TESTIMONY 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 permittee
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.