STATEMENT OF MONICA MEDINA, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ON HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN SCIENCE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND DRINKING WATER
JULY 21, 1999

Mr. Chairman, my name is Monica Medina, and I am General Counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the science that serves as a basis for Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) agreed to under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The Importance of HCPs

NOAA is responsible for 52 species listed under the ESA, including salmon, sea turtles, whales, dolphins, seals, and other species. The breadth of our challenge in recovering these species is great, so we cooperate with non-Federal landowners such as states, Tribes, counties, and private entities to do this important job. For instance, we have the challenge of ensuring the survival and recovery of salmon across a geography that spans the Pacific coastline from the Canadian border to Los Angeles. In addition, 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 both commercial property and salmon habitat.

Long-term management of habitat, such as that done through HCPs with non-Federal landowners, has proven to be the most effective means of recovering species. HCPs are also a popular conservation tool for both the private property owner and NOAA. So far, NOAA has issued only 2 incidental take permits associated with an HCP, but we are a party to 5 Implementing Agreements for HCPs issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and are currently negotiating approximately 35 additional HCPs. All of the large-scale HCPs developed by NMFS concern salmon. NOAA has issued joint guidance with the FWS on how to assist applicants in developing HCPs. Our HCP handbook describes the information we need to evaluate whether these plans will be effective and accomplish their goal of minimizing and mitigating the effects of taking threatened and endangered species. The Services assist the applicant in exploring alternatives, and are flexible when prescribing mitigation measures. We do not impose one size-fits-all prescriptions on applicants. When participants provide an unusual, but scientifically credible analysis of effects, or a creative but effective solution for mitigating the effects of incidental taking, we will seriously consider their approach.

Flexible implementation of the ESA has become the hallmark of this Administration's efforts to conserve species, and it is evidenced in our draft 5-point policy with FWS, proposed last March. One of the important aspects of this policy is adaptive management. Adaptive management 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, 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 permitted could demonstrate that a more relaxed management strategy is appropriate as time goes on.

Science

NOAA is required by the ESA to use the best available information in making its determinations, including all HCP permit decisions. This means that our agency is legally required to utilize the best available science -- data, analysis, models, and synthesis. 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.

For example, in development of the aquatic management component of a timber HCP, our biologists work closely with academic, state, tribal, and local agency scientists to gather all relevant data for the watershed, including hydrology, salmon population dynamics, sediment dynamics, water quality, and forest successional structure. When necessary, additional data is collected in the field to augment existing information. Management goals and objectives are developed to ensure healthy spawning grounds, good quality rearing habitat, suitable temperatures, and safe fish passage conditions. The riparian corridor flanking the river is managed to ensure that the stream channel is maintained as a dynamic, natural system with intact physiological, biological, and chemical processes.

However, it is not a simple matter to manage ecosystems across large areas, particularly when this management includes significant human alterations from resource extraction or infrastructure development. We have solid, reliable, quantitative information on the temperature, water flow, fish passage, and water quality needs of salmon, but more subtle factors that may determine the long-term success or failure of ecosystem and endangered species management are only just beginning to be understood . New areas of scientific research such as nutrient cycling, food chain dynamics, biodiversity, population genetics, and climate change are at an emerging stage -- many significant new questions and concerns have been identified, but few practical tools and methodologies have emerged.

Our scientists fully recognize this uncertainty, and our HCP agreements are designed to manage biological risk in spite of the fact that in many cases we are implementing new, landscape-scale, ecological experiments. 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 HCPs are at the limits of our scientific capability and knowledge, extensive monitoring and adaptive management strategies are essential. By monitoring as many indicators of ecosystem and species health as possible, we can adjust our management strategies as we discover how the ecosystem responds to our management regimes, If we do a good job of monitoring and assessing our management, we can learn from the successes and failures of the preceding HCPs and apply that new knowledge in new HCPs.

Our scientists work closely with their scientific peers in academia and other agencies to review ecosystem management approaches. We welcome scrutiny from the scientific community and the informed public as this helps to ensure that the HCPs are of the highest quality. HCP programs are subject to intense debate and review within the agencies, as well as in professional conferences and peer-reviewed journal articles. Furthermore, all HCPs must fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the ESA, which ensures ample review and comment on all science and management approaches.

HCP Successes

At this time, I would like to discuss some of our science-based HCPs that incorporate the principles just mentioned.

The Mid-Columbia draft HCP, now ready for public review and comment and expected to be signed this year, is an example of how NOAA is using performance-based goals in addition to prescriptive measures. This HCP is focused 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 of 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 the two Public Utility Districts (PUDs). The federal and state agencies' fisheries experts agreed that a maximum amount of unavoidable project mortality was 9%. Required fish survivals are expressed in two ways -95% juvenile fish passage at each dam, and 91% survival at each dam for both adult and juvenile fish.

Specific methods to attain the 91% project survival were not described, but would be left to the project operators for the first five years of the HCP (thereafter it is a joint process with the NMFS and FWS). Studies to develop the fish-survival improvements will use the best technology and methods available and review of study proposals will be done collaboratively. In addition to the FWS and NMFS, oversight will be provided by the parties to the negotiations -- the state agencies, local Tribes, and an environmental group.

Compensation for the 9% unavoidable fish loss will be met by a combination of hatchery production (7%) and tributary restoration (2%). A tributary habitat conservation fund established by the PUDs would be managed collaboratively to identify, design, construct, and monitor projects to increase natural fish production in the four tributaries (Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow and Okanogan rivers). The hatchery production would also be overseen by the broader group and designed to help recover listed species. This effort would be state-of-the-art in regards to ESA concerns (i.e., designed to produce fish in a manner consistent with recovering listed plan species and not deleteriously affecting other listed non-plan species such as Snake River salmon). In addition, the HCP contains detailed schedules and contingencies for every part of the agreement.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) HCP was signed by the FWS in January, 1997. NMFS signed the Implementing Agreement at that time as it did not have any listed species covered by the HCP; and then issued an incidental take permit in June, 1999 for recently listed salmon and steelhead. The HCP area covers 1.4 million acres of forest land in western WA and includes more than 133,000 acres of streamsides and unstable slopes around small headwater streams. The HCP employs a multi-disciplinary approach to forest landscape management. A Science Team, drawn from research and management scientists, was appointed by WDNR to assess conservation options for key species of fish and wildlife. The scientific record includes descriptive sections on species, habitats and potential impacts in the HCP and related NEPA documents (draft and final Environmental Impact Statements). In addition, there are published reports to the WDNR HCP Science Team that evaluated the likely effectiveness of a range of options for management of salmon, spotted owl, and marbeled murrelet habitats. The reports describe and rank various ways to meet, for example, the Science Team's objective to provide habitat that supports viable and well-distributed populations of salmon. The WDNR HCP includes several innovative features designed to advance the science of forestry and landscape conservation. A large block of state forest lands (264,000 acres, or almost 20% of the total plan area) is set aside specifically for watershed-scale experimental forest management. Another feature is validation monitoring that goes beyond the required HCP monitoring for compliance and effectiveness. Key assumptions about management measures will be tested with a variety of methods, including long term paired-watershed studies.

Implementation of the Pacific Lumber HCP, issued in February, 1999 and covering 210,000 acres, has begun in earnest with review of timber harvest plans and formalization of 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. This process entails detailed scientific analysis of each watershed's unique physical and biological characteristics and history of past natural and anthropogenic disturbance. The analysis will address how forest practices have resulted in changes in hydrology, riparian functions, or sediment input to streams that have resulted in adverse impacts to fish and fish habitat.

Challenges Ahead

We recognize the need to increase our science effort in support of recovery planning, section 7 consultations, and HCP development. NOAA's Pacific salmon expenditures in FY 1999 are expected to be $23 million, but only approximately $8.3 million of this is being spent on science. Only $3.3 million is funding risk assessment wherein NOAA scientists do research on factors affecting survival of at-risk salmonids, work on evaluating conservation measures and habitat restoration efforts, and provide economic analyses. $3 million is funding habitat assessment wherein NOAA scientists do research on survival and productivity of salmon in freshwater, estuarine, and ocean habitats. $2 million is funding salmon population dynamics research, wherein NOAA scientists are analyzing stock abundance and distribution; and are undertaking life history modeling, genetic studies, population viability analyses, and population monitoring.

The NMFS FY 2000 ESA salmon recovery budget initiative requested $24.7 million in new funding to strengthen our scientific capabilities. For example, $5 million of this funding would be used to increase our ability to partner with local agencies and private landowners in HCP development, and $4.45 million would be used to increase our ability to properly implement and monitor HCPs once they are developed. Related to this, $2.8 million would be used to improve our ability to analyze and assess the cumulative effects and risks to salmon populations caused by changes on a watershed scale. Also, $2.8 million would be used to develop recovery plans, and $2.2 million would be used for new research on the factors influencing ocean and estuarine survival of juvenile salmon. $1 million would be used to develop quantitative links between habitat, human impacts, and salmon stock productivity; and $1 million would allow NMFS scientists to work closely with the Department of Agriculture and EPA on water quality needs. Without these increased resources, the pace and scope of HCP development will be greatly constrained.

Conclusion

In conclusion, NOAA's HCP program is showing many benefits for non-Federal landowners as well as Federal agencies; however, it is still a work in progress. We are monitoring sites and adapting our management to what we see occurring on the landscape. HCPs are one of the major actions we are taking to meet the challenge of recovering salmon and other endangered and threatened species. HCPs are not perfect, but are a less confrontational and adversarial than our only alternative -- enforcing prohibitions on take under Section 9 of the ESA. We are doing what we can in the HCP arena to recover salmon, and ensure that future generations know of these magnificent fish.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.