STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. CRAPO, CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND DRINKING WATER
HEARING ON HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
OCTOBER 19, 1999

Good morning, and welcome to the third in a series of hearings by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water examining Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). The Subcommittee began a listening and learning endeavor in July of this year to better understand the benefits and concerns related to Habitat Conservation Plans. In July, we heard from scientists, academics, forest products companies and environmentalists about science the adequacy of science and the challenge of making land management decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Today, eight witnesses will offer testimony focusing on the policy questions of HCPs. At present, HCPs are the only flexibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) afforded to private landowners who wish to conduct activities such as forest management or development when threatened or endangered species occupy a piece of land or use it as habitat.

We are joined today by representatives of the environmental community, county government, agriculture, homebuilding industry, forest products companies, and the energy industry to learn from their experiences and knowledge of HCPs -- these are people who have been directly involved in developing, negotiating, implementing and litigating HCPs.

The growing list of species protected under the Endangered Species Act, and the need for property owners to comply with the Act while continuing to derive an economic benefit from their land has resulted in exponential increases in the use of this beneficial tool. To date, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has negotiated more than 250 HCPs and has approximately another 200 in progress.

HCPs sound like the type of win-win solution that we'd all like to see for threatened and endangered species protection for species and flexibility for landowners to carry out activities on their land. It is unfortunate that the reality of negotiating HCPs has not tracked more closely with what the law and subsequent policies have intended.

While the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have sought to improve the process of negotiating HCPs through its Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook and other guidance, the process remains fraught with obstacles for property owners seeking HCPs. Landowners involved in negotiations and those who have completed plans have demonstrated their willingness to conserve species by coming to the table ready to engage in negotiations and implement measures on the ground. But all too frequently, the process has proved to be inadequate in getting HCPs completed. This is not a favorable outcome for species in need of protection, or property owners who must continue to make decisions about the activities that will be carried out on their land.

I am keenly interested in making HCPs work better. Americans have a rich conservation history and have demonstrated their commitment to protecting our wildlife and fisheries resources, particularly those threatened or endangered. Private landowners do, and can, make important contributions to endangered species conservation, but we must have mechanisms in place to allow property owners to make a living from their land. HCPs are definitely the right idea, but modifications must be made if they are to achieve their intended goal.

I believe today's witnesses will provide the Subcommittee with a better understanding of the problems of Habitat Conservation Planning so that we may consider and improve this tool, and make it truly beneficial to species and people.