The Importance of HCPs in Species Conservation
I have been in my position for about six weeks. The perspective I bring is, maybe, a fresh one because while I have been aware of the HCP program peripherally for a few years, I have not worked on it on a day-to-day basis until now. My observation is that this Administration has breathed life into language that sat mostly unused on the books since 1982.
The HCP program allows landowners, states, Tribes, and others to take the initiative and submit proposals. It encourages local, inventive approaches to balance the needs of species with the goals of private citizens. It offers landowners something of value (an incidental take permit) in exchange for providing something of value (long-term conservation benefits). It is new enough that improvements are still possible. It does not compel private citizens to do anything unless they want an incidental take permit. The voluntary nature of the program ensures that landowners who want to can work with the Services to improve the certainty the landowners need.
We cannot provide for biological diversity, or even species conservation, on Federal lands alone. The General Accounting Office estimates that over 70 percent of species listed under the ESA have over 60 percent of their habitat on private or other non-Federal lands. Over 35 percent of these listed species are totally dependent on these lands for their habitat. Incidental take permits under section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA are one of the vehicles currently available that provide incentives for non-Federal landowners to protect listed species on these lands. With the benefits provided by the Federal government's HOP program, landowners are provided an incentive to commit land and resources to better species protection and recovery. The only alternative would be to enforce the ESA "taking" prohibition on individual properties.
If the goals of the ESA are to be achieved, it is widely accepted that HCPs will play a pivotal role. The National Academy of Sciences view HCPs as a vehicle for achieving a regional conservation approach which is more consistent with the principles of conservation biology than a project-by-project or species-by-species approach.
NOAA is responsible for over 50 species listed under the ESA, including marine mammals, sea turtles, plants, salmon and other fish. It is my belief that we can meet the challenge of recovering these species only when we cooperate with non-Federal landowners such as states, Tribes, counties, and private entities to do this important job.
For example, we have the enormous challenge of ensuring the survival and recovery of salmon across an area of land and water that spans the Pacific coastline from the Canadian border to Los Angeles. The highly migratory nature of Pacific salmon places them in many areas in numerous states, impacting large numbers of stakeholders, many of whom are private citizens who hold large tracts of land valued as commercial property as well as salmon habitat.
The long-term management of habitat, such as that done through most HCPs with non-Federal landowners, has proven to be one of the most effective means of conserving species. HCPs are a popular tool for both the private property owner and NMFS. We have issued permits associated with HCPs for 2 large-scale projects in Washington and California that cover almost 3 million acres. We have issued 10 incidental take permits associated with low-effect projects such as state fish hatcheries, and we are a party to 5 Implementing Agreements for HCPs. We are currently negotiating about 35 additional HCPs in the Pacific Northwest and California. So far, all of the large-scale HCPs developed by applicants involve Pacific salmonids.
To meet the challenge of processing HCPs and their accompanying permits and agreements, NMFS has issued joint guidance with the FWS on how to assist applicants in developing HCPs. Our HOP handbook describes the information applicants need to submit for us to evaluate whether these plans will be effective and accomplish their goal of minimizing and mitigating, to the maximum extent practicable, the effects of taking threatened and endangered species. The Services assist the applicant in exploring alternatives, and we try to be flexible when prescribing mitigation measures.
We work with applicants to ensure that their HOP meets the criteria specified under the statute and our regulations. However, we tailor each one to fit the biological needs of the species as well as to accommodate the landowner's special requirements. For example, if an applicant provides an unusual, but scientifically credible analysis of effects, or a creative but effective solution for mitigating the effects of incidental taking, we seriously consider that approach.
Our 5-point policy addition to the HCP handbook, which is in final preparation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, reflects the experience gained by the Services over the past few years during the tremendous growth of the HCP program. The 5- point guidance covers biological goals, adaptive management, monitoring, permit duration and public participation.
One of the important aspects of this policy is adaptive management which is an essential component of HCPs when there is significant uncertainty or an information gap that poses a significant risk to the species. Rather than delay the process while sufficient information is gathered to predict the outcome accurately, the Services and applicants jointly develop an adaptive management strategy, aimed at assuring all parties of a suitable outcome. For example, a cautious management strategy could be implemented initially, and through exploration of alternate strategies with an appropriate monitoring program and feedback, the permitter could demonstrate that a more relaxed management strategy is appropriate.
Flexible implementation of the ESA has become the hallmark of this Administration's efforts to conserve species, and it is evidenced no where more emphatically than in the HCP program.
Science
At the hearing in July, NOAA testified about the role of science in the development of HCPs. I would like to emphasize that the ESA requires the Services to use the best available information in making its determinations, including all HOP permit decisions. This means that our agency is legally required to utilize the best available science -- data, analysis, models, and synthesis. NMFS spends a significant portion of its budget on ensuring that our scientists stay up-to-date in their respective fields, and use state-of-the-art analytical techniques and methods to assess and understand the species and ecosystems to be managed under HCPs. In fiscal year 1999, NMFS spent about one-third of its salmon budget on science.
It is not a simple matter to manage areas, particularly when this management includes significant human alterations from resource extraction to infrastructure human alterations development. While we are comfortable that we have solid, reliable, quantitative information on the temperature, water flow, fish passage, and water quality needs of salmon, there are other aspects of ecosystem processes and functions that will determine the long-term success or failure of ecosystem and endangered species management. Some of these are only beginning to be understood. Our knowledge of nutrient cycling, food chain dynamics, biodiversity, population genetics, and climate change is at an emerging stage, and few practical tools and methodologies have emerged to date.
We recognize this uncertainty in the documents we issue in association with HCPs. Therefore, we design our permits and agreements to manage biological risks. Where we have solid, quantitative information, such as the temperature needs of juvenile salmon, we can set specific, quantitative temperature targets that the management regime must achieve. In areas where the science is less developed, HCPs typically include more qualitative goals, such as a multi-tiered forest canopy with a diverse age structure or maintenance of insect prey biodiversity. Because we are at the limits of our scientific capability and knowledge for some species, extensive monitoring and adaptive management strategies are essential. If the applicant and the Services do a good job of monitoring, and if adaptive management has been provided for in an HCP, our successes and failures can be applied in the future implementation of this HCP and others.
Highlight of Current HCPs Completed and in Progress
At this time, I would like to discuss some of completed HCPs and those that are in progress.
The pace of implementation of the Pacific Lumber (PALCO) HCP in northern California, issued in February 1999 by NMFS and FWS, is picking up. Federal and state agencies, as well as PALCO, are hiring multiple staff to assist with review of timber harvest plans and formalizing watershed analysis and monitoring programs. The foundation of this plan rests upon watershed analysis, which is the process used to tailor site-specific prescriptions to conserve salmon on a watershed by watershed basis.
The Mid-Columbia River draft HCP now under development is an excellent example of how NMFS is using performance-based goals in addition to prescriptive measures. This HCP focuses on improving survival of salmon migration through the Mid-Columbia segment of the Columbia River near Wenatchee, Washington. Historical fish losses at the Mid-Columbia dams have been significant -- an average 15% loss of juvenile salmon per dam. The goal of the HCP is no net impact to salmon from the three hydro-electric dams and associated reservoirs operated by two Public Utility Districts (PUDs), Douglas County PUD and Chelan County PUD. Specific methods to attain the 91% project survival target are not described, but are left to the project operators for the first five years of the HCP, after which it will be a joint process with the PUDs, NMFS, and FWS.
NMFS is also working with FWS on implementation of a multi- species HCP associated with a permit issued to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. The HCP covers over a million acres of state-owned forest lands west of the Cascades. NMFS recently added 5 species of anadromous fish to the permit.
Challenges Ahead
We recognize the need to strengthen both our management and scientific programs in support of HCPs. In my short time in my current position, it is readily apparent that of the funding set out in the Administration's request, this new, innovative and creative locally-driven program is not receiving what is necessary for future success. It seems particularly obvious that land-owner's complaints about our lack of timeliness, staff turnover, lack of follow through on monitoring and other concerns will continue as a direct result of inadequate support of the Administration's budget requests.
For example, in BY 1999, NMFS spent about $23 million to foster the recovery of Pacific salmonids. This included recovery planning, section 7 consultations, and HOP development. The NMFS FY 2000 ESA salmon recovery budget initiative requests $24.7 million in new funding to strengthen our management and scientific capabilities.
Without these increased resources, the pace and scope of HOP development will be greatly constrained.
Conclusion
Our HCP program has as well as Federal agencies; however, it is still a work in progress. HCPs are one of the major actions we are taking to meet the challenge of recovering salmon and other endangered and threatened species. While HCPs may not be the perfect vehicle for landowners, they are certainly more constructive than any previous approach to working with non-Federal partners to protect listed species.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering any questions.