Chapter Seven—
Epilogue: Policy Trends

Awareness among state, national, and international policy makers and the public about loss of biodiversity has skyrocketed since this work was first published as a report to the state government in April 1990. Policy discussions in California about biodiversity have changed from "What is biodiversity and why should we care about it?" to the more challenging question "How can we protect biodiversity?" This significant change in focus from "what and why" to "how" has occurred rapidly—due, in part, to the heightened awareness of environmental problems since Earth Day 1990. Media attention to a few very contentious fights over endangered species protection, particularly the spotted owl, has also contributed to bringing conservation issues to the nation's attention.

International debates over how to conserve biodiversity have also captured public attention. Biodiversity conservation was a central concern at the U.N. Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June of 1992. Leaders of nations from all over the world met to confer on environmental issues of international importance including global climate change, tropical forests, and biodiversity. The United States' stance opposing the biodiversity conservation treaty focused a media spotlight on biodiversity. President Bush was called a "villian" by the press (Kay 1992) for refusing to sign the international treaty on biodiversity despite the agreement of many nations, including Japan and Britain, to sign the treaty. Although the administration agreed with the central provisions

of the treaty, they disagreed with many of the proposed mechanisms for conservation (Stevens 1992).

As in the international arena, in California there is now agreement that biodiversity conservation is a problem that must be addressed, but there is no consensus on California's biodiversity policy goals. This final chapter describes some of the major themes that cut across current policy debates about biodiversity and outlines fundamental disagreements over the nature of the problem of loss of biodiversity. We expect that, in the next decade, these issues will be central to many debates over how to conserve biological resources. Many changes have occurred because Governor Pete Wilson's administration is actively engaged in confronting environmental problems and environmental organizations are now recognized as political players that cannot be overlooked. However, the problems identified in chapter 5 still persist, and only parts of the recommendations in chapter 6 are being implemented, while others have been ignored.

The contemporary themes of the debate—the government's mandate to conserve biodiversity, the need for habitat conservation, the challenge of sustainable management, the debate over who should decide how resources are used, and efforts to seek negotiated solutions—show that current policy proposals are addressing only a portion of the problem and are still not guided by a strategic vision. The biodiversity conservation policy arena is increasingly complex and activities that engender both resolution and divisiveness are evident. A successful biodiversity strategy must incorporate the many levels of biodiversity and include actions designed to effect a long-term shift in our management of natural resources, as well as short-term corrective measures. Institutional change, public commitment, and increased understanding will be essential.

Biodiversity Mandate

Growing awareness and citizen concern are prompting changes in the role of government in the protection of biodiversity. Although the California legislature has not yet passed a bill that focuses on biodiversity as a significant policy issue, in 1991 the state and federal resource agencies agreed to work together to conserve biological diver-

sity in California. To overcome the artificial boundaries between agency jurisdictions that are too often barriers to sound management actions and policies, a few leaders in government agencies wrote a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) called "The Agreement on Biological Diversity." Ten state and federal agencies signed the MOU. The stated purpose of the memorandum is to "develop guiding principles and policies, design a statewide strategy to conserve biological diversity, and coordinate implementation of this strategy through regional and local institutions" (California Resources Agency 1991). By participating in this effort for a coordinated strategy, state and federal agencies have acknowledged that their mandate explicitly includes conservation of biodiversity.

Several components of the Biodiversity MOU, as it is called, are noteworthy. First, it affirms that maintenance of biological diversity is as much a part of the mandate of our resource management agencies as is the production of various commodities. The signatory parties (table 7.1) agreed to "make the maintenance and enhancement of biological diversity a preeminent goal in their protection and management policies." Second, there is an acknowledgment that state and federal interests do not always concur (as discussed in chapter 5) and that successful conservation depends on coordination of many agencies and organizations. Finally, the MOU recognizes that conservation decisions should be made on biogeographically defined boundaries, rather than on units defined solely by political or historical conventions.

To accomplish these tasks, the MOU establishes an Executive Council chaired by the Secretary of the Resources Agency and composed of

7.1.
Bioregions of California.

the top official in each of the signatory agencies in California. Much of the substantive work, however, is expected to occur at the county or regional level through the establishment of Bioregional Councils and Landscape or Watershed Associations^[1] (figure 7.1). The bioregional and watershed groups are expected to include representatives from local governments, industry, conservation groups, and concerned citizens. There is an expectation that local and regional conservation strategies and solutions will be developed and implemented.

The Biodiversity MOU simultaneously contains innovations and acknowledges existing activities occurring around the state. State and federal agencies previously initiated several programs to coordinate agen-

cies' activities. For example, the Coordinated Resource Management Program^[2] establishes means of local problem solving by including staff from several agencies, local government, and private land owners. The Interagency Natural Areas Coordinating Committee^[3] encourages collaboration among agencies to facilitate the establishment and management of protected areas. The Timberlands Task Force^[4] helps coordinate timber harvest policies across the many different jurisdictions in the state. None of these programs has as broad a scope or as integrated a vision as the MOU.

In some sense the Biodiversity MOU simply validates some of the activities that are already occurring rather than creating any new activity. In many parts of California, groups of concerned citizens are talking together about the future of their region, recognizing that haphazard growth has led to incremental and irrevocable loss of their quality of life. Some are creating planning documents for the future, like LA 2000 and Bay Vision 2020.^[5] Other local groups are working to resolve conflicts between development and endangered species. Others are taking a more comprehensive approach. For example, the San Diego Board of Supervisors has initiated a land use planning process to facilitate wildlife conservation throughout the county.^[6] Although the MOU did not initiate any of these projects, it does encourage other people to attempt similar efforts and creates a forum for sharing ideas across regional or landscape councils.

Within several of the eleven Bioregions identified by the MOU, "discussions" among land owners, industry, agency staff, and citizens are addressing resource management concerns and how to balance conservation and development. Five areas have ongoing activities that address concerns over a broad geographic area—the Klamath province, the Sierra Nevada, the San Joaquin Valley, the South Coast, and the Santa Cruz Mountains. Dialogues began in each region as a result of specific region-wide concerns—timber harvest in the Klamath, multiple threats to forests in the Sierra, resource use conflicts in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and endangered species in both the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast. The controversy and policy debates in the South Coast and the San Joaquin areas have focused on endangered species and have not yet addressed broader biodiversity issues. None of these regional discussions began solely because of the MOU. Nevertheless, Bioregional Councils or Landscape Councils may develop out of these existing forums, and the state government is supporting the effort to form a Klamath Bioregional Council. The MOU may help accelerate the pro-

cess of finding solutions by encouraging these efforts to ensure biodiversity conservation in the face of increasing threats from land use development, pollution, and resource extraction.

Because each region has distinct resources, land uses, and community values, lasting solutions will differ from place to place, and much of the work to find solutions must be accomplished at the local or regional level. The MOU and the state and federal agencies involved recognize this and anticipate that a bottom-up approach, with most suggestions being identified locally, will be more successful. By recognizing that a top-down approach won't always succeed and that local entities must be involved from the start, the MOU encourages diverse groups to become involved.

Ironically, the MOU has wakened the wrath of many local government officials who are very concerned that the state and federal agencies working together will "gang up" on local government. There were hot words at the second meeting of the Executive Council in early 1992, challenging the authority of the group to convene and to make any decisions. Efforts to "develop principles and policies, and to design a statewide strategy" could lead to additional environmental regulation, which many people oppose. Particularly with the current tight budgets, no local government wants additional requirements from Sacramento. Some officials believe the MOU is an effort to wrest land use authority from local government, concentrating authority in the state capitol. Despite the stated goal of a bottom-up approach, the only organizational level formally developed is the Executive Council—fueling concern that the MOU means increased control by state and federal agencies.^[7]

Despite the fears of some local government officials and some landowners, the MOU does not make any demands or require any particular conservation action. Instead, it provides a forum for discussion, and relies entirely on existing legislation and authorities. Perhaps the real complaint of local government is that the MOU encourages establishing policy dialogues outside the existing institutions and structures, suggesting that local government is not adequately addressing these problems. By saying something new is needed, the MOU indirectly critiques local government. If arguments over power and control and suspicions about the motivation for the MOU do not damage the efforts for coordinated management, the MOU and the types of processes it encourages may contribute substantially to conservation success.

Agency coordination and local government action are both critical steps in a long-term conservation strategy. The MOU encourages both

of these steps. However, the agencies currently involved include only those that already work regularly on biodiversity concerns. Neither the California Department of Food and Agriculture, nor the newly created California Environmental Protection Agency are included. Because of this, the effects of pollutants and agricultural impacts may be over-looked. Moreover, the current emphasis is on terrestrial biodiversity—wildlife, forests, and rangelands—ignoring aquatic biodiversity. Thus resources and threats are both viewed fairly traditionally, instead of a more comprehensive and integrated vision.

The goals and efforts of the MOU should be encouraged and enhanced to adequately address biodiversity conservation. Where a forum for discussion is enough we can anticipate success. In the long run, talking and sharing knowledge could contribute to changing the way we think about managing California's natural resources. Establishing Landscape and Watershed Councils to plan for conservation and development should also have long-term benefits. However, where stronger measures than dialogue or planning are needed, or where a crisis is now occurring, the MOU will make little difference. For many species and conservation issues, the time available for finding solutions is very short. Rather than an end in itself, the MOU is only a beginning. For all its potential strengths, it cannot resolve all of California's conservation problems. Forums for identifying and solving problems and responsible contributions to biodiversity conservation are necessary but not sufficient components of a conservation strategy.

Habitat Conservation

Habitats, ecosystems, and landscapes are rapidly gaining favor as appropriate scales for conservation actions. Attention to habitat conservation is simultaneously an outgrowth of species protection efforts, a recognition of the need to conserve biodiversity on the ecosystem scale, and a response to changing perceptions of acceptable losses. The question of the correct scale for conservation action is presently under discussion, with proposals to work only at the level of habitat conservation sometimes in conflict with efforts to work on both habitat and species scales.

Recent research in conservation biology suggests incorporating larger scales into our conservation actions, both to ensure the protection of

individual species from habitat fragmentation and to ensure the perpetuation of ecosystem processes. Piecemeal development leads to incremental loss of habitat, which can only be avoided by planning over larger geographic areas and incorporating biodiversity considerations into land use planning. Conflicts are growing between conservation and land development as development spreads through the state and increasing numbers of species are endangered and then listed under the state or federal ESA. For these reasons, we included in our recommendations a Habitat Protection Act to encourage county land use planning that incorporates ecosystem conservation.

In 1991, attempting to resolve conflicts between conservation and development while preventing further species endangerment, the California legislature established a new program for Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) administered by the California Department of Fish and Game. The goal of a Natural Community Conservation Plan "is to conserve long-term viable populations of the State's native animal and plant species, and their habitats, in landscape units large enough to ensure their continued existence" (CDFG 1991e ). To achieve this goal the CDFG will enter into agreements with other public agencies and private interests to develop and implement a plan to protect certain biological communities adversely impacted by growth and development. A pilot project has been started for the coastal sage scrub community in southern California.

Some perceive this new approach as the best possible means of resolving conflicts between conservation and development, whereas others insist the NCCP process is simply a means of getting around the Endangered Species Act. These viewpoints are both accurate assessments of the potential directions the NCCP process may take. The consequences for California's biodiversity are quite different if state policy encourages choosing between species and habitats rather than choosing to protect both species and habitats.

In San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties (all areas undergoing rapid urban development) numerous species are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation. Several of these species, in particular two birds, the California gnatcatcher and the coastal cactus wren, depend on coastal sage scrub habitats. Proposals to list these species under the federal and state ESAs have created controversy—if the birds were listed, the pace and pattern of development in these counties would be greatly restricted. The development community does not want the birds listed, fearing that listing will result in slowing down every project to

allow review of the potential impacts of the project on the gnatcatcher or cactus wren.

The NCCP process establishes a Scientific Review Panel to identify the data collection needs and the guidelines for conserving the target natural community. Land owners and local governments voluntarily enter into agreements to be part of the planning area and to cooperate in surveys of their lands to determine the habitats and species present. Enrolled properties are included in an eighteen-month planning process to assess impacts and design NCCP conservation plans to assure the long-term protection of the habitat-type and the species that depend on it. Landowners agree not to change the land use of their property during the enrollment period. By participating in the NCCP process landowners expect to enjoy a streamlined environmental review process because concerns about endangered species and habitat loss will be addressed in the conservation plan. The NCCP is anticipated to be considered equivalent to completing appropriate sections of the environmental review requirements of CEQA and will provide state and federal permits for impacts to listed species.

Although modeled after habitat conservation efforts under the federal ESA, the NCCP process is quite different from what would occur if the gnatcatcher or cactus wren were federally listed. Once an animal has been listed the strong protective requirements of the ESA greatly limit the permissible activities on property containing the listed animal or its critical habitat. Actions that eliminate either the habitat of the listed species or an individual animal are usually prohibited. To obtain permits for development, landowners, in conjunction with government agencies, are required to complete a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Typically, HCPs allow a portion of the listed species' habitat to be lost, in exchange for insuring long-term protection of the remainder of the habitat through acquisition and dedication of the area as a park or reserve.^[8] The process of designing and implementing an HCP is time consuming because many individuals and organizations must work together to collect the necessary biological data, identify reserve areas and agree on their boundaries, and create a funding mechanism to acquire and maintain the reserved areas. Once a listed species is involved, HCPs are considered preferable to the uncertainty and confusion that would result from each individual landowner potentially violating the ESA and trying to resolve the problem alone.

NCCPs are intended to be an improvement on the HCP process. The time and expense in designing HCPs^[9] has led some analysts to

recommend that HCPs include all the listed or candidate species in the area (Bean et al. 1991). In addition, as argued in our recommendation for a Habitat Protection Act, the development community wants to have increased certainty in the development permitting process. HCPs are usually long and complex negotiations between several parties—conducting more than one in the same geographic area is time consuming and wasteful of resources. In comparison, NCCPs will also require significant data collection efforts, but will accommodate several species simultaneously, are expected to be limited to an eighteen-month planning period, and are voluntary.

Is the NCCP Approach an Improvement in Practice or Only in Theory?

The NCCP process is still so new that it is not now possible to evaluate its ultimate success or failure. NCCPs differ from HCPs by focusing on many species and on a larger scale, namely "natural communities" (which are, for practical purposes, synonymous with habitat-types). One motivation for moving toward habitat or natural community conservation in coastal southern California is that numerous species are at risk within the coastal sage scrub habitat. Not only are two birds proposed for listing but several other species found in the coastal sage, the San Diego horned lizard and the orange-throated whiptail lizard, are also species of concern. In addition, over forty other rare plants and animals live in the region. To prevent further endangerment of these species land use planning must insure no further habitat fragmentation. NCCPs are expected to plan for many species at once, eliminating the need for numerous separate HCPs.

Habitat Conservation Plans and NCCPs sound like ideal solutions: a negotiated balance between conservation and development. But they are limited by our scientific knowledge and by the process of negotiating which lands are ultimately protected. Therefore, the scientific difficulties of a habitat/multispecies approach will first be discussed here, followed by an exploration of some of the compromises in the proposed process.

Just designing a Habitat Conservation Plan that can guarantee the long-term preservation of a single species is a difficult task. Rarely are enough data available to make confident predictions about the total area of habitat required or its spatial distribution. The scientific complexity of designing a plan for many species in a geographic area, even

if the species are dependent on the same habitat-type, and are all subjected to the same threats, is much greater. A multispecies conservation plan entails identifying the biological requirements of each one of the group of species and delineating the actual geographic boundaries necessary for the conservation of the group. Because each species has different requirements for survival, a multispecies reserve will have boundaries that differ from a single species reserve. Even so, a conservation plan designed for several species may not meet all the needs of the ecosystem or habitat-type. Defining requirements for a habitat-type necessitates looking at the ecological processes that affect the success of all the resident species, plants, and animals, not just the threatened species.

To develop a multispecies conservation plan, parcels are identified that contribute to the conservation of one or more species, with each parcel chosen reducing the risk of loss of one or more species. As the numbers of species at risk increases so does the complexity of alternatives. There is no purely technical way to choose between a parcel important for the gnatcatcher and a parcel important for the cactus wren or for a plant species. Explictly or implicitly, priorities are made to protect one parcel over another, thereby favoring one species or conservation goal over the others. The preserve design decisions then become negotiated in a complex array of risk assessment decisions which include biology, land uses, economics, and politics. Ultimately, the process of drawing preserve boundaries results in an agreement to sacrifice additional habitat for species already known to be endangered. The area outside the preserve boundary is eventually fully developed. Using the best information possible, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endorses the final HCP plan when federally listed species are involved.

Unfortunately, as we move from single species conservation planning to multispecies planning and then to habitat-type or natural communities conservation planning, our knowledge of what components are necessary for success declines dramatically. Scientists often know a great deal about individual species, but their knowledge of ecosystem conservation is much more limited. Because of limited knowledge of appropriate preserve designs at the habitat-type or ecosystem level, it is much more difficult to predict the likelihood of success and thereby to assess the risk of choosing between different, alternative conservation plans.

The NCCP process is an evolving experiment. Some components of the NCCP process may hinder its ability to achieve its objectives in the pilot project in southern California—protecting coastal sage scrub and

the sage scrub species. First, the planning process does not necessarily include all undeveloped coastal sage scrub in the region. Only those lands voluntarily enrolled by land owners and local government are included. Enrollment by owners of large acreages of coastal sage scrub may minimize the importance of this problem, but if small owners do not enroll in the program the habitat loss and fragmentation that endangers coastal scrub species will continue. Second, in the desire to provide a more predictable process for landowners, the time line is very short—eighteen months. Decisions will then be made based on the data at hand. The technical complexity combined with the short time line insures that many unknowns will persist. Yet the wildlife agencies are being asked to agree that NCCPs will meet the conservation requirements of the state and federal ESAs.

NCCPs will be designed by local governments with input by wildlife agencies and scientists. The agreements for each NCCP are still being worked out. Local governments are being given a large amount of discretion to implement the NCCP law. Will a regional overview of habitat linkages be incorporated into the final design? Will wildlife agencies have substantial oversight authority or will the final say reside with local government? The NCCP program is promoted as a proactive approach to avoiding further threats to species. In the coastal sage scrub communities many species are already endangered; the time is late for a truly anticipatory approach. Because the process allows continued loss of habitat, many conservationists are not sanguine that NCCPs can achieve their goal of conserving coastal sage scrub and its species. The specific details of each NCCP will affect how successful the program is at conservation.

As the exact terms and the exact boundaries of the NCCP are negotiated, tradeoffs are made—portions of the species' habitat or natural community are determined to be expendable. In doing so, the policy goal subtly shifts from prohibiting extinction (the goal of the ESA) to defining acceptable loss. NCCPs will allow loss of part of a greatly diminished habitat-type without knowing the consequences for the full suite of species that dwell there. In this way, NCCPs are part of a trend toward ecological triage. Arguments for triage are becoming more common. Those promoting the triage argument suggest that since we cannot protect everything, we should focus on habitats, protect those species that easily are accommodated within a habitat protection approach, and admit that some species will fall through the cracks.

Many conservation advocates argue that the NCCP is being used to

avoid listing species that merit listing, rather than being a mechanism to plan ahead to diminish the threats (Silver 1992). For example, the Resources Agency spoke against listing the gnatcatcher under the California ESA in August of 1991. They argued in favor of allowing a new conservation process (the NCCP process) to be attempted, while allowing development to continue.^[10] At the same hearing, academic researchers and CDFG biologists testified that the bird merits listing on scientific grounds. The Fish and Game Commission chose not to list the bird at that time. Although technically there was no reason that state or federal listing should jeopardize the NCCP process, politically there was. The development community did not want to face the constraints the ESA imposes and was willing to enroll land to avoid the listing.

California conservationists are being encouraged to choose between the Endangered Species Act, an admittedly reactive approach, and a new, unproven process. Most are wisely refusing to consider these as mutually exclusive alternatives, preferring to work for the success of both approaches. Conceptually the NCCP is an outstanding approach—it designs a scientifically supported plan to protect habitat to avoid the endangerment of plants and animals. The hope is that the animals will be protected, federal listing will not occur, and conservation and development will both occur. Unfortunately, sufficient motivation to undertake the massive effort of an NCCP may only occur when such a large extent of a habitat-type has been lost that one or more species are already endangered, because only the threat of federal listing motivates people to cooperate to find a resolution. By this stage, it may be too late for a truly proactive approach. There is no assurance, however, that the NCCP process will succeed. As one CDFG staff person says, "We'll just have to take a crap shot. This process has got to be one or two steps better than the postage stamp pieces of sage scrub being left [undeveloped] now. We just don't know if one or two steps better is enough." Sadly, the coastal sage is another example of incremental loss of habitat leading to habitat fragmentation and species endangerment. The choice of a truly anticipatory approach is no longer available for coastal sage.

The coastal sage scrub NCCP experiment is quite remarkable. The NCCP process is trying to invent a new conservation approach in the toughest of circumstances, the rapidly disappearing coastal sage scrub habitat, rather than attempting an easier pilot project. NCCPs may prove to be marvelous conservation approaches only if they do not become a

hidden argument for protecting the habitat-type in such a way that many of the resident species are left unprotected. One measure of successful habitat protection must be the presence of its component species. If the habitat-type cannot support the species that depend upon it, then the habitat-type itself must not be healthy. To succeed, conservation efforts must be directed at both species and habitat-type conservation, not at species or habitat-types.

If the public policy goal is to protect biological diversity, then the only alternative is to work both on protecting endangered species (those organisms already on the edge) and on habitat conservation to avoid the endangerment of even more species in the future. Habitat protection is touted as a proactive approach, yet most of the recent attention has been over habitat-types so altered that many of their inhabitants are rare or endangered species. The California gnatcatcher is but one example. Others include the Delta smelt, the winter-run Chinook salmon, and the northern spotted owl. What about the more common species and habitats? We cannot really "get ahead of the curve" and insure their conservation before they are endangered without working on conserving many types of habitats, not simply the most endangered habitats.

Is Sustainable Management an Option?

Sustainable management of California's biological resources is a challenge of increasing urgency. The debate over the appropriate use and stewardship of public and private wildlands (80 percent of the state) reflects a dialogue that is also occurring internationally. In the past, short-term benefits have been garnered at the expense of longer-term gains. The goal is now shifting from primary attention to securing commodities and livelihoods from the land to a broader goal of assuring the long-term health of ecosystems.

To understand both the nature of sustainable management controversy and the possible solutions, the dimensions of the problem must be sorted out. What are the arguments for a new approach to wildland management? Is it technically feasible to produce commodities while maintaining the long-term health of ecosystems? Are any institutions trying new approaches, or is it all talk? What are the barriers to success? Finally, there is the head-on collision between two sets of values regarding the proper uses of public and private lands. Answering the question

"Who decides the appropriate management and use of private and public wildlands?" will be part of the policy dialogue well into the next century. We discuss the management issues in this section; the conflict over who decides will be discussed in the next section.

Changing Management Goals for Wildlands and Open Space

Sustainable management is now at the core of many conservation controversies. Conservation attention has switched from identifying and protecting small set aside areas to focusing on the management of the vast acreages that are used for resource production. Some argue that public and private forest and rangelands of California and the rest of the western states are being mined rather than managed as renewable resources. One arena for this debate is the old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. The media has focused on the northern spotted owl, listed as threatened in 1990, but the crux of the dispute is over management goals for the forests. Should the forests be managed to maximize short-term gain, sustainable yield, or ecosystem health? The argument for sustainable management reflects a desire to insure the continued productive capacity of the landscape in perpetuity rather than undue attention to the annual production of commodities. In the reevaluation of management goals for forest lands, many activities are being questioned. Timber harvest practices such as the acceptable sizes of clear cuts and the consequences of timber harvest in riparian zones are all being scrutinized, as is the amount and distribution of the remaining old-growth forests.

Concern over timber production targets mandated for national forest lands by administration officials in Washington received public scrutiny when the USFS's Regional Forester from the Northern Rocky Mountains claimed he was fired for refusing to meet timber production targets that would have caused extensive environmental damage and violated federal laws (Egan 1991). The series of news stories brought to the public's attention a debate that had been brewing in the agency. Should production targets be set by the ecological capacity of the land or by political agreement in Washington? If administration officials require production targets that the forests cannot meet without damaging consequences for forest ecosystems, sustainable management and the achievement of diverse environmental goals cannot be met.

In rural landscapes, the choices are rarely as simple as conservation versus development. In many areas timber harvest, agriculture, and grazing are compatible with conservation goals. A continuum exists in the sensitivity of species and habitat-types to the disturbances caused by various land uses. Some species can tolerate the intensity and frequency of disturbance caused by clear cutting. Others can only tolerate timber harvests done by selective logging rather than clear-cutting. We have also learned that not only harvest practices but also the scale of harvest across the landscape affects the ability of species and habitat-types to persist. Similarly, aquatic species are differentially sensitive to projects that alter rivers. Many fish can tolerate water diversions if the quantity isn't too large and the time of year is carefully chosen. The challenge is to determine how much timber harvest and grazing can proceed without irreversible loss of biodiversity, a necessarily site-specific determination because some areas need more protection than other areas.

Certain areas should be managed exclusively for natural values because they contain habitat-types or resident species that are so fragile that any other use of the land cannot co-occur without causing irreparable damage. Most lands are not extremely sensitive, yet unrestrained resource use can cause damage to the most robust of ecosystems. Unsustainable harvest has been the norm in too many areas and within these regions, sensitive species have not been protected. Some areas have been abused—restoration is needed before they once against support productive resource industries. In wildlands where commodity production has been the major use of the land, the best formula is a combination of zoning conservation areas to protect sensitive areas like streamside zones or critical wildlife habitat, and managing harvest levels on other areas to assure both economic return from the land and long-term conservation of biodiversity.

Innovative techniques for managing landscapes for productivity and ecosystem health are being tested in many regions of California and elsewhere. In the forestry industry some scientists (particularly a group from the Pacific Northwest) are promoting "New Forestry," timber practices that acknowledge and try to ameliorate management or harvesting effects on ecosystem processes and species diversity. Like any novel approach, New Forestry is often criticized, but the growing collection of books and research reports on such practices indicate that many ecologically sound timber harvest techniques are feasible.

Urban Landscapes

The intensity of land use in urban and suburban developments has resulted in the loss of many species and habitat-types. The means of preventing further loss of biodiversity in these areas has been to design parks or open space areas—to "zone" dedicated-use areas. As a result, in urban communities the controversies over conservation appear relatively straightforward because both conservation and development cannot co-occur on the same piece of land. The solution has been to decide where development can occur and where conservation must occur. In fact, in urban areas similar sustainable management issues are debated in the context of appropriate uses of open spaces and parks. Recreational uses such as hiking, mountain biking, or horseback riding must be accommodated with watershed protection, fire management, and ecosystem management. Managing urban parks and open spaces for ecosystem conservation is still a new, untested idea in many communities.

Aquatic Ecosystems

In terrestrial ecosystems we have the option of zoning some areas as exclusive conservation areas while allowing multiple uses in other areas. Such zoning is not so easy for aquatic resources. Environmental controversies over water resources in California are mainly battles over how much of the natural streamflow should remain in the rivers and how much can be withdrawn for urban, industrial, and agricultural uses. Some threats to rivers and wetlands can be minimized by excluding activities in streamside zones that cause significant erosion, or by regulating the filling of wetlands. However, restricting the withdrawal of water from one area of a river and simultaneously permitting withdrawals upstream is ineffective protection for riverine systems. Clearly, it is not possible to set aside one side of the Sacramento River to receive natural streamflows and withdraw water only from the other side. Typically, all uses of the rivers of the state must coexist. Some accommodations may be made with respect to timing of flows, but spatial, zoning-type arrangements are not possible. The requirement that multiple uses co-occur within the same river makes the most common solution to conservation and development conflicts on land unobtainable for most of California's aquatic resources.

New Federal Policy for Ecosystem Management

The major federal land management agencies are also considering new approaches. Starting in 1989–1990 the U.S. Forest Service encouraged a new paradigm in land management through its "New Perspectives" program. This program encouraged national forests and USFS staff to explore land management projects that are not focused primarily on commodity production, but have "a new perspective" focused on assuring the long-term health of the ecosystem. The goals of the program are to work for ecosystem management, biological diversity, long-term productivity, sustainable yields and uses, and landscape aesthetics (Salwasser 1990, Kessler 1992).

The New Perspectives pilot program has led to a change in USFS policy, indicating a movement away from the commodity production orientation which has dominated over the past several decades to an ecosystem management orientation. In 1992, the Chief of the USFS announced that an ecological approach will be used to achieve the multiple-use management of national forests and grasslands. This new policy directive acknowledges the public's concern for the environment by encouraging higher sensitivity to environmental values in land management. For example, clear-cutting has been eliminated as a standard way of harvesting timber of national forests. Each region of the USFS will develop its own strategy for implementing this new policy directive.

The ecological consequences of this new policy directive will not be immediately manifest—forest ecosystems grow and change slowly. An ecosystem management philosophy cannot change the status or condition of national forests overnight. In addition, the USFS continues to have a mandate to produce many commodities and achieve many objectives simultaneously. Conflicts over the management of particular parcels of land will continue to occur. Finally, the USFS is a large, complex institution—rapid change is difficult in big bureaucracies. Nevertheless, the shift to ecosystem management is quite significant politically. Sustainable, ecologically oriented management is the goal today and for the future.

Questions about how to implement sustainable ecosystem management practices are being raised both nationally and internationally. For example, a national policy dialogue examining the conservation of biodiversity on federal lands agreed both that biodiversity was important and that present efforts were not adequate to ensure conservation.

However, no agreement could be reached on how to ensure biodiversity conservation on federal lands (Keystone 1991). In the international effort to conserve biodiversity the Global Biodiversity Strategy has an objective of "incorporating biodiversity conservation into the management of biological resources" (WRI 1992). Sustainable development and biodiversity conservation were also central issues at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) held in Brazil in 1992. There are still many technical difficulties to be overcome in learning how to maintain healthy ecosystems while simultaneously providing resource commodities and economically viable communities. Agreeing to do so is the first step.

Private and Public Resources Use—Who Decides?

As it becomes increasingly obvious that conservation solutions must encompass a more comprehensive scope both through ecosystem protection and inclusion of biodiversity considerations in land management and land use planning, it must be acknowledged that people's current means of livelihoods may be affected in order to achieve conservation goals. This is not a popular conclusion. Even while citizens, conservation groups, and federal, state, and local government organizations begin to discuss means of protecting natural resources while assuring growth, other organizations are forming and meeting to fight what they perceive to be an assault on private property rights.

A national coalition of groups referred to as the Wise Use Movement (WUM) is resisting constraints on the use of private property and working to continue private access to resources on public lands (Satchell 1991). Its goals are to weaken environmental regulations, assure continued resource extraction on public lands, reduce the role of government in decision making about natural resources and private business, and assure that private landowners can use their property as they wish. Although not a monolithic movement, there are efforts to coordinate the activities of the many diverse groups. Many small, independent grassroots organizations concerned with local issues are now being initiated and nationally coordinated by people such as Charles Cushman of the National Inholder's Association and Ron Arnold, Center for Defense of Free Enterprise. Nationally, the movement has worked

Grazing cattle and rancher on Mount Diablo, where controversy continues over 
allowing grazing in the State Park. (Photo by Charles Kennard)

to kill legislation that would increase grazing fees on public land and would prevent reform of the 1872 Mining Law.

In California, small and large organizations with values similar to the Wise Use Movement are beginning to fight against the environmental policies that protect natural resources—whether or not these laws or conservation actions directly affect the organization or its constituents. For example, the California Farm Bureau's 1992 political platform recommends requiring an Environmental Impact Report before listing species under the state ESA, opposes any increase in wilderness acreage in California, recommends exemption of commercial timber harvest from CEQA, and opposes expansion of the federal or state Wild and Scenic River systems.

At the same time, public support for environmental protection has been growing in California and nationally—demonstrating that the public wants sound conservation policies implemented. The WUM has responded by fighting conservation policies and actions on both public and private lands. The northern spotted owl case is a prime example. The listing of the northern spotted owl focused tremendous attention by both the environmental community and the WUM on management goals for the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Each side argues for dif-

ferent goals for management of the forest lands and for a different role for government in resource management.

To protect the northern spotted owl from the threat of extinction, owl Habitat Conservation Areas have been proposed. These would require setting aside federal land from timber harvest. No private land is included in these Habitat Conservation Area proposals. Deciding to protect the northern spotted owl is a small part of a larger group of decisions to manage the federal forests for long-term benefits.

Opponents to listing the owl are concerned about values other than long-term sustainable management of the forests. They blame the listing of the owl for the loss of jobs, even though massive cutting on private lands and automation have already cost thousands of jobs. They argue against "locking up" more federal land. Although forestry practices have not been sustainable, resulting in damage to ecosystems and lost jobs, the WUM argues that the federal Endangered Species Act is the problem.^[11] This is consistent with their goal to fight federal policies that protect ecosystem values rather than commodity values.

The debate regarding the appropriate use of the California desert is also a debate over the appropriate use of public lands. Much of the California desert is a patchwork of lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management and lands in private ownership. Recreational use of the deserts is increasing, and grazing and mining continue as significant industries in this region. Despite the design and implementation of a California Desert Conservation Plan in the early 1980s by the BLM, many fragile desert ecosystems are being damaged, and the desert tortoise has been listed as a threatened species under the federal ESA. Frustrated by continued problems in the desert, conservationists have proposed turning large areas of California's deserts into national parks rather than allow any continued commodity use.

Although the commodities on these forest and rangelands provide economic livelihood to many people in California, directly and indirectly, they are public resources managed by the federal government for the benefit of all the citizens of the United States. Nationwide, citizen concern for environmental protection is demanding a shift in management of all federal lands from a focus on commodity production to assuring long-term sustainable management.

Proponents of the Wise Use Movement disagree with the goal of management for biodiversity conservation and often use flamboyant rhetorical statements about conserving endangered people or lifestyles.

But the Wise Use Movement is not alone in taking outlandish positions. Some environmentalists have taken extreme positions, such as declaring that no timber harvest and no grazing should be allowed on public lands. For example, "Cattle-free in '93" is a slogan that refers to an effort to eliminate grazing from public lands by 1993. Such positions may be based on skepticism that sustainable resource use can be achieved and are certainly a response to years of inadequate management for ecological values. Federal land management goals are being reevaluated and are shifting toward ecosystem management and protection. Both sides are hoping to sway decisions in their favor and are trying to gain popular support.

Actions that affect private lands are also coming under increasing anti-environmental backlash. Since the late 1960s, government has regulated private actions that cause air or water pollution or that generate hazardous materials. The authority for many environmental laws comes from the power of government to protect human health and welfare. Government regulation and zoning of land uses has a much longer history than environmental regulation. Because it is now widely evident that the actions of individuals are resulting in damage that affect many people and places, solutions to environmental problems will affect individual economic practices to assure public benefits. Like most government regulation there is a tension between private rights and the well-being of the community. But attempts at coordinated protection/conservation are decried as unreasonable government intrusion into the affairs of private landowners.

Efforts to achieve regional conservation strategies as proposed in the Biodiversity MOU are being attacked by groups who are concerned that their way of life and livelihoods are threatened. Rather than seeing a benefit from having state and federal agencies work in a more coordinated fashion, they are concerned about creating another level of government, more regulation, and loss of control over private property. Opponents to the MOU simply have different values and priorities.

The appropriate role of government in the conservation and use of public and private natural resources is under debate. As the evidence grows that current practices in land development, water use, and resource use are causing environmental damage, individual actions are increasingly implicated. Heated debate about the effect of the Endangered Species Act on private property owners will not diminish the numbers of species at risk. Only sound management and planning can

achieve this. Nevertheless, there is not yet consensus on either the most important values or uses of wildlands, nor on who decides, nor on how to achieve these goals.

Negotiated Solutions Achieving New Favor

As environmental values become more widely held, the organizations promoting these concerns have begun to move from a reactive position by using lawsuits or other means, to an anticipatory approach by constructing new policies, laws, and solutions. Many examples, in California and elsewhere, show that the tactic of fighting every small battle has not resulted in lasting solutions. Negotiations and consensus-building are currently perceived by many as the most appropriate means of breaking the stalemate over environmental problems both in California and nationally.

In the fall of 1990, after numerous unsuccessful attempts at passing innovative environmental statutes in the California legislature, frustrated environmental advocates went to the public. Numerous initiatives were placed on the ballot that would have significantly and in some cases radically changed the natural resource and environmental laws in California. Groups opposed to the environmental initiatives wrote separate initiatives, so that the ballot included numerous competing measures. The media campaigns were expensive and dramatic. In the end, all the initiatives, both from industry and the environmentalists, failed.

Although the environmentalists' forestry initiative, Forests Forever, lost, it received 48 percent of the vote despite a blistering media campaign against it. When the environmental community threatened another initiative, a small group agreed to try an alternative approach: a negotiated agreement among the various interests. Representatives from the environmental community and the timber industry met, talked, negotiated, and finally agreed on a package of forest practice reforms that were written into four bills in the California legislature. The bills were amended, changed, and passed in the Assembly and Senate as the "Sierra Accord." Governor Wilson, however, vetoed the package. After another round of negotiations, a new package of bills was produced, "The Grand Accord."

No consensus exists on the merits of the proposals that emerged

from these negotiations on forest practices. Many industry representatives and environmental organizations found the negotiated outcome completely unacceptable and walked away from the negotiations before they were completed. Some environmentalists saw the Grand Accord as an improvement over current timber harvest practices, whereas others felt the package was entirely too weak. Similarly, some industry representatives found the compromises acceptable whereas others felt they were intolerable. The fact that these negotiations are occurring at all represents a marked change in the process of formulating forestry policy. Environmentalists are now widely recognized as significant players in the policy-making process.

Another negotiation process is working to find agreement on water supply issues. Referred to as the three-way process, agricultural, urban, and environmental water interests have been meeting since 1990 in an effort to resolve the stalemate over water supply and instream flows in California. Environmental improvements, new environmental standards, new water facilities, water transfers, water conservation, and water pricing are among the long list of issues being discussed by this group.^[12] A small number of individuals are striving to draft an agreement that would help break the stalemate over water issues in California. Even if the three-way process does lead to some agreements, it is not certain the current administration will support their results. Governor Wilson has established his own water policy separate from the three-way process. In addition, only a few groups are represented in this negotiation. Whether or not the small group of negotiators can reach an agreement, and whether or not this agreement will be acceptable to the larger community are both unresolved questions.^[13]

The timber negotiations and the water negotiations were started in large part by private interest groups. Now the state and federal government, through signing the Biodiversity MOU, are validating and encouraging consensus-building forums at both watershed and regional levels. In addition to the regional councils fostered by the MOU, several areas of the state have home-grown watershed or landscape scale efforts. Groups are meeting in diverse areas from the Mattole River Watershed Alliance in Humboldt County to the Sierra Nevada, to the Santa Cruz Mountains. People from government, industry, development, and environmental groups are discussing their differences and looking for common ground, in an attempt to find solutions rather than simply find new fights. A common refrain is "We got tired of fighting, and wondered if we couldn't resolve some of these problems by sitting

down and putting our heads together." To date the successes have been modest, but the conversations are becoming more numerous.

The spirit of trying new approaches is generating new ideas and broadening the understanding of those interested in finding sound management policies for our natural resources. Dialogue will continue to be part of any problem-solving package. But dialogue cannot resolve all the problems. Many of these discussion processes are occurring only because the different interest groups were unable to accomplish their individual goals alone. Strong laws, strong advocates, and increasing public pressure for resolution has brought the diverse parties to the bargaining table. To the extent that this continues to happen and that participants have honest intentions of finding solutions that allow both conservation and development, we may be able to create innovative answers. Right now, trust is in short supply. Many species and habitats are already pushed to their ecological limits and need immediate attention. If discussions are used as an excuse not to implement environmental laws, or if they encourage the perpetuation of damaging practices, or if they are designed to slow down economic enterprises, they will fail. Dialogue and consensus building cannot be our only tool, but they can help.

Cautious Optimism for the Future

Conservation policy in California is changing quickly, a consequence of the state's search for a more sensible future for its human and wild inhabitants. Some current trends in conservation policy in California are promising, whereas others threaten to hinder progress toward a long-term biodiversity conservation strategy for the state. New endeavors such as the Biodiversity MOU and Natural Community Conservation Plans contain visions of long-term institutional changes that can improve the management of California's biodiversity. They show a willingness to anticipate conservation crises and to begin to establish proactive rather than reactive responses. Many people and projects are recognizing the need to work at several scales for successful conservation—both species and habitats must be included, and both local and bioregional approaches must be taken. In addition, disparate groups are trying to overcome their polarities and discuss means of reaching solutions acceptable to many parties.

Despite this evidence of progress and increased commitment to conservation, many other activities are antagonistic to new conservation efforts. On many fronts no tangible progress has been made. Dialogue and negotiation may lead only to the illusion of solutions. Many are talking at cross-purposes; some propound the merits of biodiversity conservation, whereas others organize to defeat the Endangered Species Act or to assure no change in the status quo management of public and private wildlands. A biodiversity conservation strategy is still needed that will take immediate action to limit actions currently causing damage, that will assure a long-term shift in how California manages its ecological heritage, and that looks ahead to take anticipatory actions to diminish and avoid future threats.

One reason for the slow progress toward a conservation strategy is that the options to stem species' losses are politically much more difficult than in the past. For example, the plight of the Delta smelt, a declining species that dwells in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta, has been inaccurately compared to the snail darter (Gross 1991). Although both are small endangered fish, the political circumstances and the policy choices in these two cases are very different. The snail darter case was a decision about whether to take a future action (building the Tellico dam) which would likely have an adverse effect on a species. The Delta smelt case, like many issues debated now, questions whether to stop present actions that are already having a known detrimental effect on a species. These are much harder decisions to make. There are many established interests at stake, including those whose current livelihoods are at risk. To protect the Delta smelt may require diverting less of the natural stream flows of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers for human use. Furthermore, the Delta smelt is only one of a suite of species adversely affected by the altered streamflows in the Bay-Delta. Nevertheless, it is much easier to decide not to start a new project than to decide to make a change, maybe even a fundamental change, in our practices when current practices cause environmental damage. The stakes are very high on both sides—no wonder the debate is loud.

These are fundamental questions: can we decide as a society to make changes in practices that we know cause environmental harm? how are we going to make these decisions? where on the conservation-development continuum will that decision fall? and who will decide? Our choices appear to be either reducing the damage per unit benefit, be that benefit water, timber, or agriculture, or reducing the benefit we receive now, or else accepting the loss of genes, species, and ecosystems,

as well as reduced benefits for future generations. Different parties are calling for each of these as the best answer. Some say reduce the damage, some say reduce the benefits, and some say accept the losses.

Many current ways of doing business are demonstrably destructive—be that business agriculture, industry, housing, manufacturing, or forestry. We have already caused sufficient environmental harm to necessitate restoration for some ecosystems. To avoid more damage will require changes in our practices. Changes will affect private property owners and will require planning and tough decisions. Most people are willing to support conservation if it affects land uses far from their daily lives. Saving endangered species is also easily supported unless it requires changing our plans for urban growth or changing the operation of our water delivery systems. We have already used up many of our easy choices. Now we are being tested by the difficult decisions.

Accomplishing our conservation goals and accommodating both human and ecosystem needs in California will take time, ideas, and information. Solutions will not be arrived at overnight, but must instead be achieved by a long-term commitment to California's future. The challenges California faces are large, yet many steps have been taken toward creating a strategy that will truly protect the biological heritage of California. Success will not be measured by rhetoric from the governor's office, the legislature, industry, or environmentalists nor by the number of signatories on the MOU. The true test will be the census figures for the northern spotted owl, the winter-run chinook salmon, the California gnatcatcher, and other endangered species twenty years from now. We will know if we have moved forward on a course for conserving biodiversity by the acres of healthy forests, wetlands, and deserts left to our grandchildren.