Interview with NCCP scientist Dennis Murphy

Ecosystem Planning Helps Save Imperiled Species and Avoid New Listings Without Economic Harm

Q: What is achieved at the Center for Conservation Biology where you are the director? You also are president-elect of the International Society for Conservation Biology. What does that entail?

A: The Center for Conservation Biology is part of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University. It was organized to develop the science of conservation biology, thus building a sound research basis for conservation, management, and restoration of biotic diversity. One of our primary missions is to translate the results of that research into the political realm to provide decision-makers with the technical information necessary for the development of biodiversity policy. The goal of the Society for Conservation Biology is similar. Its members help to develop the scientific and technical means to protect, maintain, and restore the global environment. We promote research and the dissemination of scientific, technical, and management information to achieve that end.

Q: It appears from your resume that you have focused on butterflies. Why do they interest you so? What do they tell us about biodiversity, or the environmental health of our planet?

A: Most people picture the working scientist taking copious notes on the behavior of chimps in the deep forests of Tanzania or radio-tracking wolves in the high Arctic, but the best science often is less romantic and involves species far less glamorous. Insects have been called "the little things that run the world," and but terflies in particular offer a wonderful lens through which we can view the workings of nature. Quite a bit already is known about the natural history of butterflies, and their short generation times makes them especially valuable as study organisms. As a kid, I caught butterflies and just never lost my affinity for them. I fell in love with them and the nature around me and never got over it.

Q: You worked with Jack Ward Thomas, now chief of the U.S. Forest Service, on conservation plans to preserve the Northern Spotted Owl. What did you conclude that may apply to California?

A: Working with the Interagency Spotted Owl Scientific Committee in 1989 and 1990 was a wonderful professional experience for me. We produced a groundbreaking conservation strategy that continues to withstand severe scrutiny and an onslaught of legal challenges. At that time, we were able to establish several basic tenets of reserve design that can be applied broadly and flexibly to different conservation planning exercises. A key message of that whole endeavor was that good scientific data, creatively applied, can bolster conservation efforts. That science includes answers to many of the seemingly intractable land use conflicts involving imperiled species. Many of the lessons I learned from planning for owls on the public lands of the Pacific Northwest have proven to be very useful in planning for the California gnatcatcher on private lands in the coastal sage scrub of Southern California.

Q: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued a proposed 4(d) rule under the Endangered Species Act for the Northern Spotted Owl that provides some relief from incidental take restrictions during timber harvest activities on various non-federal lands in Northern California, particularly if the approach of the state's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program has been adopted. How can this approach benefit management of the owl?

A: First, I am excited that Governor Wilson's model for conserving whole ecological communities is going to be tested in Northern California. Forest management problems now affect not only the spotted owl, but the marbled murrelet, salmon runs, and a significant number of lesser-known species in the region. Only an integrated planning effort on a regional scale will allow California to avoid more species listings. The northwestern forests are perfect ecosystems to apply a 4(d) rule using the NCCP approach. NCCP is a regional, multiple species, multiple habitat protection program. A front-loaded ecosystem planning model of this type allows state wildlife agencies to identify and protect areas of important habitats before they become so degraded by development that further species list ings are necessary. The NCCP approach could be very effective in the northwest ern forests, where timber harvest activities are the most significant threat to species existence, but where habitat can grow back after a disturbance.

Q: Do you think NCCP is workable in a wide variety of ecosystems and environments, or is it most effective under certain conditions and not others?

A: The conservation planning tenets that are the foundation of NCCP are meant to be applied both broadly and flexibly. Take the gnatcatcher for example. In many ways, the gnatcatcher presents a tougher challenge to conservation plan ners than did the Northern Spotted Owl. By comparison, very little is known about the gnatcatcher's biology, and it resides almost exclusively on private land. But with both species, I think we are proving that substantial conservation efforts can be carried out without shutting down development or commodity extraction.

Q: How can we enlist the voluntary support and cooperation of property owners to protect imperiled species?

A: Currently, there are few incentives for voluntary compliance built into the structure of the Endangered Species Act. Set-asides of property for habitat under the act often mean landowners see the value of their property diminished. This needs to change if we are going to foster stewardship on private lands. I would encourage a number of wide-ranging changes in endangered species policy that could help to reduce contention over the state and federal laws. My first suggestion is that the public lands really should serve as the core of habitat for our conservation efforts, where possible, alleviating to some degree pressure on private lands. Second, we must manage for ecosystems, not individual species, and do so with regional programs that spread costs. Third, we must encourage conservation using tax credits and other means to shift the bur den of species protection away from the individual and onto the public. Fourth, a market-based system of tradable preservation credits is necessary to bring real economic value to habitat on private land. Fifth, consideration of imperiled species and their habitats must become part of the local general planning exercises where development and enforcement are realized.

Q: Are the federal laws that protect the species as effective and workable as they could be? Are there changes you would recommend?

A: Neither federal nor state endangered species laws are nearly as effective as they could or should be a circumstance that has generated legitimate criticism from both environmental and development communities. Environmentalists point to ever-increasing numbers of endangered species deserving protection, and developers chafe under gridlock and the weight of mounting economic losses. However, the problems do not necessarily stem from the statutes themselves, but rather problems seem to emerge during implementation of legislative intent. In theory, the federal act particularly seems to offer tremendous latitude to agency staff and the private sector to engineer novel responses to the inevitable dilemmas that occur where imperiled species intersect human activities. In practice, the implementing agencies often seem to encourage conflict instead of compromise.

Q: What is your opinion of the current method for making listings under the ESA?

A: The wildlife agencies have never had a workable priority system for listing species. The Fish and Wildlife Service ostensibly lists species based on criteria related to the immediacy of threat and the rarity of the proposed organism. But, in fact, listings seem to be driven more by a desire to avoid litigation. If a petitioner threatens a lawsuit over a specific species, that species becomes the next priority. While that response is understandable, it's not getting us where we need to be in biodiversity protection. It is probably reasonable, if not popular, to suggest that listing determinations be based on a priority ranking that still allows them to be driven by biological considerations. For example, we need to begin to identify and conserve those species that are most likely to provide an umbrella of protection to others. Building effective conservation programs that target the ecosystems that support those species would eliminate the need for future listings from the same geographic areas. Strategically designed ecosystem-based programs for as few as several dozen species could put an end to new listings in California, except when a species is on the very brink of extinction. At that point, all other conservation measures have been foreclosed and the only remedy would be to use the full measure of protection provided by the ESA.

Q: How can we ensure that decisions regarding listings are based upon honest, careful, credible science?

A: Many critics of the ESA call for better science in all aspects of its implementation, especially in the listing process. It's hard to argue that better science would not contribute to better decisions. Unfortunately, the critics' specific call for mandatory scientific peer review of listings probably is not the answer. I suspect that most supporters of peer review are merely looking to slow decision-making and reduce listings. Since approximately 90 percent of species listings are not controversial, I think that peer review should be limited to controversial listings that indicate a significant economic impact. Well before the spotted owl and gnatcatcher were listed, the potential impacts on business as usual were obvious. In such cases, the agencies ought to be able to access a panel of scientific experts who can in turn direct them to the particular specialists who can help achieve an appropriate balance between conservation and development concerns. For the state, the panel might be patterned after the Governor's panel of economic advisers, but staffed with a number of the state's best biologists.