SKI has a staff of twenty scientists, including wildlife biologists, foresters, and marine ecologists. We are active in many ESA issues, advising on listing decisions and conservation measures, carrying out research, sitting on Recovery Teams, and helping with HCPs. Most of our work is for government, but we also work closely with both industry and environmental groups. I have personally been involved with six HCPs, and was advisor to Dr. Kareiva on the AIBS project. I will report on two issues: the recently completed Pacific Lumber HCP, and the SKI Santa Barbara meeting on integrating science into HCPs.
HCPs are important to conservation. Without HCPs there would be few options for management of endangered species on non-federal lands. Rigorous scientific analyses are crucial to these plans. However science is just part of any HCP. Ultimately the Plan is the result of negotiation, and of decisions made by landowners and regulatory agencies. Science can help in this process, but it is not a magic bullet. Scientists can provide information on planning objectives and options, and on the biological consequences and risks of these options. The better the information provided by scientists, the more likely that planners will make good decisions.
In the Pacific Lumber HCP, we used science to defuse a controversial situation. We coordinated a large scientific program on the threatened Marbled Murrelet. Federal, state and private scientists cooperated to determine the effects of different management options. Ultimately the program was successful, in that it provided clear guidance to decision-makers. Several items stand out: Firstly, the program was well-funded by the company, which invested heavily in obtaining good scientific information. Secondly, the quality of the scientific work was improved by an independent advisory or 'peer review' panel. In the accompanying chart, I show the results of an independent audit of the PalCo HCP, using the same techniques as used in the AIBS study. You will see that the quality of the HCP improved dramatically from the early (1997) to the final draft, under panel guidance. Note also that the final plan outperforms other Murrelet HCPs that did not have such guidance.
A third important point on the Pacific Lumber HCP was that the scientists were not asked to make management decisions. This separation of roles is key. The use of good science can build trust between parties, precisely to the extent that scientists avoid becoming advocates.
I am pleased that Dr. Kareiva, in his discussion of the AIBS study, agrees that the PalCo Murrelet monitoring plan uses good science. This monitoring program was developed using the most advanced analytical techniques available. The AIBS study was useful in pointing out that not all HCPs do use such methods, or even information that already exists. However the AIBS investigation was essentially a research study - it did not address important practical considerations and limitations, or how to best improve the process.
In April of this year, SKI (with NCEAS and other support) brought together leading decision-makers and scientists to develop practical improvements. Participants included academics, representatives of environmental and industry groups, and of federal and state agencies. Working by consensus, we identified numerous ways to strengthen and improve the process (as outlined in the minutes of the meeting). There was for instance general recognition that the regulatory agencies, and many HCP applicants lack sufficient resources for the technically demanding tasks they face. Academic and other scientists can help to bridge these gaps, but often lack incentives or opportunities to do so. Most importantly there are significant barriers to making more effective use of science. We need new infrastructure to make this happen.
The SKI Santa Barbara group initiated development of a national peer review program for HCPs. We are now working to make this a reality, and have expanded our group to include leaders from professional societies, and other partners. By this consensus approach, we are seeking voluntary improvements to HCPs. By improving the science in their plans, permit applicants will smooth the negotiation process, save time and money, and gain certainty that their plans will be approved. The general public also wants to see better science in HCPs - an open peer review process will improve public confidence in ESA decisions.
Action Items from the SKI Santa Barbara Group
1. Publication of conclusions.
The minutes have been distributed. Brosnan will take the lead in writing up the discussions in a format suitable for dissemination or publication.
2. Peer review and Involvement of independent scientists
SKI will coordinate a group (including those present) who will develop the new infrastructure for such involvement. The group will identify strategies for dealing with issues of impartiality, training, funding, etc.
3. Production of a document on 'how to make a good HCP'
This will not be an advocacy document, but a roadmap for applicants who want to do a good job. SKI will discuss with the various parties whether they wish to participate in production of such a document.
4. Biological goals
The Group recommended that scientists engage with the USFWS and help in the delineation of biological goals, generally, and at the species level. Scientists need to play a role in large scale analysis of species and conservation efforts, and "conservation blueprints," or master plans, should be developed as early as during the listing process in order to guide the biological goals and objectives of HCPs and, ideally, to create closer links between HCPs and recovery. USFWS will seek help when appropriate, but proactive involvement of the scientific community in this process would be highly desirable.
5. Monitoring
The Group recommended that scientists provide guidance to the Services on setting general monitoring standards and objectives. This might include explicit statistical treatment of, for instance, Type 11 errors, and the appropriate level of confidence for making decisions under the precautionary principle. The professional societies might help here.
6.Uncertainty and risk
An explicit treatment of uncertainty should be a part of any HCP. It is important to keep a complete administrative record that acknowledges risks, and how these are assessed and dealt with. Decision-makers (agency and applicant) will make the call, but scientists need to provide clear statements where possible. HCPs should articulate information gaps. These should not be seen as liabilities, or targets for litigation, but as real needs, which have to be dealt with. The precautionary principle, adaptive management, and well-designed monitoring can all be appropriate ways of dealing with uncertainty.
Population Viability Analyses are favored by some, but are not always useful in resolving problems. Sometimes PVA is most useful in telling you what you don't know (this can guide decision-makers, and help identify where additional research is necessary). PVA is not a blanket solution, and decision-makers should be aware of its limitations.
Most of the tools for dealing with uncertainty are already available. However they are brought piecemeal to HCPs, depending on the experience of those preparing the plans. We need a more consistent approach, which might be fostered by a 'guidance document'.
7. Further analyses
The Group noted that the AIBS/NCEAS study could be taken further, with additional work on, for instance, the context of the individual HCPs (is good science correlated with a good HCP?), how uncertainty was dealt with, the adequacy of peer review, etc. There might be value in including other conservation plans (e.g. federal plans) in the analysis, to determine whether HCPs fare well or poorly in comparative terms. The existing study group members were encouraged to pursue these lines, which would make the study results more useful to managers.