Commerce. The Secretary of the Interior signed them one week ago. These 

 regulations concentrate on the equal consideration of fish and wildlife in 

 water resource development projects. The regulations emphasize the use of 

 habitat productivity as the indicator of resource value and the variable 

 by which we measure whether appropriate mitigation is being offered. No 

 longer can we accept a single measure of hunting and fishing as a measure of 

 the fish and wildlife habitat value. 



The second legislative item is the proposed Superfund bill, or the bill 

 for compensation and liability for damage from spills of oil and hazardous 

 substances and abandoned hazardous waste sites cleanup. We suggested strong 

 emphasis on restoration of natural resource values that go beyond public 

 health concerns to those of habitat and species. We support the principle in 

 the Coordination Act: the restoration of habitat, not just the payment of 

 damages. I expect that by the end of this month, the Administration will 

 send a Superfund bill to the U.S. Congress. 



The third and final legislative item concerns Alaska. This Udall/ 

 Anderson bill has been called the biggest single conservation issue of the 

 decade and, some will say, of the century. It is up for vote tomorrow. It 

 is very likely that we will have a bill to protect vast areas of Alaska and 

 to open up vast areas for development. Among the areas to be protected are 

 those valuable to caribou herds. These same areas also may contain large 

 amounts of oil. The Administration's posture is that, for now, oil will 

 stay there. We will extract oil from other places and try to develop alter- 

 native energy sources. If the country needs the oil from the protected land 

 in 20, 30, or 40 years from now, Congress can reconsider its position. This 

 posture is certainly different than the position of other Administrations in 

 the last several decades. 



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 



The laws and policies that have been passed recently or that are still 

 under consideration underscore the need for a better understanding of the 

 ecological consequences of resource development alternatives. Until now, 

 this understanding has been impeded by a lack of adequate ecological infor- 

 mation. Although development and environmental protection frequently con- 

 flict, habitat and environmental protection considerations are now being 

 seriously included in many decisions concerning land use. During the 6 years 

 that I have been with the U.S. Department of the Interior, the FWS's contri- 

 bution to DOI decisions has increased. The opinions of the FWS on environ- 

 mental interests within DOI are sought with new eagerness. The future of 

 fish and wildlife and their habitats depends on a continuing vigorous quest 

 for precise ecological information. FWS is using its leadership and technical 

 expertise to gain this information. Some of FWS's cooperative activities 

 and programs initiated in support of our legal mandate reflect and accelerate 

 an involvement and commitment to the management and wise use of resources in 

 cooperation with States and other nations. 



