TESTIMONY OF DON KNOWLES
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ON HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE
ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND DRINKING WATER
NOVEMBER 3, 1999
Mr. Chairman, my name is Don Knowles and I am Director of
the Office of Protected Resources in the National Marine Fisheries
Service, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Thank you for the opportunity to testify on our program
for approving Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) submitted to our
agency in application for an incidental take permit under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as some of our concerns.
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 HCP 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 HCP 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 HCP 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 permittee
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 HCP 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 ecosystems across large areas,
particularly when this management includes significant human alterations
from resource extraction to infrastructure 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 landowner'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 FY 1999, NMFS spent about $23 million to foster
the recovery of Pacific salmonids. This included recovery planning,
section 7 consultations, and HCP 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 HCP
development will be greatly constrained.
Conclusion
Our HCP program has many benefits for non-Federal landowners
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.