ABOUT THE STUDY
The study was initiated in September of 1997 and was completed with the posting of all of its results and data on a publicly available website in January of 1999 (http:/www.nceas.ucsb.edu/projects/hcp/). We used the volunteer labor of 119 biological researchers, including 13 faculty members and 106 graduate students from eight premier research universities around the country (Yale University, University of California at Berkeley, University of California at Santa Cruz, University of California at Santa Barbara. University of Washington, University of Virginia, Florida State University and North Carolina State University). The study was supported by the AIBS (American Institute of Biological Sciences: $19,000) and NCEAS (National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis: $82,000). NCEAS is funded by the National Science Foundation as a center dedicated to bringing ecologists together to solve our most pressing problems in both basic science and in the arena of public interest (such as this HCP issue), and in a rapid-response fashion.
We examined 208 HCPs that had been approved as of August 1997. Of those 208, we took a sample of 43 HCPs for which we attempted to read every supporting document and every relevant article in the scientific or agency literature that might provide pertinent data. Often this amounted to reading several thousands of pages of documents and tables and speaking at length on the phone to biologists. Efforts were coordinated by using internet and the web to maintain a dialogue among research courses being taught at the eight different universities. Data analysis and actual synthesis of these data took place at NCEAS, which houses excellent conference and computer facilities. The database we produced contains 89,908 entries. This is the largest QUANTITATIVE STUDY of HCPs yet produced, and in some sense is the first quantitative study. By quantitative I mean that our evaluation of HCPs is in the form of actual numbers and scores which can be statistically analyzed and updated, as opposed to narrative descriptions.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY
1) We frequently lack adequate data regarding the most basic biological processes pertaining to endangered species - such as what is the rate of change in their populations locally? nationally? what is their reproductive schedule? what is happening to their habitats in quantitative terms (percent lost or gained per year) ?
2) Given the data available, HCPs generally make the best use of the existing information in a rational manner, and there is evidence that the quality of HCPs with respect to using science has been steadily improving.
3) However, for many HCPs. scientific data are so scant, that the HCPs really should not be called "science based" since science requires data from which inferences are drawn and tested. There is no agency failing here, nor any failing of individual writers of HCPs - no one could to a better job given the limited sources and poor quality of information that are available.
4) Very few HCPs included in the study were designed to include adequate monitoring of populations or habitats in a way that could at least allow us to learn from our actions and create databases that could inform fixture decisions. This is a golden opportunity that is being missed. Secondly, so-called "adaptive management" may be mentioned in HCPs, but an extremely small percentage of HCPs actually establish any adaptive management procedures (complete with statistical power analyses for assessing whether they are likely to work)
THE BOTTOM LINE
Everything preceding in my testimony has had very little of my personal emphasis, and instead reflects a straightforward condensation of the report which is available at the website above. However, I want to end by leaving you with what I see as the bottom line of this research regarding science in HCPs. Sometimes it is too easy to get lost in the details, and lose sight of the big message. I wish to emphasize, however, that this "bottom line" is my personal conclusion from the study -- what I pick out as its most important lessons.
1) The absence of a database that tracks patterns of population change and habitat alterations for threatened and endangered species is a national embarrassment. Often these data exist somewhere -- in a file drawer, in researchers' notebooks, or scattered among several publications. Yet in this age of computers and the interest, our databases and information on basic natural history of endangered species are staggeringly primitive. Many of us are aware of how much national or even state "computerized criminal databases" have revolutionized enforcement. The same should happen with resource management and endangered species protection. Without such databases we cannot know where are the "safe places" and the "dangerous places" for our endangered species. We need to be able to "go on line" and find out what is happening with endangered species in terms of hard numbers - how many individuals? where? how many acres of habitat? how much of the remaining habitat exists in publicly owned lands? and so forth. Investment in such a database would be in the best interests of all parties, so we can at least have access to the most current information before we begin debating the possible consequences of future actions.
2) We do not even have a national database that tracks the "paper" administrative record of HCPs. In other words, one cannot get on the internet and find a list of all HCPs that address a particular species or the total acreage of land for a species that is covered by the HCP process. Increasingly, HCPs are being placed online (a very positive trend), but the sort of administrative database that I feel is needed will require a much larger effort to synthesize and update information from many scattered sources in a format that will make the information easy to access.
3) In light of all this scientific uncertainty, if HCPs are to be pursued in the interest of balancing development and the environment, then minimally, HCPs should be required to include rigorous peer-reviewed monitoring programs that allow us to learn from them.
Mr. Chairman. thank you for this opportunity to testify. I know the HCP process is being seriously improved. In addition, I know from personal experience that certain recent HCPs (after the publication of our study) include state-of-the-art monitoring designs, backed up by high quality research (e.g., the Pacific Lumber Headwaters HCP and its monitoring program for marbled murrelets). Moreover, one reason I came to work as a scientist for the federal government and especially for NMFS is that it is easy to throw stones from an ivory tower and criticize how the government does its resource management science (and I have thrown some of those stones) - but I wanted to see if I could make the science work any better before I continued to criticize the job others were doing.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.