The Nature Conservancy is an international non-profit conservation organization dedicated to preserving the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. We maintain offices in all 50 states and work with partner organizations in 17 countries. We have helped protect 10.5 million acres in the United States and Canada and ourselves own 1,600 preserves -- the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Our efforts are supported by more than 1,000,000 individuals members and hundreds of corporate associates committed to reversing degradation of the biodiversity and natural resources on which our lives depend.
The Nature Conservancy has been involved in conservation planning under the ESA since Section 10(a) was authorized in 1982. We have played a major role in a number of Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) processes, including Coachella Valley California, Clark County, Nevada, Balcones Canyonlands in Texas and the Natural Community Conservation Planning program in Southern California. Our organization has witnessed the evolution of habitat conservation planning from its beginnings on San Bruno Mountain to its current state of the art in Southern California with the NCCP program. The comments and observations I offer today reflect both the Conservancy's long experience and my own as a student and practitioner of conservation planning.
There are two key points in my testimony. The first is that habitat conservation planning as it has generally been practiced under the ESA, while an important tool in protecting endangered species, has not achieved the conservation gains that the ESA contemplates, namely the recovery and delisting of species. There are a number of reasons why this is so, and I will try to focus on the scientific ones. Second -- the good news -- is that there are some scientific and biological adjustments that can be made to the planning program to greatly increase conservation outcomes without undermining the other benefits the program provides. I want to use the example of the Southern California regional conservation planning program under NCCP to illustrate many of these points.
THE LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT PRACTICE
Before undertaking an examination of the science of HCPs, it is important that we look at what HCPs are as a conservation tool and what they are not. Section 10 of ESA provides a way for non-federal project proponents to avoid the legal consequences of incidentally taking endangered species in the course of otherwise lawful activities. Almost all HCPs are begun when a proposed activity is likely to result in the take of a listed species, and the conservation provisions that arise from an HCP are generally intended to avoid or mitigate the take of some individuals of a species. Is that wrong? Probably not. Full mitigation for unavoidable impacts is arguably a fairly reasonable standard for private parties. But is that good conservation? I submit that it falls far short of conservation of biological diversity, nor is it the type that the Endangered Species Act intends -- recovery of listed species.
Part of the problem is that HCPs as they have been practiced are initiated much too late from a scientific standpoint. Most are begun when a species is already listed, which means that it is almost at the brink of extinction. Many biological -- and political and economic -- options are foreclosed by that point.
Most HCPs are also the wrong biological scale. While there has been an increase recently in multiple-species conservation plans around the country and the Fish and Wildlife Service has promoted them, even these plans are still mostly focused on reacting to proposed effects on listed species on non-federal land. They have rarely been used as a mechanism to create conservation solutions in advance of conflict on a broad scale for interconnected natural communities of species. And biologically, most HCPs miss an entire scale of conservation -- that of ecosystem level process and function that sustains those species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been working hard to improve the habitat conservation planning program. They have done their best to try and make the HCP program more conservation oriented, both through practice and through policy. What's more, this issue is perhaps the most emotional, difficult and controversial issue in contemporary conservation policy and the Service is in the middle. Their solutions, however, are limited by a legislative policy weak on natural systems conservation and on incentives to participants. It is difficult to envision a broad-based, conservation-focused program arising from a statute that is largely based on prohibiting improper actions rather than enabling and encouraging constructive ones. The Service has done well, all things considered.
So, what is the answer to these issues from a scientific standpoint? Many have suggested that it lies in improving the recovery planning process. If we have good recovery plans, they say, then we'll be able to handle all of those other issues. I disagree. We believe that recovery planning is not the best solution for a couple of critical reasons. First, it is still species focused. While there are a few multiple species recovery plans in existence, they are generally still focused on the species themselves and not on natural communities and other critical scales of biological diversity that are essential to craft a viable solution. Even if they were not, there's no regulatory handle for anything other than species. Second, recovery plans also come too late. They are only prepared when a species is listed. And Congress is unlikely to legislate recovery plans and enforcement authority for species that are not yet listed.
Others have suggested that the answer lies in new legislation to regulate ecosystems. While this is a good idea it is not very practical, because from both biological and regulatory perspectives species are the only reasonably definable unit. Besides, there will always be species that require specific, individual intervention to survive and should not be ignored. So directing all our attention at an ecosystem scale is also an incomplete solution. The key instead is how we focus our entire suite of conservation actions and how they are deployed.
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES
There are some basic scientific principles that must be considered if we are to effectively achieve broad-scale, natural community conservation under the ESA (Noss et al. 1997).
Biodiversity conservation must be concerned with many different spatial and temporal scales. There is never one best scale for either research or action. The key is to find the most appropriate scale for the problem at hand and then integrate across scales in an overall conservation strategy. The problem with endangered species conservation to this point is that it frequently focuses exclusively on a scale that is too small, both geographically and biologically. It is appropriate to evaluate the impact of a housing project on a beach mouse colony, but we should also be evaluating how that decision integrates into the overall survival of both that species and the entire barrier island natural community.
Ecosystems are more complex than we think. There are many complexities at all levels of biological organization that cannot be measured, perceived, or even conceived of, that directly affect the viability of conservation solutions. Science can never provide all the answers to questions about conservation, so the response should be to exercise both caution and prudence when designing answers. Wise solutions don't necessarily try to compensate for factors that cannot be defined, but at the same time they leave room for them. A good example of this is true adaptive management, where the results of ongoing monitoring are used to adjust the conservation program based on new information and changes in circumstance.
Nature is full of surprises. Ecological systems are characterized by non-linear, non-equilibrium and often seemingly random dynamics. Both unexpected events and unanticipated consequences affect the long term viability of any conservation solution. This uncertainty is a given, and its runs directly counter to the political, social and economic desire for predictability in the outcome of conservation plans. It is better to be forthright in acknowledging that the issue of "no surprises" is not a scientific question of predicting the future, but instead a social question of how to deal with those surprises.
Conservation planning is interdisciplinary, but science is the foundation. Creating a long-term solution for species and the ecosystems on which they depend is a complicated exercise in reconciling social, political, legal, economic and biological factors. But if science must be one of several competing interests in the negotiation instead of the method of evaluating how to reach specified objectives, then conservation outcomes will always be undermined. This raises the critical issue of how to integrate both scientific information and scientists themselves into the planning process.
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Given these important principles and the limitations of current conservation planning practice and policy in crafting long lasting, broad-scale solutions to endangered species problems, what are some scientific improvements that can be made to the program? Fortunately, there is now a good example of how to break the mold to improve both the science and the policy of conservation planning.
The Natural Community Conservation Planning program in California is an attempt to move beyond the reactive conservation planning of tradition and to a more up-front, creative program that will provide greater biodiversity conservation gains while at the same time, enabling broader regulatory certainty than is possible under a single-species, project by project oriented program.
NCCP is a useful illustration of the science issues involved in regional conservation planning, from data use to addressing questions of scientific uncertainty. The features that make it different, both scientifically and politically, from HCPs (even other large scale plans) are the way the program addresses the scientific principles listed earlier. Perhaps the most critical among them are the clear, regional scientific guidance that was developed early in the program, the habitat level of conservation action that emphasizes connectivity and landscape conservation, and how biological information has been brought to bear on the planning process.
The elements of Natural Community Conservation Planning (identified by the principle they address from above) that are relevant to today's testimony are:
A Regional Framework for Habitat Conservation Planning, Analysis and Implementation (Principle A). NCCPs are based on formally delineated geographic planning regions. These regions contain a biologically significant scale of the habitat-types that are the focus of the planning and implementation programs. This regional framework, both biological and political, allows for an emphasis on better long-term habitat protection system design (large core habitat areas, landscape connectivity, etc.) while providing planning flexibility to allow for appropriate development and growth.
Habitat-based Conservation Planning and Action (Principles A and B). Unlike traditional habitat conservation plans that generally focus on the needs of individual species, NCCPs are created for groups of species connected through one or more shared habitat-types or "natural communities." This approach is less concerned with the occupied habitats of listed species than with creating a regional conservation system based on strong principles of reserve design. By formulating solutions and taking most conservation actions at a habitat scale, long-term issues such as habitat fragmentation and connectivity between significant habitat areas are generally much more effectively addressed than by project-by-project, species oriented plans. This does not mean that the needs of individual species were ignored in the process. Some of them require specific attention. But rather than focusing on all species as if they were separate, NCCPs directs conservation action at the habitat scale.
Comprehensive Management and Monitoring (Principle C). All land and water resources protected in NCCPs are managed strategically and adaptively to increase the habitat value of protected areas over time. Key features of adaptive management and implementation monitoring programs include:
Feedback from a comprehensive research and monitoring program is used to modify land and water management actions and techniques as necessary over the life of the implementation program Comprehensive monitoring programs include monitoring of biological resources, assessing mitigation performance and monitoring implementation provisions such as funding and preserve assembly
Periodic reporting is provided by the NCCP plan implementing agency to wildlife agencies and to the public (through workshops) to provide information and evaluate progress toward attaining program objectives
Clear Scientific Guidance and Foundation (Principle D). NCCPs are based on well-applied scientific and commercial information linked directly and factually to decisions made under the plan. Key features of the scientific basis for NCCPs include:
Independent (i.e., non-wildlife agency) scientists developed regional conservation guidelines early in the process to provide the broader biological context and scientific premises for large-scale planning. These guidelines were applied to individual plans and local situations
Wildlife agencies assured that species survey protocols, habitat mapping and adherence to state law and regional conservation guidelines are applied
Subregional and subarea plans were formulated with scientific input from local biologists and species experts consistent with the regional scientific guidelines
CRITICAL SCIENTIFIC ISSUES ADDRESSED BY NCCP
When the California gnatcatcher was proposed for listing in the late 1980s, everyone recognized it was the tip of a very large iceberg. The consensus among all stakeholders, public and private, was that creating conservation plans for the entire range of the natural community and all its species was the only way to avoid the conflicts of dozens of future listings. To address this from a scientific perspective, the state of California assembled a panel of independent academic scientists to develop overall guidance for regional conservation plans. These regional guidelines were not a de-facto recovery plan, nor were they a prescription for local conservation solutions, but they provided a science-based framework and point of reference for the development of local plans, as well as way to measure the adequacy of those local plans from a regional natural community standpoint. The guidelines were, in a sense, the "picture on the top of the puzzle box.
Approaching the problem from a regional, natural community based perspective allowed a number of key scientific issues to be dealt with. First, regional conservation guidelines provided a scientific mechanism for ensuring consistency of locally developed conservation plans. They were hi ghly credible because they were developed by independent scientists. By addressing the issue of ecosystem scale and providing guidance on how to approach it, the regional guidelines freed local planners to focus on the species and habitats within their jurisdiction, but also to integrate their efforts with an equally critical regional whole.
Second, by focusing conservation actions on a habitat level instead of exclusively on the individuals of a species and the habitat they currently occupied, NCCP did a much better job than most plans of minimizing further habitat fragmentation and even restoring habitat connectivity. Most HCPs seem pre-occupied with protecting the existing locations of species. For some species, this may neither be wise, nor even scientifically supportable. But NCCP concentrated instead on building a conservation system of the largest reserve areas possible of high quality habitat, connected throughout the landscape. This was obviously done with an eye to rare species locations, but these were one of several important factors rather than the driving force for reserve design. Some unoccupied habitat patches were protected at the expense of occupied ones because they provided better overall reserve design and long term viability for the natural community.
Finally, no conservation plan can eliminate scientific uncertainty. As I stated before, surprises are inherent in nature. The real issue is who assumes the risk. But, a legitimate scientific issue for conservation planning is how to minimize the effect of unknowns on the long-term conservation strategy. The best way to do this in addition to a good regional framework and habitat based action, is with a comprehensive adaptive management and monitoring program that provides feedback to inform adjustment of biological management (and even potentially reserve locations during the preserve assembly period) based on the results of targeted research. This element is even more important in conservation plans based in a "working landscape" like timber production or agriculture or water delivery because, unlike in urbanizing settings, both the reserves and the impact areas may not be irreversible. In urbanizing or development settings, as with many HCPs, most impacts are permanent. Over time, some may fall victim to manifestation of scientific unknowns. But the best way to decrease the potential for this occurrence is through strong, regional reserve design and comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON POLICY AND FUNDING
Clearly, the best way to minimize endangered species problems is with a planning program that emphasizes preventative medicine, not emergency room care. It is essential to reiterate, however, that our current policy approach does not make this very easy.
Enabling a regional, habitat based conservation planning program is difficult under the current configuration and implementation of the ESA. It concentrates both our policy and our resources on responding to immediate crises. The state of California had to pass special enabling legislation in 1991 to authorize NCCP to "sustain and restore those species and their habitat which are necessary to maintain the continued viability of biological communities impacted by growth and development," and to "streamline the regulatory process and provide a structure for economic development planning that provides reasonable predictability and assurances for future projects." The federal ESA, without benefit of any policy changes, had to be creatively stretched to fit around those broad goals.
Of perhaps greatest importance is a source of funding to develop and implement these plans. One lesson that has become crystal clear in working on NCCP and other conservation plans on private lands is that there is a gap in outcome between the mitigation the ESA requires in exchange for incidental take and what is needed to achieve lasting conservation of biological diversity. As long as that gap remains unresolved, we will never reach the conservation goals for biological diversity that we aspire to and we will never resolve the political conflict around endangered species. Recovery of species will remain both a lofty dream and a battle for courtrooms and lawyers. We could argue endlessly over whose responsibility it is to fill the gap -- for example, some believe that it should be filled by requiring greater mitigation and compensation by private parties for their impacts. But, as I tried to explain earlier, there are habitats and places that are important for regional conservation of biological diversity where the ESA doesn't even apply. And there are still other places where we simply can't allow enough impacts to listed species to generate enough mitigation to fill the gap, even if we were politically inclined to do so.
The real -- and the most simple -- answer lies in public funding to close the gap between what the law provides for and what long-term conservation of biodiversity requires. The current debate over re-authorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund seems to me to be the perfect opportunity to create an Endangered Species Problem Solving Fund that would allow regional, habitat-based conservation programs that are based in sound science and that create broad conservation solutions to receive the public funding needed to be successful. It would both allow habitat conservation plans to achieve much better conservation results and be a strong incentive to private landowners to participate in the objectives of the ESA.
The Nature Conservancy is committed to work with Congress, public agencies and private interests to help resolve the important scientific issues surrounding habitat conservation planning. We are also fully committed to helping ensure that funding is available for long-term conservation successes. We focus all our own resources on this goal, but that is not enough -- we need increased public investment in conservation. We congratulate the Committee on its vision in discussing these issues, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to provide input on behalf of The Nature Conservancy.
Figure A. The Southern California NCCP Planning Region
Michael A. O'Connell is senior advisor for Science and Policy for the California Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. He has been a student and practitioner of habitat conservation planning under the ESA for more than twelve years, and has published numerous articles and co-authored two books on conservation planning. The first, Reconciling Conflicts Under the Endangered Species Act, in 1991, was the first nationwide evaluation of HCPs. The second, published in 1997, was The Science of Conservation Planning. Mr. O'Connell has played an active role on the ground in two regional conservation planning processes for The Nature Conservancy -- the first in Brevard County, Florida, and the second in Southern California with the Natural Community Conservation Planning program. He is also chair of the Policy Committee for the Board of Governors of the Society for Conservation Biology.