I am Dr. Lorin L. Hicks, Director of Fish and Wildlife Resources for Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. Plum Creek is the fifth largest private timberland owner in the United States, with over 3.3 million acres in six states. Owning this vast resource base of some of the world's most productive timberlands allows our 2,400 employees to produce value-added forest products to a variety of specialty markets. I have been a biologist for Plum Creek and its predecessor companies for over 20 years.
But I am here today to talk about how important habitat conservation planning is to our leadership in environmental forestry. Habitat conservation planning promises to be the most exciting and progressive conservation initiative attempted on nonfederal lands in this country.
Plum Creek is no stranger to habitat conservation planning. Plum Creek's Central Cascades HCP, a 50 year plan covering 285 species on 170,000 acres, was approved in 1996. We are currently working on another, called the Native Fish HCP, covering I.7 million acres in three northwest states. A third HCP, for red-cockaded woodpeckers in the south, is under development with the USFWS. In 1995, we initiated an 83,000-acre Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement in Montana's Swan Valley.
Since 1974, few issues have been surrounded with more controversy than the Endangered Species Act. It is often criticized as unworkable and characterized as "iron fisted". Regardless of its image, its impact on landowners has been profound. My company, Plum Creek, is no exception--- our 3.3 million acres supports no less than 12 federally listed species, and others such as salmon and lynx which have been proposed for listing.
Ironically, the history of the ESA and Plum Creek have been intertwined for many years. The listing of the grizzly bear in 1975 affected 1.1 million acres of Plum Creek land in the northern Rockies and confused or confounded access across federal lands to company property for over a decade. The listing of the northern spotted owl in 1990 and subsequent federal "guidelines" trapped over 77% of Plum Creek's Cascade Region in 108 owl "circles". Indeed, with every new listing, Plum Creek was skidding closer to becoming the "poster child" for the taking of private lands. To quote Charles Beard, "When it is dark enough-you can see the stars". For us the answer came with Habitat Conservation Plans. With the advent and incentives of habitat conservation plans, Plum Creek and the federal government have accomplished a stunning turnaround and made a concrete contribution to the conservation of endangered species.
This committee faces a critical question: Can HCPs continue to work for landowners and for endangered species into the future? This hearing hopefully will give the committee insights into the underlying science and principles that drive HCPs.
Two of the fundamental foundations of HCPs are under great pressure.
First the "no surprises" policy, which is critical for landowners to undertake an HCP, is being challenged. It provides the necessary incentives for landowners to undertake the costly and resource intensive process to complete a habitat plan. To ensure that the program remains strong, we believe it should be codified.
Second, pressures mount to "standardize" HCPs, and compare them to each other, with a tendency to use each one to "raise the bar" for those which follow. In my opinion, this "one size fits all" approach is precisely what has challenged the ESA since its inception and could be the most important deterrent to the inclusion of small landowners to the HCP program.
It's important to understand that HCPs are as different from one another as landowners and land uses. They are as small as one home site and as large as 7- million acres. They are as short in duration as one construction season and as long as 100 years. They are as focused as a single species and as expansive as hundreds of species. And importantly, each landowner has a different incentive for entering this voluntary process.
To help demonstrate this I have attached a new booklet just produced by the Foundation for Habitat Conservation providing brief case studies of 13 HCPs from around the country. These case studies give better definition to my point that HCPs vary widely in scope and intent, and I recommend this document to you for review. These examples give credence to the notion that HCPs can be an effective tool for conservation.
Plum Creek is a founding member of the Foundation for Habitat Conservation. The nonprofit Foundation supports habitat conservation plans and related voluntary private conservation efforts through research, education and communication. The Foundation is committed to "conservation that works," and to that end, brings together advocates, experts and policy makers to work for creative, balanced and effective approaches to habitat conservation. Current Foundation members have HCPs conserving hundreds of species of animals and plants on more than 800,000 acres of land.
Let's dispel the myth that HCPs are not based on science. When my company, Plum Creek, created its first HCP, we took on a very complex challenge. Not only did we have 4 listed species in our 170,000 acre Cascades project area, but 281 other vertebrate species, some of which would likely be listed within the next few years. Combine this with the challenges of checkerboard ownership where every even-numbered square mile section is managed by the federal government under their new Northwest Forest Plan and you have a planning challenge of landscape proportions. To meet this challenge, we assembled a team of scientists representing company staff, independent consultants and academic experts. We authored 13 technical reports covering every scientific aspect from spotted owl biology to watershed analysis. We sought the peer reviews of 47 outside scientists as well as state and federal agency inputs. As a result of these inputs, we made technical and tactical changes to the plan. And additionally, we developed working relationships with outside professionals that were invaluable and have been maintained to this date.
Let's also dispel the myth that the public has no access or input to HCPs. During the preparation of the Cascades HCP which took 2 years and $2 million, we conducted over 50 briefings with outside groups and agencies to discuss our findings and obtain additional advice and input. During the public comment period, all HCP documents and scientific reports were placed in 8 public libraries across the planning area.
I have brought with me the major documents from Plum Creek's Cascades HCP, completed in 1996. These documents include the final HCP, the draft and final EIS, a compendium of the 13 peer-reviewed technical reports, and a binder of decision making documents completed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. We continue to publish our scientific work for the HCP in technical publications as this peer-reviewed article on spotted owl habitat in this month's Journal of Forestry attests.
Today Plum Creek is nearing completion of a new HCP. This new Plan focuses on 8 aquatic species, and covers 1.8 million acres of our lands in Montana, Idaho and Washington. The company and the Services have been working over 2 years on this plan, which will be the first HCP for the Rocky Mountain region. To provide the scientific foundation for this HCP, we assembled a team of 17 scientists that authored 13 technical reports spanning topics from fish biology to riparian habitat modeling. These technical reports were peer-reviewed by 30 outside scientists and agency specialists. We have made all the technical reports and white papers for the Native Fish HCP available to all interested parties on a CD, and have done so well in advance of the public release of the HCP, which is scheduled for September 1. The good news is that anyone can have access to the latest science and technology used in the development of this HCP.
My point here it is to emphasize that for Plum Creek and other applicants, the HCP process has been the principal catalyst for private landowners to undertake unprecedented levels of scientific research and public involvement. Each successful HCP is a scientific accomplishment. And the science immediately becomes part of the public domain.
Let me give you some specific examples of public benefits from our Cascades HCP which has been operating successfully for over 2 years. Since its inception, we have discovered the presence of 2 species of concern, the Larch Mountain Salamander and the marbled murrelet, which were previously thought to be absent from our area. Moreover, habitat management and research on the northern goshawk has been active in the HCP area, despite the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service decided not to list the species last year. Additionally, Plum Creek is actively pursuing a plan to reintroduce the bull trout, a newly listed federal species, to our lands in the HCP area, because the habitat is optimal, and the company no longer fears the presence of a listed species on its lands covered by the HCP.
Another aspect of good HCPs, essentially another way of relying on good science, is to incorporate effective monitoring and adaptive management. As a scientist, I always want more information. Adaptive management is a challenging blend of rigorous science and practical management designed to provide the basis for "learning by doing". Adaptive management is more easily discussed in the classroom than done on the ground.
Within the context of habitat conservation plans, adaptive management represents an agreement between the Services and the applicant whereby management actions will be modified in response to new information. Adaptive management can be used to address significant "leaps of faith" in HCPs where there is dependence on models or adoption of untested conservation measures. However, there is "dynamic tension" between the implementation of adaptive management in HCPs and adherence to the "No Surprises" policy that limits the amount of additional mitigation that can be required of an applicant, unless unforeseen circumstances occur. Adaptive management provides the flexibility to deal with uncertainty within the sideboards of the recently revised "no surprises" policy.
Ultimately, good HCPs come from good science and good motives. Neither lofty policy objectives nor idealized public participation should overtake the science. Federal agencies must be encouraged and enabled to make sound, prompt, scientifically-based decisions that allow land owners a fair, fast path to conservation, underlain by dependable safeguards for both the private and the public interest.
Mr. Chairman, these HCPs are not only science plans but also business plans which commit millions of dollars of a companies assets in a binding agreement with the federal government. In the Pacific Northwest, the stakes are high for both conservation and shareholder value in private timberlands. The consequences of failure are so ominous for both interests that careful evaluation of the economic and ecologic ramifications are essential to successful completion of HCPs. "Guesswork" is not an acceptable alternative for either the Services or applicants.
Nor should we delay or defer essential conservation simply because we are afraid to try. Adaptive management provides the "safety net" for HCPs as well as the rules of the road for acceptably making "mid-course corrections" as new information and insight warrants.
As a major landowner and one committed to the highest possible environmental standards, we anticipate and try to lead in these areas. For example, we understood the concerns raised over the last several years that citizens and interest groups sought more access to the process of creating HCPs. We believe that landowners must remain in the driver's seat as to whether and how to build an HCP. In assembling our Native Fish HCP, we anticipated the Department of Interior's new 5-point plan setting new guidelines for HCPs, and have fully complied with it in advance, especially as it pertains to public involvement.
As enthusiastic as we are about HCPs, the process is not without its faults. Since our first foray into HCPs, we have noted some significant shifts in policy and practice. One downstream effect of the 5 points policy has been the requirement of the Services to more thoroughly analyze the "effects" of adding multiple species to the HCP, resulting in deletion of conservation measures for lesser known species because the Services lack the information needed to complete their new requirements. This creates a major obstacle for completion of multispecies plans.
There is a need for the Services to commit necessary resources and personnel to the development of HCPs from beginning to end, a period often as long as two years. Far too often, we experience shifts in key agency staff and biologists whereby professional experience is lost and continuity in plan development is broken.
Once the majority of the scientific content of the plan has been completed, we have also experienced an excessive focus on relatively minor technical details. These are often speculative or hypothetical issues that are unproven in the literature, but for which there are strong emotional concerns. In other words, with 95% of the scientific work completed, most the debate centers on the remaining 5%, creating unnecessary delays.
As we near completion of the Native Fish HCP, we are again reminded of the duplicative nature of the HCP and NEPA processes. The HCP is by definition a mitigation plan for the potential impact of lawful operations on listed species and their habitats. The NEPA process also requires a similar assessment of the HCP and management alternatives. Not only does this require the added expense and resources to duplicate work already done, but requires additional review and response by the Services.
As you are aware, many of the HCPs being completed in the west require both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to work with the applicant and approve the final plan. Despite their efforts, these two agencies do not work in synch. The agencies provide varying levels of technical support to applicants. The combined effect of this lack of interagency coordination is further time delays to the applicant.
Mr. Chairman I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. The two days of testimony should provide the committee with a better understanding of the complexities of HCPs. I hope my testimony has given you an appreciation of the strategic value of HCPs for both the conservation of species and the protection of resource economies.