31 



some sort of strategy within NMFS or the EPA to look at this sys- 

 tematically? 



Because one of the problems here is that, as far as I can tell, the 

 homework has not been done, possibly because it is beyond our 

 ability — you know, all I can do is raise the questions. I do not know 

 what the answers are on that. So, is there a strategy for addressing 

 these kinds of questions in the future? This is not the last time this 

 question is going to come up. 



Mr. BiGFORD. There are certainly strategies among Federal agen- 

 cies to monitor marine environmental quality. It is not just a mis- 

 sion of NOAA's. When you threw in EPA, that is appropriate, be- 

 cause EPA is very involved in this through their E-Map Programs. 

 NO A A has a Status and Trends Program. NO A A has a lot of other 

 living resource monitoring programs. The Department of the Inte- 

 rior is talking about embarking on a biological survey. I think 

 there are a lot of Federal agencies that are part of this, working 

 very closely with State agencies. The problem with a lot of that is 

 that it does not focus on endangered species. If you want to apply 

 some of the findings to endangered species, it is a secondary use of 

 the information, rather than a focused intent of the monitoring 

 program. That is one of the benefits of a biological opinion and a 

 recovery plan — you can focus some of the monitoring work directly 

 on the species of concern. 



NOAA research and monitoring often does not get very specific 

 about right whales and short nose sturgeon or any other listed spe- 

 cies, or their critical habitat. The finer research objectives divide 

 our budget with fewer resources and attention focused on any one 

 of them. I think the "we" is all-encompassing. It holds for the Na- 

 tional Marine Fisheries Service, but I think it also holds for a lot of 

 other groups. It is an expansive need that has never been met. 



Mr. Kraus. Is there coordination? You had mentioned several 

 different agencies doing what sounded like similar things. Is there 

 coordination between the agencies, or is this 



Mr. BiGFORD. There definitely is coordination between EPA and 

 NOAA. The Department of the Interior and its biological survey is 

 very new on the block, and I know that EPA and NOAA have been 

 meeting with them, but that does not involve me and I do not 

 know much about that. It is less than a year old. NOAA and EPA 

 are working very closely together, sharing platforms, sharing re- 

 search protocols, monitoring objectives, working very closely. But 

 remember that it only comes together with endangered species 

 through a recovery plan. As the Congressman has pointed out, the 

 recovery plan has not been fully implemented. So, there is a great 

 opportunity to do a better job here. No one would deny that. 



Colleen, maybe you have something to add to that? 



Ms. CooGAN. Yes. If I could, I would like to contribute a little bit. 

 Right now in the Northeast, NMFS does not really have a dedicat- 

 ed endangered species research program going on. As you know, 

 most of our information comes from independent researchers 

 scrambling for funding. Every year it comes from a different place. 

 We have looked at habitat, or area-wide impacts for endangered 

 species, again, through the Section 7 consultation process. It has 

 been done with a few rivers, looking at short nose sturgeon. We are 

 initiating bay-wide consultations and region-wide consultations 



