Habitat conservation plans (HCPs) are a true success story under the Endangered Species Act. They have played a critical role in bringing landowners to the table to help conserve hundreds of species at risk, both those listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and a myriad of others.
I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have approved over 245 HCPs since 1995, with another 200 in the pipeline. Those numbers are impressive. Each new HCP represents a commitment to preserve habitat or manage resources to benefit species. Over 6 million acres are now being managed under HCPs and over 75 different species are being protected. Perhaps just as importantly, each new HCP provides another landowner with needed regulatory relief from the strict prohibitions of the ESA.
I appreciate, however, that HCPs have not been perfect; they can and should be improved. There are certainly legitimate questions about the quality and quantity of science available to develop and implement many HCPs. Do decision makers have enough reliable information on which to base decisions about resource use and appropriate conservation measures in HCPs? In the absence of that information, how do they address the scientific uncertainty? How do they balance the risk to the species and the need for landowner certainty? And how do they encourage the continued collection of information and incorporate that information to improve the HCP?
To its credit, the Administration has, over the past few years, implemented a series of reforms to try to address some of these issues and make HCPs work better. I applaud their efforts, but I also believe that the underlying scientific and policy questions will benefit from a broader debate through the legislative process.
As you know, the ESA reform bill that we drafted in the last Congress included a number of provisions intended to enhance the HCP program, but many of the issues that you are addressing in these hearings were not yet ripe. They are now. Your leadership on these issues, therefore, is both timely and critical. I hope that with these and other hearings on HCPs, we can improve on the work that we began on HCPs in the last Congress.
I look forward to hearing from the distinguished witnesses this morning and their perspectives on how the science of HCPs can be improved.