Comparing perspectives of participants and outside commentators on habitat conservation plans.

Abstract

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) have become the primary mechanism by which the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is implemented on private land. Due to the dramatic increase in the number and size of plans, numerous scientists, conservation organizations, and other outside commentators have evaluated the HCP program. These reviews share several common themes including concern over HCP data adequacy and regulatory assurances as well as recommendations to increase participation and independent scientific review during HCP development. This paper briefly reviews these common themes and then analyzes interview responses from 121 participants of 31 plans in light of these issues. In general, participants' concerns and recommendations were different from those of outside reviewers. Participants generally felt that the data used in plans were adequate or more than adequate for the decisions that were made and they did not recommend using independent review to improve data quality. The most frequent problems and recommendations identified by participants involved political, economic, social, and logistical issues, rather than scientific issues. Participants' most common concern was the duration of time required to develop a plan. Regulatory assurances were the most frequent motivating factor named by HCP applicants. Because of the complexity of HCP processes, recommendations aimed at improving the conservation value of HCPs are more likely to be adopted and implemented if they are bundled with mechanistic proposals for how these changes can be effectively integrated into complex, expensive, and lengthy processes.

Comparacion de Perspectivas de Participantes y Criticos Externos en Planes para la Conservacion de Habitats

Resumen

Los Planes para la Conservacion de Hibitats (HCPs por sus siglas en ingles) han llegado a ser el principal mecanismo por medio del cual el Acta de Especies en Peligro de Extincion (ESA por sus siglas en ingles) es implementada en propiedad privada. Debido al incremento dramatico en el numero y tamano de estos planes, un numero significativo de cientificos, organizaciones conservacionistas y otros criticos externos han evaluado el programa de HCPs. Estas evaluaciones comparten algunos temas en comun que incluyen la preocupacion acerca de la adecuacion de los datos y aseveraciones regulatorias de los HCPs, asi como tambien recomendaciones para incrementar la participacion y revision cientifica independiente durante el desarrollo de los HCPs. Este articulo revisa en forma breve estos temas que las evaluaciones tienen en comun y en base a estos asuntos analiza las respuestas de 121 participantes en 31 planes. En general, las preocupaciones y recomendaciones de los participantes fueron diferentes de las mencionadas por los criticos externos. Los participantes generalmente expresaron que los datos usados en los planes fueron adecuados o mas que adecuados para las decisiones que fueron hechas y no recomendaron usar una revision independiente para mejorar la calidad de los datos. Los problemas y recomendaciones identificados mas frecuentemente por los participantes son de naturaleza politica, economica, social y logistica, y no de indole cientifica. La preocupacion mas comun de los partipantes fue la duracion del tiempo requerido para desarrollar un plan. Las garantias regulatorias fueron el factor motivador nombrado mas frecuentemente por los solicitantes de HCP. Debido a la complejidad de los procesos en HCPs, es mas probable que las recomendaciones que tienen como meta el mejoramiento del valor para la conservacion de HCPs sean adoptadas e implementadas, si estas recomendaciones estan acompanadas de propuestas con metas bien definidas de como estos cambios pueden ser efectivamente integrados a procesos complejos, costosos y largos.

Une Comparaison des Perspectives des Participants et des Commentateurs Externes sur les Plans de Conservation

Resume

Les plans de conservation sont devenus le mecanisme le plus important pour la mise en oeuvre de l'acte americain sur les especes en voie de disparition (le ESA) sur la propriete privee. En raison de l'augmentation dramatique du nombre et de la taille des plans, de nombreux scientifiques, organisations de conservation, et d'autres critiques independants ont evalue la methodologie de ces plans de conservation. Ces revues ont produit plusieurs recommandations en commun focalises sur la qualite de la science des plans, leur participation de facon independante, et la politique de 'Aucunes Surprises.' Cet article passe en revue brievement ces recommandations et analyse des reponses d'entrevue de 121 participants des 31 plans en consideration de ces themes. En general, les preoccupations et les recommandations des participants etaient differents de ceux des critiques externes. Les participants ont generalement estime que les donnees utilisees dans les plans de conservation etaient satisfaisantes ou plus que satisfaisantes pour les decisions qui ont ete faites et n'ont pas recommande d'employer une evaluation independante pour ameliorer la qualite de donnees. Les problemes et les recommandations le plus frequemment identifie par les participants impliquaient les issues politiques, economiques, sociaux et logistiques, plutot que les issues scientifiques. La preoccupation la plus importante des participants etait la duree du temps requise pour developper un plan de conservation. Les assurances de normalisation etaient le facteur de motivation le plus frequemment identifie par des requerants des plans de conservation. En raison de la complexite du processus des plans, les recommandations visees a l'amelioration de la valeur conservatrice des plans seront plus probablement adoptees et mises en oeuvre si elles sont empaquetees avec des propositions et objectifs bien definis sur la facon dont ces changements peuvent etre efficacement integres dans des processus complexes, chers, et prolonges.

Introduction

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) have become the primary mechanism for resolving conflicts between nonfederal land use and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In exchange for implementing conservation measures outlined in the HCP, a landowner receives an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), authorizing the conversion or modification of endangered species' habitat. Due to their growing prominence, spatial scale, and number, HCPs have received considerable scrutiny from outside commentators. These reviews have produced numerous recommendations aimed at improving the science, conservation value, and level of participation of HCPs. This paper seeks to complement these efforts by analyzing the results of an interview-based study of HCP participants conducted by the National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research (NCEDR). Using a subset of questions from that study, we summarize general feedback and specific perspectives on data adequacy, scientific review, and other factors influencing the incorporation of science and conservation into HCPs. Through this analysis we compare and contrast the recommendations and concerns of outside commentators with those of HCP participants. We also discuss how a better understanding of participant perspectives can help policy makers and participating scientists improve the conservation value of HCPs.

Recent assessments and commentaries have focused on the quality of science in HCPs, the effect of plans on endangered species, and the degree of outside participation in planning processes (Shilling 1997; Kareiva 1999; Hood 1998; Smallwood et al. 1999; Harding et al. 2001). These studies aim to provide an objective review of HCPs and have thus been primarily based on the opinions and analyses of independent researchers. We distilled the following critiques and major recommendations emerging from these studies regarding science and conservation within HCPs:

1. Science and data adequacy. HCPs should be based on high-quality scientific data and analyses (Noss et al. 1997; Shilling 1997; Kareiva 1999; Smallwood et al. 1999; Harding et al. 2001; Thomas 200la). HCPs have often relied upon science that is incomplete or inadequate (Bingham and Noon 1997; Hall 1997; Mueller 1997; Shilling 1997; Hood 1998; Smallwood et al. 1999; National Audubon Society 2003) or not sufficiently quantitative (James 1999); often HCPs do effectively utilize the available data, but these data may not be sufficient to predict the consequences of management actions (Kareiva 1999; Harding et al. 2001).

2. Independent participation/review. HCP processes should be open to participation by outside interests (Cullinan 1997; Kostyack 1997a; Aengst et al. 1998; Hood 1998) and include species experts (Harding et al. 2001). Independent scientists should "peer review" large HCPs or participate in a meaningful way throughout the planning process (Hosack et al. 1997; Noss et al. 1997; Shilling 1997; James 1999; Kareiva 1999; Thomas 200la).

3. Uncertainty and regulatory assurances. Regulatory assurances, or "No Surprises," were created to encourage landowners to participate in HCPs by reducing planning uncertainty. Under "No Surprises" landowners are not accountable for any additional mitigation beyond that which is outlined in the original plan. Scientists feel that these regulatory assurances pose some risk to species and must be designed to allow adaptive management (Kareiva 1999). Although several commentators voice opposition to "No Surprises" (Mueller 1997; Shilling 1997), many scientists and environmentalists experienced with HCPs acknowledge that some form of regulatory assurances are necessary to encourage participation from landowners (Dwyer et al. 1995; Kostyack 1997b; Noss et al. 1997; O'Connell & Johnson 1997).

In this paper, we analyze the responses of HCP participants in light of these recommendations. Although the agencies that oversee HCPs-the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)-have responded to outside critiques with policy changes (e.g., the "Five Point Policy Guidance," released in 2000 as an addendum to the HCP Handbook), they have also responded to participant concerns and complaints (Aengst et al. 1998).

HCPs are simultaneously scientific, legal, and political agreements negotiated by agency staff, landowners, consultants, and representatives of industry and environmental constituencies. Ultimately, these individuals make the final decisions regarding scientific content, conservation and participation within the complex negotiating and decision-making process of plan development. For these reasons, recommendations to change HCP policy are more likely to be implemented, both in policy and practice, if they are developed with a thorough understanding of current processes and are sensitive to the experiences of HCP participants. This paper seeks to shed light on these processes and experiences. Our intended audience includes those working to improve HCPs at the policy level as well as conservation scientists working directly within HCP processes.

Methods

We used the interview responses from a 1998 NCEDR study (Bidwell et al. 1999; Ostermeier et al. 2000) that investigated the decision-making processes in HCP development. The study focused on 31 HCPs or related plans and included, at a minimum, interviews with the landowner developing the HCP (the permittee) and the Agency staff person responsible for negotiations. For larger, more complex plans, additional participants were interviewed, including representatives of industry and environmental groups, consultants, and state-agency staff. A questionnaire of primarily open-ended questions was administered over the telephone. Bidwell et al. (1999) and Ostermeier et al. (2000) provide additional information about the NCEDR study methods. Ostermeier et al. (2000) provide a list of plans used in the NCEDR study. The list of plans, along with plan summaries, can also be found at http://www.ncedr.org/ casestudies/summaries.htm. The questionnaire can be found at http:// www.ncedr.org/casestudies/ protocol.htm.

Using a sub-set of questions from the NCEDR study, we analyzed the responses of 121 participants in HCP (or related plan) processes in light of the aforementioned concerns and recommendations of outside reviewers. Where possible, we stratified responses based on participant type: agency (includes primarily FWS, but also NMFS and state agency staff), permittee, consultant (generally hired by the permittee to develop the plan), representatives of environmental groups (local and national) and industry/agriculture groups (e.g., Farm Bureau, oil company, real estate). Industry representatives were distinct from the permittee but were involved with plan development (e.g., on a Steering Committee). For some analyses, permittees were divided into those representing public entities (e.g., a county) and private companies (e.g., a timber company).

Because participants were asked to qualitatively describe their opinion of data adequacy, we broadly classified their responses into three categories: good, adequate, and inadequate. Responses using positive words such as "great" or "more than adequate" were categorized as good. Responses that used neutral language and words such as "adequate" or "sufficient" without negative or positive qualification were grouped as adequate. Responses that used negative language such as "insufficient" or "lacking" were classified as inadequate. It is worthwhile to note that "data adequacy" in this context is simply a participant's perception of the quality of the data used in the plan, not a quantitative analysis of the data by the interviewee or any outside reviewer.

Results

Interviewees described diverse objectives for participating in HCP processes. Agency staff emphasized protection of the species, with 77% citing conservation or recovery of the species as an objective for the plan. (It should be noted here that this does not necessarily mean that 23% of agency staff do not think that conservation is important, simply that they mentioned other objectives when asked; this caveat holds for other questions and other participant types). Environmentalists also overwhelmingly cited conservation or recovery (85%), while industry representatives emphasized economic activity (77%). The most common objectives of public permittees were receiving a permit to facilitate economic activity, followed by conservation and streamlining the ESA process. Private permittees mentioned conservation less frequently (21%) and all mentioned the need to conduct economic activity.

Participants reported that the most common problems during the HCP process were the duration of the planning process, external problems such as politics and public opinion, agency bureaucracies, lack of guidance, and policy and/or legal constraints (Figure 1). As a sub-group, permittees felt that lack of guidance (35%), agency bureaucracy (30%), and the duration of the process (30%) were the most significant problems. Alternatively agency staff felt that policy or legal constraints (26%) and external problems (23%) were the biggest issues. Agency staff also cited the length of the process and agency bureaucracy (21% each) as problems they experienced during plan development.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

When asked how to improve HCPs, participants focused primarily on improving planning and decision-making processes (Figure 2). This general response category includes specific recommendations such as offering training for participants, using a facilitator, and ensuring that the actual decision makers were present during negotiations.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Three-quarters of the interviewees reported that collaborating on an HCP improved subsequent working relationships between the participants. Less than 10% indicated that relationships worsened, and many of these were from the same plan.

Below, participant responses are reviewed in light of outside reviewers' main concerns:

1. Science and data adequacy. Interviewees generally perceived the data to be adequate or more than adequate for the decisions that needed to be made (Figure 3); only 10% of all respondents characterized the data as inadequate. Additionally, interviewees rarely reported that data adequacy was a problem (Figure 1). In fact, among problems cited more than once, concern over the science, data, or scientific review was the issue least frequently reported by interviewees (4%).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

2. Independent participation/review. Only one interviewee reported that independent review had been used to resolve disputes over data adequacy, and no interviewee mentioned lack of outside review as being a problem encountered during the HCP process. Additionally, only 6% of interviewees recommended independent review as a way to improve HCPs (Figure 2). More participants recommended including all the stakeholders (19%) than limiting participation (<2%).

3. Uncertainty and regulatory assurances. The most frequently cited factor influencing permittees to apply for an ITP was regulatory certainty, with 63% of HCP permittees mentioning "No Surprises," "regulatory certainty" or "certainty." Other motivating factors included the need to conduct an economic activity (31%), avoiding liability (19%), and conservation (10%).

Discussion

Overall, the recommendations and concerns of HCP participants differ from those of outside commentators. While outside commentators have emphasized data adequacy, independent participation and concern over "No Surprises," participants focused primarily on challenges within the planning process.

Independent reviewers commonly identified data adequacy as a major problem with HCPs. However, most participants, including environmentalists, felt that the data were adequate or more than adequate for the decisions that were made. Participants in this study were more concerned with the social, political, and logistical dimensions of fashioning an HCP than with issues of data adequacy. Due to these constraints and the desire to achieve consensus, participants may have been willing to accept a lower threshold of data quantity and quality than that expected by academic scientists. Further, participants likely view data adequacy through several filters, including their training, ideology, and objectives for the plan. Finally, participants often came to understand and trust each other during the process, which may have increased participants' confidence in data provided by other members of the group.

Interviewees provided little evidence that meaningful outside review had been used to guide decisions, and, generally, participants did not advocate for more review. This may be the result of widespread satisfaction with data adequacy; common concerns about the length of time required to craft an HCP, or frustration with the existing review and approval process conducted by FWS and/or NMFS (collectively, the 'Services') (Ostermeir et al. 2000).

Expanding participation to include external scientists or conservation groups can significantly increase the time and cost of developing a plan (Ostermeier et al. 2000). This study and others (Lin 1996) have found that participants' primary frustrations with HCPs are the time and cost necessary to complete the process. These results emphasize that one of the great continuing challenges to increasing the role of independent scientists will be designing effective mechanisms for integrating expanded participation into already complex, long, and expensive processes.

Numerous commentators have suggested that regulatory assurances are necessary to encourage landowner participation in HCPs (Thornton 1997; O'Connell and Johnson 1997; Noss et al. 1997; Loew 2000), and this study supports that assertion. Two-thirds of HCP permittees listed certainty or regulatory assurances as influencing their decision to enter the HCP process. Because of the importance of assurances to landowner participation, reconciling "No Surprises" with effective conservation of dynamic ecosystems means balancing meaningful adaptive management with regulatory assurances (Thomas 200lb). Innovative, flexible legal agreements and effective scientific models and monitoring programs will be necessary to achieve this balance.

Recommendations

Focus on process. Recommendations to improve HCPs, such as incorporating more data or expanding scientific review, should focus not only on improved outcomes, but also on the processes necessary to achieve these outcomes. Without an effective process, scientific review is unlikely to be productive (Brosnan 2000), and even a comprehensive research program may fail to influence decisions (Price 1993). The importance and utility of process-based recommendations are emphasized by the fact that a majority of participant recommendations focused on process improvements, such as the organization of sub-committees, changes to the review process, and funding mechanisms. However, most outside commentators propose changes to HCP policy without considering how these changes can be implemented within complex planning processes. In this respect, Aengst et al. (1998) provide a notable exception with process-oriented recommendations to enhance public participation in HCPs.

For example, many outside commentators have recently recommended integrating independent scientific guidance throughout an HCP process rather than a review of the final product (Hosack et al. 1997; Noss et al. 1997; Thomas 200la). This recommendation recognizes that decisions, once negotiated, are generally difficult to modify (Aengst et al. 1998). Thus, this is a first step toward coupling recommendations to change outcomes (e.g., expanded independent scientific input) with an awareness of the complex processes in which the desired outcomes must occur. However, advocating for changes to the timing of review is only part of the solution. Participants frequently expressed frustration with existing review processes, feeling that they were lengthy and uncoordinated. Therefore, efforts to expand the contribution of independent scientists should be part of a larger strategy to create a coordinated, comprehensive, and efficient platform for scientific review and guidance, encompassing independent contributors, state agencies, the Services and other internal participants. Further, because high-quality scientific guidance will generally require compensation (Noss et al. 1997; Brosnan 2000) these reforms may also require new or innovative sources of funding.

Prioritization. HCP science operates within a complex arena of legal standards, logistical timelines, and political, social, and economic constraints. Although scientists should focus primarily on science, they should not proceed as if the other constraints do not exist. Thus, the ability to prioritize is one of the most important skills that scientists can offer an HCP process. For example, given the temporal and financial constraints, HCPs would greatly benefit from scientific guidance that prioritizes which questions require new data collection or analysis and which can be addressed through professional judgment. Scientists should also use their experience and expertise to help make clear the relative benefits of investing limited dollars in upfront research, land acquisition, or establishing a fund for long-term monitoring and adaptive management.

Communication. Most HCP participants were satisfied with data adequacy and generally felt that logistic and economic issues posed greater challenges than data adequacy. Although HCPs must function on several levels, to fulfill their touted role of contributing to species conservation, they must be grounded in scientific principles, including an understanding of cumulative effects, the limitations of available data and models, and the uncertainty inherent in many restoration and mitigation strategies. Conveying the importance of these and other concepts to an audience with diverse educational backgrounds, objectives, and filters for evaluating science requires considerable communications skills. This is particularly true when participants are focused on the political and economic constraints bounding the negotiations. While effectively communicating scientific concepts and the importance of strong scientific underpinnings to a lay audience is a challenge, it is one that conservation scientists are uniquely equipped to address.

Coordination. The skills described above--communication, prioritization, and working with an awareness of other constraints--may be bolstered by integrating practitioners, in addition to academic scientists, into review processes (Fleishman 2001) and by utilizing a science manager. A science manager is responsible for coordinating communication between scientists and decision makers and other HCP participants, and helping scientists effectively prioritize the questions and issues that are most needed.

Good science and participation not a panacea. Participant responses provided ample evidence that HCP decisions are often driven by political and economic factors. The inclusion of extensive data, scientific review, and outside participation cannot guarantee that HCPs will ultimately contain effective conservation measures. Illustrating the potential disconnect between scientific input and conservation outcome, several environmentalists interviewed about plans with a scientific advisory committee said they felt positively about the data but had concerns about the conservation value of the ultimate plan. One environmentalist stated that "the big decisions ... were based on politics," and another attributed a plan's conservation deficiencies to a "lack of political power." These anecdotes illustrate the fact that good science alone will not necessarily result in strong conservation. Ultimately, decisions made within HCPs reflect political power and tradeoffs between various values and priorities (Policansky 1998; Song and M'Gonigle 2000). These factors will tend to influence conservation outcomes more than the data contained within the plan and, therefore, it cannot be assumed that efforts to improve the science of HCPs will automatically improve their conservation value.

Conclusion

Habitat Conservation Plans have been promoted as an effective tool for resolving endangered-species disputes on non-Federal land. Although outside commentators have suggested numerous changes to HCP policy, most agree that HCPs provide a necessary mechanism for flexibility and compromise and, in some cases, provide the only source of funding for critical management actions (Beatley 1994). Participants expressed many frustrations with the process, but they too generally felt that HCPs provide a necessary and important tool. Although many participants (including agency staff) were frustrated with the bureaucracy and lack of guidance from FWS and NMFS, they often added that the Services' implementation of the HCP program was improving considerably through time. Thus, the basic foundation of the HCP program appears to be capable of achieving its promise of providing negotiated, compromise solutions that benefit both landowners and endangered species.

The extent to which this program actually does provide these dual benefits will depend on the political will to ensure meaningful conservation outcomes (Beatley 1994) and the continued fine-tuning of planning processes. Both independent commentators and HCP participants have much to contribute to this process of improvement. Recommendations for improving the conservation value of HCPs should be grounded in an understanding of current practices and the experiences of HCP participants. To be most effective, these recommendations should be bundled with mechanistic solutions to facilitate their integration into complex processes that are often money-limited, lengthy, and politically charged. The NCEDR interview-based study provides a promising start to the examination of the structures and processes that can either promote or hinder effective plan outcomes. Further research and analysis should be focused on evaluating HCP processes and structures and extending the lessons learned to current and future HCP practitioners.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the other members of the NCEDR team: D. Ostermeier, S. Schexnayder, D. Bidwell, S. Crismon, J. Merrick, and M. Miller. We would also like to thank the 121 interviewees who generously gave us their time and insights. Several people provided ideas which contributed to this effort, including T. Duane, B. Goldstein, B. Johnson, A. Merenlender, D. Ostermeier, and G. Pressley.

Literature Cited

Aengst, P., J. Anderson, J. Chamberlin, Grunewald, S. Loucks, and E. Wheatley. 1998. Balancing public trust and private interest: an investigation of public participation in habitat conservation planning. School of Natural Resources and the Environment. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Beatley, T. 1994. Habitat conservation planning: endangered species and urban growth. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Bidwell, D., D. Ostermeier, and S. Schexnayder. 1999. Process components in developing Habitat Conservation Plans. Endangered Species Update 16:90-95.

Bingham, B. B., and B. R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat "take": application to habitat conservation planning. Conservation Biology 11:127-139.

Brosnan, D. M. 2000. Can peer review help resolve natural resource conflicts? Issues in Science and Technology 16:32.

Cullinan, T. 1997. Habitat Conservation Plans in industrial forests of the Pacific Northwest: mitigation and public participation. Endangered Species Update 14:29-31.

Dwyer, L. E., D. D. Murphy, S. P. Johnson, and M. A. O'Connell. 1995. Avoiding the trainwreck: observations from the frontlines of natural communities conservation planning in southern California. Endangered Species Update 12:5-7.

Fleishman, E. 2001. Moving scientific review beyond academia. Conservation Biology 15:547-549.

Hall, D. A. 1997. Using habitat conservation plans to implement the Endangered Species Act in Pacific Coast forests: common problems and promising precedents. Environmental Law 27:803-844.

Harding, E. K., E. E. Crone, B. D. Elderd, J. M. Hoekstra, A. J. McKerrow, J. D. Perrine, J. Regetz, L. J. Rissler, A. G. Stanley, E. L. Walters, and NCEAS Habitat Conservation Plan Working Group. 2001. The scientific foundations of Habitat Conservation Plans: a quantitative assessment. Conservation Biology 15:488-500.

Hood, L. 1998. Frayed safety nets: conservation planning under the Endangered Species Act. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D. C.

Hosack, D. A., L. Hood, and M. P. Senatore. 1997. Expanding the participation of academic scientists in the HCP planning process. Endangered Species Update 14:60-62.

James, F. C. 1999. Lessons learned from a study of habitat conservation planning. BioScience 49:871-874.

Kareiva, P. 1999. Using science in Habitat Conservation Plans. Santa Barbara, CA: National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, and Washington (DC): American Institute for Biological Sciences, Santa Barbara, CA.

Kostyack, J. 1997a. Habitat conservation planning: time to give conservationists and other concerned citizens a seat at the table. Endangerd Species Update 14:51-55.

Kostyack, J. 1997b. Reshaping Habitat Conservation Plans for species recovery: an introduction to a series of articles on Habitat Conservation Plans. Environmental Law 27:742-765.

Lin, A. C. 1996. Participant's experiences with Habitat Conservation Plans and suggestions for streamlining the process. Ecology Law Quarterly 23:369-446.

Loew, B. 2000. Multiple species habitat conservation planning: goals and strategies of local governments. Environmental Management 26:S15-S21.

Mueller, T. 1997. The failed promise of habitat conservation planning. Linkages Fall 1997:7-8.

National Audubon Society. Report of the National Audubon Society Task Force on Habitat Conservation Plans. <http://www.audubon.org/campaign/esa /task_force.html> (March 29, 2003).

Noss, R. F., M. A. O'Connell, and D. D. Murphy 1997. The science of conservation planning: habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington, D. C.

O'Connell, M. A., and S. P. Johnson. 1997. Improving habitat conservation planning: the California natural community conservation model. Endangered Species Update 14:1-3.

Ostermeier, D., D. Bidwell, and S. Schexnayder. 2000. Habitat conservation planning: current processes and tomorrow's challenges. Environmental Practice 2:166-175.

Policansky D. 1998. Science and decision making for water resources. Ecological Applications 8:610-618.

Price, M. V. 1993. Involving academics in endangered-species conservation: lessons from the Stephen's kangaroo rat Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 21 to 25 in J. E. Keeley, editor. Interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles.

Shilling, F. 1997. Do Habitat Conservation Plans protect endangered species? Science 276:1662-1663.

Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea, and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.

Song, S. J., and R. M. M'Gonigle. 2000. Science, power, and system dynamics: the political economy of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 15:980-989.

Thomas, G. A. 2001a. Where property rights and biodiversity converge II: the role of science. Endangered Species Update 18(1):6-13.

Thomas, G. A. 2001b. Where property rights and biodiversity converge III: incorporating adaptive management and the precautionary principle into HCP design. Endangered Species Update 18(2):32-40.

Thornton, R. D. 1997. The No Surprises policy is essential to attract private dollars for the protection of biodiversity. Endangered Species Update 14:65-66.

Jeff J. Opperman (1)

Paola Bernazzani (2)

(1) ESPM Division of Ecosystem Sciences 151 Hillgard Hall #3110 UC Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3110 [e-mail]

(2) Jones and Stokes 268 Grand Ave. Oakland, CA 94610 [e-mail]

Jeff Opperman received his PhD in Ecosystem Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 2002. His research interests include landscape-scale influences on salmonid habitat, the role of living trees in stabilizing woody debris jams, endangered species management, and the potential to increase salmonid productivity and water-supply reliability through floodplain restoration.

Paola Bernazzani received a M.S. in Ecosystem Science, with an emphasis in conservation biology, from the University of California, Berkeley in 1999. She currently works for Jones and Stokes Associates in Oakland, California focusing on Habitat Conservation Plans.