merely stave off extinction, or promote recovery? What, as a practical matter, is the difference?
How do we monitor, to make sure that the plan doesn't just look good on paper, but also works on the ground? How do we adapt a plan to changed circumstances or new scientific information?
How do we make the benefits of HCPs available to small landowners?
If we can answer these questions, we may be able to reach the same kind of consensus, in support of legislative reforms, that we reached a few months ago when we reported legislation on the designation of critical habitat.
I look forward to the testimony.
I'm particularly glad that we'll be joined by Jim Riley. Jim is a leader in the Montana and Idaho timber industry. Many times, he's worked to find common sense solutions to difficult environmental problems.