Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to talk about habitat conservation plans (HCPs). The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have been using these plans as an important tool to conserve and protect threatened and endangered species. My testimony will discuss the science used in HCPs and provide specific examples. A list of all of the HCPs approved by the Service as of July 16, 1999 is attached.
Habitat Conservation Plans Represent An Innovative and Successful Permit Program
HCPs are authorized by Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to allow the incidental take of listed species in the course of an otherwise lawful activity. The Service has experienced tremendous growth in the demand for HCPs in recent years. You only need to look back to 1992 to see how different the landscape has become. In 1992, 14 HCPs had been approved. As of today, we have 246 HCPs covering more than eleven million acres of land, providing conservation for approximately 200 listed species. More than 200 HCPs are in some stage of development. Numerous success stories are contained in the HCPs already approved, and we are currently working on a number of strong partnerships with local governments and the private sector through the HCP process.
The HCPs that are in place today, and the demand for additional HCPs, clearly show a change in how Federal agencies work with private parties for species conservation. We have become partners with landowners. Local governments have incorporated HCP development into their planning process for growth in an unprecedented manner. The HCP process also can provide flexibility for landowners by including unlisted species, which enables the process to employ an ecosystem and landscape-level approach. This proactive approach can reduce future conflicts and may even preclude the listing of species, furthering the purposes of the ESA.
Except for the need for additional funding, the Service is very pleased with where the program is today. The quality of approved HCPs is constantly improving, and we are making continuous strides in endangered species conservation through the use of this tool. In collaboration with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Service has made many refinements to the process in recent years. These refinements, as well as the collective knowledge gained from past years, are available to the public in a very useful HCP Handbook, issued jointly by the Service and NMFS in November 1996.
The major strength of the HCP program is that it is a national scale program that readily allows for the development of local solutions to wildlife conservation instead of a one size fits all top down regulation. Applicants can explore different methods of achieving compliance with the ESA and choose the method that best suits them. The Service intends to continue to support this flexibility, and we expect that our increased emphasis on achieving biological goals over specific prescriptive measures will further applicants' flexibility.
Without a doubt, the most frustrating issue with respect to HCPs is that this innovative, collaborative program is not receiving the necessary funding as set forth in Administration requests. HCPs also require money for implementation and monitoring to determine whether the biological goals are being achieved. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2000 clearly recognizes this reality. We asked for an increase specifically to address HCP development, monitoring and implementation in the fiscal year 2000 budget. However, the Senate did not fund our request. Without increased funding, we will not be able to adequately monitor HCPs to the extent desired by both supporters and critics of the HCP program. We encourage the members of the Subcommittee to support the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the endangered species program including the requested increases for HCPs. In the absence of adequate funding, some excellent opportunities may be lost or at least greatly delayed. A number of communities, such as Santa Cruz County, California, Laramie County, Wyoming, and the wheat growers in Douglas County, Washington, are eager to proceed with development of their HCPs and have many good ideas but lack the initial funding to get the process underway. As the demand increases, we want to approve more HCPs that incorporate sound science, partner with public and private parties, and create win-win solutions for species conservation and development.
Habitat Conservation Plans are Working Well
In general, HCPs that are currently in operation are working quite well. First, the permitters have displayed a high level of commitment to and compliance with their HCPs. In fact, many permitters have shown enthusiasm in sharing their early successes with the Service and the public. Second, although the program is young, tangible results are already apparent in many approved HCPs. The following examples represent just a few of the HCPs that are accomplishing their objectives as expected.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers
The Service's red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) program provides a showcase of how Section 7 and Section 10 work together across the landscape to achieve conservation. For private lands, the program emphasizes implementation of novel and flexible conservation strategies, including the HCP process and Safe Harbor agreements, both of which are contributing significantly to species recovery objectives.
RCW HCPs provide an excellent example of the ability of HCPs to involve a wide array of applicants, both large and small, who are interested in finding solutions to endangered species land management challenges. Past and current applicants include large industrial forest landowners, small "mom and pop" woodlot owners, development corporations, quail plantation owners, non-industrial forest landowners, and state wildlife agencies. The twelve non-industrial timber RCW HCPs that have been completed to date and the five currently being developed exemplify the versatility and appropriateness of the HCP process. The twelve permits that have been issued in seven states authorized the incidental take of 29 RCW groups; the mitigation for this incidental take involved the potential establishment of 54 new RCW groups on other private and/or public properties. Tangible conservation benefits delivered by HCPs include: (1) increasing the size and therefore the demographic viability of recovery or support populations, (2) stabilizing and/or maintaining small, at-risk recovery or support populations, and (3) rescuing very small, demographically isolated (i.e., biologically doomed) RCW groups from fragmented landscapes. Seven of the twelve HCPs have been successfully completed with all mitigation requirements being met and the other five are in progress and are fully expected to succeed.
With respect to industrial timber lands, the Service has entered into conservation partnerships with nine corporations (Georgia-Pacific, Hancock Timber Resource Group, Champion International, Westvaco, Weyerhaeuser, Potlach, International Paper, Norfolk Southern Railroad, and Temple Inland). In total, these corporations have established 115,560 acres as RCW management areas and are protecting 309 RCW groups, with the goal of raising this number to 338-RCW groups.
The Safe Harbor concept originated in the North Carolina Sandhills as an innovative response to a decline in available unoccupied RCW habitat. In order to encourage landowners to manage their land in a way that benefits RCWs, the Service announced the Safe Harbor policy, which provides assurances that RCWs attracted to property as a result of active management for the species will not cause new restrictions to attach to that property.
Safe Harbor effectively eliminates the regulatory disincentive that is normally associated with attracting listed species to new lands and, thus far has proven to be successful in attracting landowners who otherwise may not participate in species protection programs. As of October 1, 1998, the number of acres involved in the North Carolina Sandhills Safe Harbor program included: 19,023 acres enrolled under 23 agreements; 6,380 acres under 4 agreements awaiting landowner signature; and, 7,174 acres under 16 agreements currently in preparation. The 23 currently enrolled parcels provide nesting and foraging habitat for 46 groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Interest in the Sandhills Safe Harbor Program has far exceeded our expectations. In less than three years, 43 landowners have been enrolled or are in the process of enrolling in this program; a total of 32,577 acres will be enrolled by the end of FY 2000. The size of currently enrolled properties ranges from 3 to 3,300 acres. By reducing and/or eliminating regulatory disincentives, Safe Harbor has provided an effective way to increase available RCW habitat and population numbers while providing landowners with land management flexibility. The program has involved a diversity of landowners. They include golf course owners, nonindustrial forest landowners, horse farms, and small property landowners.
In response to the overwhelming success of Safe Harbor in the Sandhills of North Carolina, the Service has issued permits to states that provides landscape level conservation. To date, two Safe Harbor permits have been issued, both in 1998; one to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) and the other to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The results have been outstanding. As of June 1999, South Carolina has enrolled 16 landowners with 72,223 acres, harboring 123 RCW groups; nine landowners have pending agreements which will add another 31,496 acres and 41 RCW groups to the program. Most of the properties enrolled in South Carolina are quail hunting plantations. In Texas, 2 landowners (both industrial forest landowners) have enrolled 2,285,260 acres (7,000 dedicated to RCW management) and 17 RCW groups in the program. In cooperation with the Service and other partners, the state wildlife agencies in Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana have completed final draft statewide RCW Safe Harbor plans for their states. The Service is currently in discussions with the states of Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and Mississippi regarding development of statewide Safe Harbor programs for RCWs.
The success of the Service's comprehensive private lands strategy has resulted in significant improvements in the status of the species since the early 1990s. For example, many federal populations are now increasing or stabilized, 1OO,OOO's of acres of private lands are "officially" enrolled in RCW conservation (compared to none in 1990), and many state properties are developing RCW conservation/management plans. In 1995, based on a comprehensive range wide survey, the Service estimated the RCW population at 4,694 groups. In 1998, using the same survey methodologies, the Service estimated the range wide population at 4,950 groups; this-increasing population trend is expected to continue and indeed accelerate. The foundation of the entire RCW program is based on strong and meaningful partnerships between the private, state and Federal sectors. These partnerships have the common goals of mutual respect, trust, honesty, and the best available science. The highly successful application of the Service's RCW private lands strategy has clearly shown that Section 10 of the ESA can make integration of wildlife conservation with the interests and objectives of private landowners a reality.
Plum Creek Timber I-90 HCP
The Plum Creek Timber Company I-90 HCP in Washington State is providing conservation benefits for 11 listed species and numerous unlisted species through ecosystem management efforts across 170,000 acres. The HCP was designed to support and complement the conservation efforts of the Northwest Forest Plan on adjacent Federal lands.
Large riparian buffers, similar to those identified in the Northwest Forest Plan, provide protection for bull trout and anadromous salmon by reducing sedimentation, maintaining cool temperatures, and providing large woody debris for pool formation. The HCP provides habitat for nesting owl pairs currently in an area of concern for north-south connectivity in the Cascades. Surveys required under the HCP have led to the discovery of two species that were not known to occur in these watersheds: the marbled murrelet and the Larch Mountain salamander.
This HCP is science-based and that science was documented in the 13 peer-reviewed technical papers that accompanied the HCP as it underwent public comment. Significant amounts of new information were gathered during the development of the 13 technical papers. For instance, reproduction and survival information since 1993 is now available for almost every owl pair in the planning area. We expect that the first monitoring and research progress report, due in December, will include updates of habitat inventory information, plus progress reports of the avian research being done in conjunction with the University of Washington, and status of research design for the amphibian research projects.
Adaptive management is a central concept of the Plum Creek I-90 HCP and is explicitly built into the strategies for conserving riparian areas, spotted owls, and amphibians. The parts of the HCP containing the greatest amount of scientific uncertainty have the most explicit adaptive management provisions associated with them. Adaptive management allows for greater flexibility and increases in protection when resources need the added protection. For instance, if watershed analysis indicates that riparian buffers need to be wider, then Plum Creek has agreed to be bound by the science and will provide wider buffers.
Plum Creek takes pride in their HCP and is fully achieving or exceeding the level of species protection envisioned during development of the HCP. Pre-harvest reviews have been conducted with State agencies, Tribes, and environmental groups. Minor modifications have been made to the satisfaction of both Plum Creek, the Service, and NMFS. The Services and Plum Creek are maintaining a close working relationship with efficient communications.
Metro-Bakersfield HCP
Approved in August 1994, Metro-Bakersfield HCP addresses urban development and endangered species conservation. The HCP covers 261,000 acres surrounding Bakersfield, California, in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The permit covers 18 species (4 listed animals, 5 listed plants, 3 unlisted animals, and 6 unlisted plants).
Through March 1999, the Metro-Bakersfield HCP Implementation Trust has purchased 4,093 acres of habitat which has been dedicated to endangered species conservation and provided endowment funds for their management. The lands purchased are consistent with the habitat protection objectives of the "Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California." The purchased lands are primarily in areas identified as important core population areas or as important for maintaining connectivity of those populations. One of the most significant benefits has been that the public and the building industry now realize that development can proceed along with endangered species conservation. The development community, in particular, likes the certainty and timeliness of the process. By adopting the process, we can achieve conservation for these species on private lands that may otherwise not occur.
Small Landowner HCP
The HCP process also serves small landowners. One owner of approximately 80 acres of forest land in Monroe County, Alabama, developed an HCP with the Service in 1994. This landowner sought an incidental take permit from the Service for the threatened Red Hills salamander in order to selectively harvest pine timber from portions of her land. This HCP met the goals of the landowner and protected the Red Hills Salamander by: 1) allowing timber revenue to be generated from the land while continuing to protect habitat for the species; 2) eliminating or minimizing disturbance (cutting) within preferred and marginal habitat for the species; 3) limiting the use of chemicals within the marginal habitat zone; and 4) requiring certification and the conservation briefing of loggers prior to conducting logging activities that may result in take of the species. This HCP provides for conservation of forest habitat above that provided by Alabama Best Management Practices (BMP) for logging. In addition, it provides for certification and education of loggers on ways to minimize impacts beyond those identified by Alabama BMPs. The HCP will also protect currently suitable habitat for the species and allow for further study.
Science and Scientific Uncertainty in Habitat Conservation Plans
We cannot conserve our nation's threatened and endangered species on Federal lands alone. Therefore, it has been this Administration's priority in shaping ESA policy to provide incentives to conserve species on non-Federal lands. The HCP program has always recognized that there is a degree of uncertainty in conservation biology. The first HCP, San Bruno Mountain, incorporated approaches for addressing unexpected changes. The HCP program subsequently developed into an adaptable process for many different situations to address varied species needs and activity impacts. The HCP program is a versatile program that allows applicants to create plans that fit their needs as well as the conservation needs of species.
When developing an HCP, the Service is required to use the best available scientific information. Such data come from a variety of sources: scientific literature and peer-reviewed publications, inhouse expertise, other State or Federal agencies, academia, and non-governmental organizations, to name a few. For listed species, the Service can draw upon a number of existing information sources, all of which have gone through peer and public review. ESA listing packages are used to gain further species-specific biological information, and where possible, the Service will draw upon recovery plans to identify conservation and monitoring measures and objectives for listed species. HCPs are designed to minimize and mitigate the impacts to the species under consideration in the HCP as well as ensure that the permitted activity does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species. Determining whether an HCP meets these criteria is based on a biological analysis using the data that are available.
Information used in HCPs can range from factual information such as baseline data and survey results, to complex research and adaptive management, based on ecological theory and models. For example, impact and take analyses of covered species can cover a wide spectrum of scientific issues: population distribution and density; meta-population dynamics; net reproductive success; population viability analyses; pollution; and habitat fragmentation, among others. Likewise, mitigation and monitoring strategies may look at additional factors such as the impact of vegetation successional stages on the covered species, impacts from invasive alien species over time, and increased predation and competition.
The biologists negotiating the HCPs are limited by the constraints of time and information when analyzing impacts under the HCP but have an array of approaches to choose from when developing mitigation and monitoring strategies. Choosing the best approach to take is based upon a risk analysis of the conservation program. The Service builds upon the knowledge gained through implementation of each HCP to improve future HCPs. For instance, in March of this year, the Service, along with NMFS, released a draft five-point policy as an addendum to the HCP Handbook. This draft addendum proposes pathways to accommodate biological uncertainty while providing regulatory certainty to the permitters.
Biological Goals and Objectives are the Scientific Foundation of HCPs
Biological goals and objectives are the broad guiding principles for the operating conservation program of the HCP; they are the rationale behind the minimization and mitigation strategies. HCPs have always been designed to achieve a desired biological purpose or target, yet they may have not specifically stated those biological goals or objectives. In the future, we plan to better and more consistently define the desired biological outcome. This rather simple concept of biological goals and objectives facilitates communication between the scientific community, the agencies, and the applicants by providing direction and desired biological conditions and targets for the development of these HCPs. The specification of the biological goals and objectives of an HCP is perhaps an overlooked yet significant piece to the HCP program.
There are two ways to base the design of an HCP: prescription-based or results-based. A prescription-based HCP outlines a series of specified tasks to be implemented; these tasks are designed to meet the biological outcome. This type of HCP may be most appropriate for smaller permits, particularly where the permitter does not have an on-going management responsibility. A results-based HCP has greater flexibility in its management, allowing the permittee greater latitude to pick and choose among various conservation tools, so long as they achieve the intended result (e.g., biological goal or objective), especially if they have a long-term commitment to the conservation program of the HCP. The Mid-Columbia Public Utility Districts' HCP is an example of a results-based HCP. HCPs can also be a mix of the two strategies, where the Service and the applicant determine the range of acceptable and anticipated management adjustments necessary to respond to new information. This process will enable the applicant to assess the potential economic impacts of adjustments before agreeing to the HCP while allowing for greater flexibility in the implementation of the HCP in order to meet the biological goals and objectives of the plan.
Use of Adaptive Management to Deal with Uncertainty
Adaptive management refers to a structured process for learning by doing. The "structured" portion of this definition is important for two reasons. First, it becomes a formalized and mutually agreed upon process for incorporating change -- a feed-back loop into management. Second, it defines in advance the sideboards within which the permittee will be expected to operate, including any possible future adjustments in the HCP's operating conservation program, in order to fulfill their permit responsibilities. As applied to HCPs, it is a method for addressing significant uncertainty in the conservation of a species covered by an HCP. In an HCP, adaptive management is used for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable biological goals and objectives through research and/or monitoring, and then, if necessary, through the adjustment of future conservation management actions according to what is learned. Adaptive management is necessary in HCPs where there is either significant biological uncertainty or a significant risk exists due to uncertainty about the impacts of the activity and how we address those impacts.
Some people in the scientific community maintain that adaptive management can only be appropriately done using a strict experimental design, which would compare specific treatments to controls. While this is certainly one ideal approach that could be utilized, we believe that meaningful adaptive management can be done without this strict and expensive adherence to standards of experimental design. Additionally, we do not believe it to be appropriate to burden the landowner with research that is not proportional to their activity. However, we can incorporate flexibility into medium and small scale HCPs so as to utilize the results of on-going research and monitoring programs in other areas.
Often, there is a direct relationship between the level of biological uncertainty for a covered species and the degree of risk that an incidental take permit could pose for that species. In such cases, the HCP may need to be relatively cautious initially with a well-integrated monitoring program and adjusted later based on new information. A practical adaptive management strategy of a long-term HCP should include biological milestones that are reviewed at scheduled intervals. If there is a relatively high degree of risk, early and frequent milestones may need to be set and previously agreed upon adjustments made accordingly.
Permit Duration Accounts for Implementation of Conservation Measures
The average duration of HCP incidental take permits issued to date is 25 years; pending applications for incidental take permits currently have an average requested duration of 30 years. Different permit durations may be necessary or desirable to account for both the varying biological impacts resulting from the proposed activity (e.g., long-term chronic effects to a riparian zone resulting from timber rotations and treatments versus short-term intensive effects from a real estate subdivision build out), and the nature or scope of the permitted activity and conservation program in the HCP (e.g., short-term housing or commercial developments versus long-term sustainable forestry). Longer permits ensure long-term commitments to the HCP and typically include up-front contingency planning for changed circumstances to allow appropriate changes in the conservation measures. By implementing a long-term permit, the permittee takes on ownership of the conservation measures within the HCP, a plus for species conservation.
Factors that are considered when determining permit duration include the duration of the applicant's proposed activities and the duration of expected positive or negative effects on the covered species. For instance, if the permittee's action or the implementation of their conservation measures occur over a long period of time, such as timber harvest management, the permit would need to encompass that same time period.
The Service will also consider the extent of information underlying the HCP, the length of time necessary to implement and achieve the benefits of the operating conservation program and the extent to which the program incorporates adaptive management strategies.
No Surprises Assurances Stimulate Planning for Uncertainty
No Surprises Policy and HCP assurances were designed to be incentives to rechannel habitat loss through the HCP permitting program by offering regulatory certainty to non-Federal landowners in exchange for a long-term commitment to species conservation. Essentially, private landowners are assured that if "unforeseen circumstances" arise, the Service, or NMFS, will not require the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level initially agreed to in the HCP without the consent of the permitter.
Given the significant increase in landowner interest in HCPs since the development of the No Surprises Policy, the Service believes that the Policy has accomplished one of its primary objectives--to act as a catalyst for integrating endangered species conservation into day-to-day management operations on non-Federal lands. No Surprises assurances have also provided a catalyst for contingency planning within HCPs. Most possible changes in circumstances during the course of an HCP can reasonably be anticipated and planned for in the conservation plan. Plans should describe the modifications in the project or activity that will be implemented if these circumstances arise. Planning for changed circumstances and adopting adaptive management strategies proactively within the HCP will better serve the permittee and endangered species conservation than a reactive "band-aid" fix later. Therefore, these contingency plans and adaptive management strategies are part of the deal and allow the Service and the permitter to adjust the conservation measures if necessary.
Conclusion
The HCP program has seen many changes since 1983. We have created a conservation program that empowers the applicants to integrate endangered species conservation into their activities while using the best available science and approaches. The ideas that have been generated have served to strengthened the HCP program. We remain committed and open to learning from our experiences and considering new ideas. As we look to the future of the HCP program, we see many more success stories. However, it will not be easy to get there. As the demand for HCPs increases and more HCPs are approved, providing careful attention to each HCP will become more and more challenging. Challenges facing the HCP program include: ensuring adequate implementation and monitoring through increased landscape-level planning with inadequate resources, developing partnerships with the scientific community to better utilize their expertise in HCP development and implementation, and continuing to learn and improve the program while still retaining incentives to landowners to develop and implement conservation measures.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that the Subcommittee may have.