grc

Rectangle

Biodiversity Research, Education, and Conservation in California

A Discussion of the Role of the University of California

Proceedings of a workshop Oakland, California June 7 , 1990

Edited by Patrick E. McGuire Calvin 0. Oualset Michael T. Clegg

Report No. 8 March 1992

Genetic Resources Conservation Program

Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Oakland, California

This report is published by the University of California Genetic Resources Conservation Program as part of the public information function of the Program. The Program sponsors projects in the collection, inventory, maintenance, preservation, and utilization o f genetic resources important for the State of California as well as research and education in conservation biology. These activities take place on the several campuses of the University of California w i th funds provided by the State of California to the University.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from :

Genetic Resources Conservation Program University of California Davis, CA 9561 6 USA 191 6) 757-8920 FAX (91 6) 757-8755

CITATION: McGuire, P.E., C.O. Qualset, and M.T. Clegg, (eds.) 1992. Biodiversity Research, Education, and Conservation in California: A Discussion of the Role o f the University of California. Report No. 8. University of California Genetic Resources Conservation Program.

I n accordance with applicable Federal laws and University policy, the University of California does not discriminate in any of its policies, procedures, or practices on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, veteran status, medical condition, or handicap. Inquir- ies regarding this policy may be addressed to the Affirmative Action Director, University o f California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Flwr, Oakland, CA 94612-3560. (510) 987-0097.

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s ......................................................................... Preface v

........................................................ Executive Summary vii

......................................................... List of Participants xiii

..................................................... Introductory Remarks 1

Biodiversity in California . An overview and analysis ............. 1 D . Jensen. Energy and Resources Group . UC Berkeley

Discussion ............................................................... 4

.................. . Issues in the Conservation of Biodiversity Plants 6 S.K. Jain. Agronomy & Range Science . UC Davis

.................................................................. Discussion 7

Issues in the Conservation of Biodiversity . Animals ............... 8 M.E. Gilpin, Biology . UC San Diego

Discussion .................................................................. 9

Organizations lnvolved with California Biodiversity ............... 11

UC Natural Reserve System J.A. Kennedy ..................................... 11

Discussion ............................................................... 13

Botanical Garden . UC Berkeley R.Orduff ..................................... 15

Discussion .................................................................. 18

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology . UC Berkeley H . W . Creerie ............... 18

Discussion .................................................................. 19

UC Wildland Resources Center J.A. Helm ..................................... 20

Discussion ................................................................. 21

UC Genetic Resources conservation Program C . 0 . Quaker ................. 21

Discussion .................................................................. 23

Public Service Research and Dissemination Service ............................ 23 . UC Davis G.A. E . Call

Discussion .................................................................. 25

Center for Conservation of Genetic Diversity ................................... 27 Institute of Forest Genetics. US Forest Service C.I. Millar

Discussion .................................................................. 28

............ National Animal Germplasm System (Proposed) G.E. Brdford 29

Discussion .................................................................. 29

. ......... Interagency Natural Areas Cwrdinating Committee M Hoshovsky 30

Discussion .................................................................. 31

General Discussion ........................................................... 32

P r e f a c e

ON THE OCCASION OF THE ANNUAL meeting in 1990 of the Policy Advisory Board of the Genetic Resources Conservation Program, we wnvened a workshop of invited representatives of agencies and activities with relevance to California biodiversity and the Board members. Over the course of the afternoon and evening of June 7, 1990, a wide-ranging discussion ensued on issues of biodiversity research, education, and conservation in California and on the activities of organizations in the state with research. regulatory, and administrative roles relevant to biodiversity. A major focus of the discussion was the activities and impacts of various units of the University of California on biodiversity in the state. Recommendations for future action by the University were sought from this gathering.

An orientation was provided for the workshop by Deborah Jensen, who reviewed the findings of a recent report by her and others on the status of biological diversity in California, and by Subodh Jain and Michael Gilpin, who gave presentations of general issues for plant and animal genetic resources wnservation, respectively. Representatives of several agencies and University programs described their objectives and activities relevant to biodiversity. Discussion followed most of these presentations. Finally, a major period of the meeting was open to general discussion on biodiversity, during which recommendations emerged with respect to action by the University. While more than a year has passed since this session, we felt that the highlights of the discussion would provide a useful framework and impetus for current efforts. The proceedings we present here are edited from notes and tape recordings made during the workshop.

The Genetic Resources Conservation Program, in association with the UC Wildland Resources Center, is conducting a survey of University of California personnel that addresses several of the recommendations made at this Workshop. The survey seeks information on UC courses relevant to conservation biology in response to a recognition that such information was not readily available. It seeks to establish a roster of faculty available to supervise student research in conservation biology in response to recommendations that the University should encourage greater student research in this area. It seeks to identify University expertise in conservation biology in anticipation of making this information available to state and federal agencies with relevant research needs. At this time, responses from 249 individuals from eight of the nine UC campuses have been received and are being processed.

Several strengths, assets, and capabilities of the University were identified during the workshop. The most consistently identified need was for greater coordination and better communication among all agencies with responsibilities for biodiversity. It is with the hope of promoting this coordination and communication that we present this proceedings of a very enlightening and enthusiastic discussion.

C.O. Qualset P.E. McGuire M.T. Clegg

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

Issues raised during the workshop relevant to California and biodiversity

Research . The single most important issue facing the world in the next ten years is

biodiversity. The amount of money allocated to this research is preposterously tiny compared to things like the human genome sequencing project.

There is a continuing need for biodiversity research. There is a component of California's biota that may be endangered without our even knowing of its existence.

Biodiversity can be considered at three levels: genetic diversity, species diversity. and ecosystem diversity. Of these three types, very little is known ahout the status of California's genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity.

Concern for ecosystem diversity means concern for species richness in habitats and concern for diversity of community types or ecosystems as well.

Reserves of the US Forest Service being designated as Research Natural Areas, which will number in the hundreds in California, are not well known and are underutilired for research.

The reserves of the University of California Natural Reserve System should play a bigger role in biodiversity research. Some of the research issues that might be addressed on Natural Reserve System land or other holdings that might impact on how conservation is done are to analyze population vulnerability, monitor demography of taxa, monitor small populations, determine fitness loss from inbreeding in small populations, or develop in situ and er siru recovery plans for taxa.

From an intellectual and ecological perspective, endangered species are merely symptomatic of sick communities. What we really need to be able to do is to recognize communities that may be prone to sickness before they get sick.

While the California Dept. of Fish and Game has listed as endangered nearly 300 species of animals and plants, and over 200 of these are species of plants, there is little information on the ecology and population biology of most of those species and their communities.

A factor limiting the ability to write legislation and policy directed toward conservation at the ecological system level is the lack of a consensus classification system for communities.

Some specific topic areas for needed research include:

techniques for inventory of identity, diversity, and condition of the biota of a community techniques for monitoring areas techniques for measuring and monitoring the genetic diversity of individual species basic biology, population biology, and reproductive biology of individual species management and policy to enhance and protect biodiversity

There is precedent for interagency funding for research.

Much of the needed research requires the obtaining of pennils from agencies with jurisdiction over land or an endangered species. The various permit approval processes need streamlining to encourage research; at present, they inhibit research.

Education The citizenry of California is generally not well informed about biological conservation issues.

There is beginning to be a dearth of students in organismal and field biology.

There is a need to evaluate the UC campuses for the status of curricula in conservation biology.

Conservation There is no single state agency with the express responsibility for managing or protecting biological diversity. Most activity is directed at single species, not at ecological systems.

A traditional answer to the need for conservation is the creation of parks. There is a growing body of evidence that this is not a complete solution and does no1 answer threats to the biota from transboundary problems such as pollution from outside the park, loss of water from outside sources, and atmospheric changes.

Most action taken with respect to endangered species is piecemeal, ad hoc. and driven by outside events. There is no organized way to receive what data do get taken, to reanalyze these data, and then to conserve habitat on a regionalized basis.

Practices for conserving biodiversity in California environments will interact in competition and in cooperation with other uses of the environment.

There is little literature regarding maintenance of biological diversity of an ecosystem at the same time as extracting products from it.

Land acquisition must be coordinated so that one piece of property can simultaneously benefit more than a single endangered species.

The scale and diversity of impacts on a given ecosystem from outside the ecosystem, make it difficult for local planners to address environmental questions.

Roles for the University of California UC should develop or contribute to education programs that seek to inform the general public about conservation biology.

UC should be at the forefront, working with state and federal agencies to coordinate data acquisition, and provide a centralized information access point about conservation activities.

By virtue of being able to direct financial resources toward research. UC should direct research efforts toward conservation of biodiversity.

UC could become involved with individual species recovery plans by directing students and researchers to work on some of these species and the communities in which they are living.

UC should promote programs in general biology and conservation biology.

UC could establish funding for graduate student research in conservation biology.

There is an eight-to-ten-year gap between the recognition that a species needs attention and its listing. UC, interacting with the agencies, could play a role in speeding up the process.

The areas managed by UC, both through the Natural Reserve System and by field stations and departments, present opportunities for research that could address not only endangered species but the communities in which they exist.

There is a role for the Natural Reserve System holdings in providing inventory, baseline documentation, and environmental monitoring in a wide diversity of California habitat types. The reserves with laboratory facilities could be usul as centers for studying larger surrounding areas.

UC should establish a dialogue or forum for communication with relevant agencies about conservation of biological diversity to establish priorities, evaluate and communicate information, facilitate obtaining of permits, and locate funding.

Suggestions for action 1. A Governor's Commission on Biodiversity.

Slrer~grhs: increased public awareness for biodiversity issues. broadens effort fromjust the University, possible increased legislative support for relevant action; Weahesscs: duplication of some specific responsibilities of existing agencies, possible result of making conservation activities increasingly plitical and thus more vulnerable, and the length of time before a commission could be established.

2. A statewide conference on California biodiversity was suggested and discussed. Several orientations and formats for a conference were suggested.

3 . The concept of a task force to examine the role of the University of California with respect to biodiversity has come from several areas: the

UC Genetic Resources Conservation Program, the administration of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and from state legislators. Recommendations for the composition and activity of a task force made at this workshop included:

Membership of the task force should consist of UC faculty and staff and representatives from agencies with relevant conservation biology objectives.

The task force should address mechanisms for better communication of research results relevant to biodiversity conservation that may come from agencies, the University, or private organizations.

The task force should identify what coordination efforts already exist, evaluate these, and make recommendations for strengthening these as well as addressing the areas where more coordination is needed.

The task force should recommend curriculum relevant to biological conservation for all levels from K-12 to the college and graduate level to teacher training and short courses relevant to biological conservation.

The task force should address the social science and policy aspects of questions of conservation of biological diversity.

The task force should address the interests of undergraduate and graduate students in conservation biology research, the need for funding for research by students, and the availability of faculty members to direct and supervise funded student research. Funding sources need to be identified, and then utilized in a coordinated way.

The task force should address ways to raise public awareness of the issues of conservation biology.

If a conference or symposium is to be held, the task force should determine the most useful audience to address and the best format to do so.

The task force should frame its recommendations in the context of a plan of action for the next ten years.

Relevant documents The following documents, mentioned in discussions at the workshop, have relevance for issues of California hiodiversity and are recommended as resources for further information.

Committee on lnternat~onal Science's Task Force on Global Biodiversity 1990. Loss of biological diver.riIy: A global crisis requiring international solurions. Report to the National Science Board. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.

Docunrerrts the gaps in scienti>c utldersrnnding of biodiversity, discusses specific target groups and global pressures on biodiversity, and addresses the role of the Nnriorral Scier~ce Foundation.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology 1984. Animal gemplasm preservarion and utilization in agriculture. CAST Report No. 101.

A repon of a rask force documenting risk of germplasm loss, issues of germplasm accessibiltiy, and methods of germplasm preservarion and proposirlg organizational structure for a US aninla1 germplasm progranl.

Gall, G.A.E. and M. Staton, (4s . ) 1989. htegraring con.servation biology andagriculturalprodunion. Public Service Research and Dissemination Program, University of California, Davis.

An executive summary of a docunlent in progress resultingfrom two internnrionol workhops on the topic.

lensen, D.B., M. Tom, 1. Harte 1990. 111 our own handr: A strategy for conserving biological diversity in California. California Policy Seminar Research Report, University of California, Berkeley.

A review of the causes and consequences of pnsr losses of biodiversity and a preview of co~rtir~uir~g threnrs. It proposes a strategy to contend with this situation that includes institutional changes, laws, and other nctioru to be inlplenrerrted by rhe Srnte of California.

Jones and Stokes Associates 1987. Sliding toward extinction: l k e srnre of Cnlifor~ia's t~nrurnl heritage. 1987. The California Nature Conservancy, San Francisco.

An arriculnte report of what is being losr in California prepared ar the request of rhe Senare Corntnittee 011 Nnrurol Resources and Wildlife.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment 1987. Technologies to mob~rain biological diversity. OTA-F-330, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Repon/rorn n study requested by several House and Senate con~mirtees, the d o c ~ n l e ~ t covers rechnologie~, legislarion, and i~zter~~otionnl priorities for nninlnl, microbial, and plant biodiversity coflservnrio~l.

U.S. Department of State 1982. Proceedi~gs of the U.S. strategy conference on biological diversity, November 6 - 18, 1981. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Reportfronl a coq'erence plantled by the US Depanment of Srare and Agency for Inrernarioanl Developntent with suppon of many orher agerlcics for the purpose of prorrroti~lg public awareness of the linkages among diversity issues. 7he nature and effectiveness of U.S. Cowrnment donlestic and internntionnl policies and program relaring to biological diversity were reviewed and i~litiatives to be rnken by the U.S. were reconmlertded.

Western, D. and M.C. Pearl (ds . ) 1989. Conservation for the rwenty$rst century, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

A review of the future prosperfs for wildlife and habitat with idenriJ7cntion of approaches, rechtriques, and research needed.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Wilson, E.O. (ed.) 1988. Biodiversily. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

A procecditlgs of a symposium that getternred, among other things, a listing of conservation biology research i d e a that would be facilitated by reserve area .

Acronyms ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM US Bureau of Land Management

CDFFP California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CPC Center for Plant Conservation

CPS California Policy Seminar

CSU California State University

DANR University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources

DPG DANR Division Planning Group

CIS Geographic Information System

GRCP University of California Genetic Resources Conservation Program

IHRMP University of California Integrated Hardwood Rangeland Management Program

lNACC Interagency Natural Area Coordinating Committee

MOMS Marine Ocean Monitoring System

MVZ University of California. Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology

NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

NRS University of California Natural Reserve System

NSF National Science Foundation

OTS Organization for Tropical Studies, Inc.

PSRDP University of California Public Service Research and Dissemination Service

RNA Research Natural Area

UC University of California

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WRC University of California Wildland Resources Center

W o r k s h o p P a r t i c i p a n t s

Gerald Ahlstrom* (California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, Sacramento)

G. Eric Bradford* (Professor and Chair, Dept. of Animal Science, UC Davis)

Michael T. Clegg* (Professor, Dept. of Botany and Plant Sciences, UC Riverside)

Holly F o r k (Assistant Curator, UC Berkeley Botanical Garden)

Graham A.E. Gall* (Professor, Dept. of Animal Science, Director, Public Service Research and Dissemination Program, UC Davis)

Michael E. Gilpin* (Professor, Dept. of Biology, UC San Diego)

Harry W. Greene (Associate Professor, Dept. of Integrative Biology and Associate Curator of Herpetology, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, UC Berkeley)

John A. Helms (Professor and Chair. Dept. of Forestry and Resource Management, UC Berkeley)

Marc Hoshovsky (Biodiversity Protection Planner, Lands and Natural Areas Program, Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento)

Subodh K. Jain* (Professor. Dept. of Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis)

Deborah B. Jensen (Energy and Resources Group, UC Berkeley, Co-author of In Our Own Handr: A S~raregy for Conserving Biological Diversity in California)

Marsha M. Johnson* (Undersecretary, California Re- sources Agency, Sacramento)

Jeffrey A. Kennedy (Senior Environmental Planner, UC Natural Reserve System, Oakland, California)

Conrad Krass* (California Dept. of Food and Agriculture)

William J. Libby* (Professor. Dept. of Forestry and Resources Management, UC Berkeley)

William L. Liebhardt* (Director, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California)

James M. Lyons (Assistant Di- rector, Programs, Division of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of California)

Richard E. MacMillen (Professor, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UC Irvine)

Mildred E. Mathias* (Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biology and Botanical Garden, UC Los Angeles)

Patrick E. McGuire (Assistant Director, Genetic Re- sources Conservation Program, University of California)

Constance I. Millar (Research Geneticist, Center for Conservation of Genetic Diversity, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, California)

Steven P. Nation (Coordinator, Office of Governmental Relations. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California)

Robert Ornduff (Professor and Director, Botanical Garden, UC Berkeley)

Dan E. Parfitt* (Associate Professor, Dept. of Po- mology, UC Davis)

Calvin 0. Qualset (Director, GRCP, Professor, Dept. of Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis)

Charles M. Rick* (Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Vegetable Crops, UC Davis)

David Showers* (California Dept. of Fish and Game. Sacramento)

Ronald 0. Skoog* (Coordinator, Sea Grant Marine Extension Program, UC Davis)

* 1989-90 Member of the GRCP Policy Advisory Board

Introductory Remarks

M.T. Clegg: T h e purpose of this workshop is to explore the role of the University in biodiversity research, education, and conservation. As you are all aware there is a great deal of concern about the loss of biological diversity. The University has a number of different programs which in one way or another impinge on biodiversity. Our purpose here is to explore those issues and to see what the role of the University ought to be in a larger context. I would first like to introduce Cal Qualset, Director of the Genetic Resources Conservation Program.

C.O. Qualset: Beginning with the formation of the Genetic Resources Conservation Program (GRCP) in 1985, we were asked to get involved with biological resources in California in general. However, due to constraints of funding, we worked from the outset primarily with collections of endan- gered genetic resources. At the last meeting of our Policy Advisory Board, (May 16, 1989), it was sug- gested that we gradually work toward one of our original missions which was to generate a genetic

resource conservation plan for California. That is a rather formidable task. With the funds available for GRCP, we had not felt we would be able to do the job properly. During this past year in some meet- ings with faculty and various small groups, we have been exploring how we could proceed. Now we would like to move ahead a little further, not only because attending to the biological resources of California is a mission statement for the Genetic Re- sources Conservation Program, but also because biodiversity is a vital concern throughout the State and nation. We think the timing is right for activity from the University of California. In discussions with faculty members, we have found a great deal of interest but very little organized effort. There should be more communication with agencies and more coordinated teaching, research, and training on biodiversity at the University. This workshop is an attempt to explore further our options in the University. We hope some specific actions will be recommended.

Biodiversity in California - An overview and analysis

D.B. Jensen: T h e report In our own hands: A strategy for conserving biological diversiry in Cali- fornia is basically the result of a grant that we wrote to an organization called the California Policy Seminar (CPS) which is a funding organization that is a joint program between UC Systemwide and the state legislature. The CPS mission, if you will, is to fund research on topics are relevant to policy but not adequately being addressed by state government. It is a competitive grant program. Our proposal was to look at what was happening

ent levels, genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystem diversity. It won't be a surprise to any of you, but it is very hard to make any definitive statements about the status of genetic diversity in California. The way the information is structured makes it hard to get any overview of what is hap- pening to the genetic resources of the native species in the state. So we actually have very little in this report that talks about genetic resources in Califor- nia and the native species. Also it is hard to say

what's happening to ecosystems to biological diversity in ~ a l i - in ~ a l i f o s a , whether you call fornia, both its status and the them vegetation types or habi- threats to it, and at what the

The easiest way to think about the tats, We know a lot about very

state was doing about it. We diversiry of lve is to consider three few ecosystems, We know about finished this renort in Anril different levels, generic diversiry, some ecnsvstems onlv in terms r ~~~

..~~-. - - - - ,---~--- - - - ~ , - - ~ ~ - - ~ - - - 1990, 1 will give you a Gief species diversiry, and ecosystem of numbers of acres lost. We summary of what is in it and diversiry. -DBI know we have lost 90% of the some of the salient recommen- Central Vallev riuarian forests. . . dations and critiques we made and we have lost 91% of the about what is currently going on in the state. interior wetlands and 80% of the coastal wetlands.

The approach we took was straightforward. We We have figures about lost acreages for those com- used the definition of biological diversity that is in munity types that are, if you will, at the edge. But the National Biodiversity Act, which has not been we know very little of the condition of what's left. passed but is in Congress. The easiest way to think Even for those pieces that remain in good condition, about the diversity of life is to consider three differ- we don't know if they are functional. Have they al-

ready started to lose species from those patches of documented and some of it speculative, that popula- land? We don't have any data on those things. We tions are declining. do not have a basic understanding about how big of For the plants, we believe about 660 vascular a piece of riparian forest is plants are at risk of extinction, needed for it to be functional for this is 10% of the flora. Cali-

fornia has a high rate of ende- the species that On that Endemism means ifwe lose them in d many of the endem- habitat' How big must a wetland California, we've lost them for the ics are of limited distribution, be to work? There have been very few comprehensive looks world. -DBJ For example if you were to lose at the kinds of ecosystems in five populations of one of these California and what they need to make them work. Perhaps an even more basic prob- lem is the lack of consensus on how to name com- munities. That makes it very difficult for agencies or policy makers to write laws that can be effective or to know even what questions to ask. When every agency and vegetation ecologist are all using dif- ferent classification systems for naming vegetation types, it is very hard to implement any policies that are oriented toward ecosystem protection. The ex- ception is the category wetland, and that is mainly because the Clean Water Act has begun to be used as the way to protect wetlands nationally. Thus, over the last 10 or 15 years, there has been a lot of research on defining wetlands. An interagency task force at the federal level, including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Soil Conservation Service, prepared a manual on how to delineate wetlands. The criteria are based on soils, hydrology, and vegetation. Training in mak- ing this delineation is available. Wetlands can some- times be defined even during a dry year. In Califor- nia this is not a trivial problem, since so many of our wetlands are seasonal.

It would be difficult to establish such rigorous criteria for all kinds of ecosystems. There are some basic data gaps, about even what we have and what we've lost. It is hard to answer what is the status of biological diversity in California. Yet that's the question that most time and m-

limited endemics, you would have lost 75% of the species' distribution. Ende- mism means if we lose them in California, we've lost them for the world. These numbers are good to use if you want to get somebody to pay attention. They are the only numbers we have that can be documented.

In the report there is a chapter on status, and 1 have given you a very quick summary of that. There is also information about protected areas in the State. About 11 % of California is classified as some kind of protected area, meaning it has some special management constraints as found in parks, wilder- ness areas, and research areas. Perhaps only half of that area, however, 6% of the State, has manage- ment constraints such that commodities are not still extracted from that land. So although we have 11 % of the state designated as managed areas that are somewhat protected, half of these would still permit the extraction of commodities particularly by means of grazing. Grazing is the most common use of lands that are not wilderness areas. Grazing protects some kinds of species and some kinds of communi- ties but not others.

We next try to give an overview of the threats to biological diversity in the state. Not surprisingly, at the top of the list are habitat loss and conversion, water use and water projects, and commodity use of resources. Other threats are forestry practices,

grazing and fishing, vollution, ergy and effort have been put into in the last 15 years. We have a lot of information on in- dividual species that are in trouble, The often-quoted statis- tic is that data suggest that 220 of the state's native vertebrates, which is about 29% of the ver-

- In general, people fight about water for

the sake of water, and only a small portion of people fight about water for the sake of resources and for the sake

of species or biological diwrsiry. -DBJ

- . global- atmosphere problems, global atmosphere change, spe- cifical ly ozone depletion and climate change, and the human population. The report covers each of these considering both how these things threaten di- versitv and which agencies in

tebrates that live in California, the state have some r&ponsibil- are at risk. Being at risk means that they are already ity over these kinds of activities. We do have good listed or they are on someone's watch list, because documentation about what's happening from these they may merit listing. Listing doesn't mean we types of threats. know anything about their ecology or what it would In general, people fight about water for the take for those species to recover. What we do know sake of water, and only a small portion of people is that there is some information, some of it well fight about water for the sake of resources and for

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, A N D CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

the sake of species or biological diversity. Al- though, in fact, that's what the Bay-Delta hearings, now in their third or fourth year in Sacramento, are about, there is no reason to believe that there will be resolution to that issue soon. Perhaps common in California, but not common in the literature of con- servation biology, is consideration of the problems we face in extracting timber products and in using of land for grazing and at the same time maintaining biological diversity. We just don't have enough re- search or experimental examples or energy going into using the land outside of parks as part of the total area which is important for the maintenance of a species.

Because most people perceive the biodiversity problem as an endangered species or species-loss prohlem, they perceive the solution, therefore, to be parks. If you define the problem as a loss of a hand- ful of species, then it is easy to say that making lit- tle narks evervwhere will solve

the public that this is a problem because it doesn't manifest itself in the beginning; it only manifests it- self when you are down to the bottom line. This is a perceptual prohlem, you didn't notice the houses between East Bay and Sacramento when there was still a Richmond, but they are now through Vallejo and soon will be marching over the hills. By then, of course, the land will already have been con- verted.

Institutionally, at the state government level, there is no state agency responsible for managing or protecting biological diversity. In a sense we are again looking at a turf problem. There are many agencies in California responsible for pollution is- sues; we have the Air Board, we have the Water Resources Control Board, we have the Department of Health Services, which deals with toxics, and we have the Waste Management Board. These agencies' original mandate was to protect the public from as-

saults to human health. to k e e ~ r~~ - ~

- ~ the problem.-if you define the the air clean, to keep the water problem as larger than that, he- clean, primarily for human ing the loss of populations or California isfull of researchers and health, and secondarily for re- the loss of genetic diversity or env~~0nmenraliJtJ and acrivisfi, why sources. for ecosystems and the loss of-functional e&sys- isn't it working here? -DBJ natural resources. The other tems, then it is much easier to " - agencies that have a more tradi- understand that parks are not tional responsibility for fish and going to solve all of our problems. The parks are wildlife and water are the Department of Water Re- certainly not going to solve the problems that have sources, Department of Forestry and the Depart- to do with transboundary pollution, with loss of ment of Fish and Game. These agencies' traditional water from the streams that run through the parks, mandate has been commodity production, get water or with atmospheric changes like ozone depletion to people and to farms, get trees to timber for our and climate change. houses, get trees to our paper mills, and provide

The part that I think is novel in our research ducks and deer for hunting. Recreational enjoyment has to do with considering the institutions in Cali- is also covered by the Department of Fish and fornia and the barriers to conservation. California is Game. The agencies that are responsible for pro- full of researchers and environmentalists and activ- tection have to protect people from human health ists, why isn't it working here? If it is not working assaults. We have no agency responsible for pro- here, where can it work? There is a chapter that fo- tecting ecological systems or biological systems. I cuses on the barriers to conservation. The first one think if this is an accurate reflection of state govern- is that there are limits to parks. Parks won't solve ment, this in a sense calls for a radical solution. all the problems. This is true, in part, because we You need to rearrange the existing institutions. wouldn't he able to buy all the lands needed and We have some other problems which, again, I still have 30 million people living in California. don't think will be surprising to you. There is the Another reason involves the transboundary prob- conflict hetween conservation and development. We lems. One of the tougher problems to solve is this also see the prohlem as one of lack of planning. cumulative effects problem, the one that's hard to There is not a regional perspective on planning. see as you get to the last 10% of whatever is there, There's not a perspective that we need to trade off the one that's hard to see until you finally see fish the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds die off, the incremental loss of habitat, or the in- of land uses within a region or within geographic cremental accumulation of individually insignificant provinces in a way that makes sense as far as the re- losses. This cumulative effects prohlem has two sources which are not tradeahle between geographic implications. One is the scientific research implica- provinces. We are suggesting that there is a real tion. It is harder to do the work on these kinds of need for regional planning which would include bi- problems. The other is that it is harder to convince ological resources as part of the regions. There's a

real need for more understanding and more data. There are a lot of gaps in our knowledge, and there are a lot of gaps in our understanding on how to re- store ecosystems and how to manage ecosystems in a multiple-use fashion.

Finally, I think that there is a real lack of edu- cation of the public on what these problems are. As I said before, most people think that an endangered species is the problem, and, therefore, see the solu- tion as parks or getting rid of that endangered spe- cies. People understand the species argument well. But the genetic arguments and ecosystems argument are a little harder to make. Even scientifically the ecosystem argument is harder to make. These issues are very hard to communicate to the public, to the press, and to the legislators. In a sense that also means that it is very difficult for the agency staff responsible for implementing any set of laws you or I could think of. There is also a training problem in terms of the people who are being asked to do the work of integrating the protection of resources and the planning of urban land uses, agricultural land uses, or forest uses. Many of these people do not have enough training to solve these problems, par- ticularly at the county planning level. So there is a real education gap, I think, both in the professional realm and in the general public.

We took these lists of problems and made some recommendations. We think that there needs to be a mandate to protect biological diversity by state agencies. We think there needs to be a habitat-fo- cused protection act which would require looking at endangered habitats and doing regional planning for endangered habitats. We recommended that there be a state agency responsible for coordinating hiodiver- sity protection. We recommended that there be a re- search institution, and although we haven't recom- mended a structure for it, we elaborated on the need for one that would be focused on biological diver- sity research and conservation research. We recom- mended that the existing laws be implemented and enforced. There still are significant acreages that should be acquired because they are fragile and that is the best way to protect them. There is educational work that needs to be done. We need to have broader representation of environmental constituents on the many different kinds of policy-making bodies in the state. The policy bodies responsible for agri- cultural policy should not have only people involved in agriculture, the policy bodies responsible for for- estry policy should not have only foresters. There should be an integration. There should he interdisci- plinary panels at the policy level, even if we can't necessarily put together interdisciplinary research teams.

The next step with this kind of document is to take it to the policy makers. The California Institute for Public Affairs, a policy institute in Sacramento, is considering whether it would be appropriate to have a workshop around one of our recommenda- tions or a particular set of issues. They would try to get a group of people from the research community, business community, and the political policy com- munity to discuss what should be the approaches to implement some of these recommendations or some sets of solutions. Some of these things, of course, are already in the works, many of these are not novel. There's already an effort going on in Sacra- mento to have a biodiversity research institute of some son at the University. My understanding is that this approach didn't get very far in the current session. However, I think there is a growing recog- nition that the problems are very complex and inter- active, and the solutions will have to fit the model of the problems. Most people perceive a need for a wide array of institutions that do research and a wide array of institutions that have some kind of regulatory and management responsibility, rather than finding a monolithic solution. The problem is not really monolithic.

Discussion

M.M. Johnson: Much of our impetus in the Re- sources Agency over the last couple of years has es- sentially been addressing spotted owls. We have taken advantage of that in some respects to step up one of our efforts that has been going on for years. We have the Timberland Assets Task Force that in- cludes Dean Gardner from UC Berkeley, Dan Tay- lor from the Audubon Society, someone from USDA-Forest Service, the principal agencies of California, National Park Service, Fish and Wild- life, all the major agencies that have anything to do with wildlife or land-use planning. Because of the controversy with regard to timber harvest and pre- serving wildlife habitat, we have held a series of meetings and have developed work plans. In fact, they just had the request for proposals to do some additional research. I guess one of major stumbling blocks that we ran up against is that we have, as Deborah mentioned, all kinds of various vegetation mapping, all matter of data, and all in different da- tabases. The challenge that we face is bringing all this information together in one solid computerized data system so that we can begin this. Overlaid on top of that is a giant mapping program for three northern counties and part of Shasta County. This is primarily focused on timber, but we see a logical progression of this going down into the hardwood

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION. AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERS~TY OF CALIFORNIA

areas, essentially overlapping with the farmland mapping we currently have in progress. In the fu- ture I can see the development of a mapping data system that would be utilized by both the timber in- dustry and wildlife ecologists to manage our forest lands across the State in such a way that we could possibly balance things out. We are doing studies and cooperative work with federal and state agen- cies and also the universities and state college sys- tems. I have read the CPS report and found it quite interesting. I found that some of the material con- cerning the Departments of Forestry and Fish and Game were a little bit outdated, in my opinion.

G. Ahlstrom: I would like to point out, for exam- ple, if you looked at the recent Board of Forestry policy statement, it does look at biodiversity as a specific issue and has some concern for a couple of needs. With respect to vegetation mapping, there has been an interagency committee which has con- vened for a number of years now to try to coordi- nate the different approaches to mapping into a uni- fied system. It would seem to me that some of that has been coordinated by now.

C.1. Millnr: The goal of that group in coming to- gether was to define a unified system. It became clear that this would never happen because each of the agencies had different agen-

cal and regional levels, they have a very difficult time to get things done for environmental issues. It is not just an education gap. Many are really de- spairing about the end-arounds by the developers and others with economic interest in development. My impression is that if you are effective in identi- fying and developing management plans, as you get further along, there is going to be a backlash by the larger developers who have most of the money and the political power. I am wondering how your re- port will be perceived by them. I suspect that while studies are being done, there won't be much oppo- sition. But when you start talking about implement- ing things, restricting areas from development, there will he strong opposition and the whole thing will break down.

Jensen: I agree with you, but 1 think there are many different issues in the State which call for a regional perspective to be solved. People have already ac- knowledged that transportation is a problem which cannot be solved by any one community on its own. There is no way the city of Oakland can solve the East Bay transportation problem alone. It is the same way with biodiversity. A larger view is neces- sary. People need to understand the biological di- versity issues cannot be solved on an individual community basis; they have to be considered in a

broader perspective. To use a . . das. h o w they are living kith more regional perspective for eoine in different directions. It land use ~ lann ine is a lone-term - .. People need to understand the - " will remain a challenge. change which may or may not

biological diversity issues cannot b~ come around to california, R ~ - Ahlstrom: They did develop a solved on an individual community gional planning is one of those cross-matrix linking the differ- basis; they have to be considered in a things &at comes in and out of ent systems. broader perspective. -DBJ favor, and it has been out of fa- - vor for a long time. But there is Johnson: I was impressed by no way that the water system the fact that the Departments of Fish and Game and that we have in the Central Valley could have come Forestry came together this year during our budget about in an atmosphere of anti-planning because it is process to ask for the same things. 1 thought this such a big project. Some people say we won't get was a whole new game. It is important to keep the there this century, and other people see enough communication going. I hope we are starting to turn growth issues and transportation issues that regional a corner. perspectives will be forced upon us. Probably there

will he some community or county that takes it on M. Hoshovsky: I think there has been a lot of pro- as a pilot because of issues of interest to that gress by state government in trying to meet some of county. That will get used as an example to see goals that Deborah is suggesting here, but I still what works and what doesn't work. I see this as a support a lot of her report's recommendations he- different issue from the need for the planners who cause there is more work that needs to he done. It is are making decisions about permitting projects to important that the report remind us that there are have a better understanding of conservation biology some major gaps; we are working towards them, issues. When they are deciding whether or not the but still have not succeeded. condominium complex goes on this part of the lot or

that part of the lot, they need to have a little more D.E. Parlitt: With respect to the planners at the lo- biological understanding or at least have resources

or people to turn to for help. A lot of planners don't have that kind of background.

Parfitt: The planners don't make any difference. They may recommend that something be done, and the next thing that happens is that the developers go to the wuncil or county government and say they want it done differently because it is less expensive for them. What really counts is who has got the muscle.

G.A.E. Gall: It can't be done just by planners, it's got to be done by essentially everybody. That's be- cause I think you cannot legislate conservation. All you do is legislate to protect one thing and that pushes the activity in another direction which may be worse. It has to be a different ethic, a new ethic of some kind that says that regional planning is a good thing and that brings the developers into it as well as everybody else.

own a bunch of land that we manage. As a wnse- quence we come up against the issue of private rights and public rights. Until somehow that issue is resolved, at whatever level it takes to do that, we will continue to have this problem that you see with land developers. They have a private property right that overshadows any public right. That's the issue to stan with. You are going to have great difficulty moving ahead. I agree with a lot of these concerns you have raised.

H.W. Greene: We have the word "educate" on the agenda, in the title of the workshop. As a teacher in the UC system, something that consistently im- presses me is how incredibly unrealistic most Cali- fornia citizens are about conservation. Most of the people I teach and talk to think that parks are the answer. They think that all you have to do is have some money, and you can save anything. They be-

lieve that John Muir was right when he said he never saw a

Johnson: We are doing essen- drop of blood in the wild. This tially regional planning for tim- that impresses is a patron saint of environrnen- her lands in the Resource me is how incredibly unrealistic most talism in California who claimed Agency. California citizens are about something that is absolutely

conservation. -HWG preposterous. I think we live in Gall: You can't do that inde- probably the most unrealistic pendent of the planning for eve- place in the world anitudinally rything else. It won't work. towards conservation. The major role of the UC

system is to change that. I don't know what your Ahlstrom: 1 think there is an issue that we in the goals are in this conference, but education, espe- Dept. of Forestry come headlong against all the cially at the undergraduate level, should be a serious time. We really are not land managers. We don't concern.

Issues in the Conservation of Biodiversity - Plants

S.K. Jain: My interest in biodiversity has come from study of plant species from vernal pool and roadside weed habitats. I am interested mainly in the population genetics and population ecology of these species.

Concern for biodiversity includes concern for species richness in habitats and concern for diver- sity of community types or heritage elements. The US Global Change Research Program, which has $1.2 billion in FY 1990-91, has drawn attention to ecosystem diversity as the important entry point for biodiversity discussions. I have collected newpaper clippings dealing with biodiversity for the last six months. I found about 30 articles, 26 dealt with single species. Very few deal with biodiversity as a broad ecosystem issue. The scientific priorities of the Global Change Program are geology and atmos- pheric or climate change. Biologists have lost ground, atmospheric scientists have gained ground.

There were discussions by the National Science Foundation Restoration Ecology Panel about launching a big global effort on biodiversity of the same order, $1.2 billion. Megascience is the name of the game at this point. Of that money, 50% would go to understanding science; 30% would go to action; 10% would go to designed experiments; and the remainder to data analysis. I fail to see how such distinctions can be made.

At the California level, the document Sliding toward extinction: lhe state of CaIifornia's natural heritage. 1987 provides an articulate report of what is being lost. Thirty to 40% of California's 380 heritage elements (habitat types) are under siege. Riparian and wetlands are the most impacted, 80% are being lost. I can attest to this; I have lost at least one half of my vernal pool experimental sites around the Central Valley over the past IS to 18 years. The endangered species list is depressing. So

BIODIVERS~TY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

many California endemics are on it; 18 to 20% of on the reserves of the US Forest Service which are California's 6,000 species are endemics. There is an designated Research Natural Areas. They are virtu- eight-to-ten-year gap between the recognition that a ally unknown, there aren't very many yet estab- species needs attention and its lished, but there are a hundred listing. The University of Cali- or more in the works. We are fornia interacting with the %en- takes IO to 15 yearsfrom the recog- facing a similar problem of try- cies could play a role in speed- ing to focus research on those ing up the involved, bureau- nition of the problem to the point of areas, One thing we did this cratic process. doing something about it. -SKJ year, and will continue to do,

In the area of restoration, was to offer a small student re- progress is also slow. For ex- ample, in San Diego County, it took nine years for a site for a vernal pool reserve to be selected, an- other six years for legislative and financial battles to get the land, and it still is not ready for researchers to begin the restoration. It takes 10 to 15 years from the recognition of the problem to the point of doing something about it.

There must be a bigger role for the UC Natural Reserve System (NRS). 1 have

search award. The research was sto be undertaken only on the Research National Areas (RNAs). With limited financial resources we could only give out awards of $500 which was a to- ken, but we got many responses, so it served as a focus on the RNAs.

D. Showers: The Dept. of Fish and Game has listed as endangered nearly 300 species of animals and

plants, and over 200 of these checked a t random 20 of the re- are species of plant$. We have search publications involving painfully little information on NRS sites. These made refer- 7he Dept. of Fish and Game has listed the ecology and population ence onlv verv oerioherallv or endangered 300 Vecies of biologv of most of those soecies -, not at ail to ;he need fo; re- animals andplants, and over 200 of and their communities ' even serves. these are species ofplants. We have though we have a list. Species

painfully little information on the ecol- may be removed from the list if Discussion ogy andpopulation biology of most of they are found to no longer be

those species and their communities endangered. One of our ob- Creene: I want to stress one even though we have a list. -DS jectives then has been devel- thing: somewhere between six - oping recovery plans and and ten species of amphibians seeking information that we can and reptiles in California are new to science. There use to help recover those species once they are is a component of California's biota that may be en- listed. There is a practical avenue by which the dangered without our even knowing of its existence. University can become involved in directing stu-

dents and researchers to work on some of these Qualset: What are some of the research issues that species and the communities in which they are liv- might be addressed on UC Natural Reserve System ing. We have always been species focused, but per- land or other holdings that might impact on how haps we should go beyond that to the community conservation is done? level. Maybe the UC Natural Reserve System would

he an opportunity particularly in those areas where Jain: The issues are known. On such lands one some of those rare species occur. could analyze population vulnerability, monitor de- mography of taxa, monitor small populations, de- R.E. MacMillen: In addition to the Natural Reserve termine fitness loss from inbreeding in small popu- System there is a variety of other reserve systems lations, or develop in situ and ex situ recovery plans within UC that operate pretty much independently. for taxa. The hook Conservation for the twenty-first Some attempts have been made to try to determine century edited by Western and Pearl (1989, Oxford the full resources available for these kinds of ap- University Press) is full of action plans. Every proaches to environmental science. I am thinking of chapter defines things that could be done. Wilson's the Sagehen Creek Field Research Station which op- book, Biodiversity (1988, National Academy Press), erates out of the Dept. of Forestry and Resource has about 50 to 100 good ideas of what could be Management at UC Berkeley, The White Mountain done with reserve systems. Research Station, a Multicampus Research Unit op-

erated from UC Los Angeles, and a whole series of Millar: We have a much worse problem of publicity other operations like these. I think combinations of

these present remarkable opportunities

Jain: Manipulation experiments are needed. To what extent have manipulations of taxa or habitats been carried out at individual holdings of the Natu- ral Reserve System?

J.A. Kennedy: We have a very decentralized ad- ministrative structure except for a few managers. The reserve managers at each site have the discre- tion to evaluate proposals based on scientific merit. In circumstances where a particular proposal was controversial, perhaps by virtue of its potential im- pact, then it is reviewed by a faculty advisory

committee. All use is by permit, and there is a mechanism to award them.

R. Ornduff: Are there species lists for any of the Natural Reserve System holdings?

Kennedy: We have a series of resource inventories. Some of our sites are extremely well documented, Granite Mountains Reserve, Landels-Hill Big Creek Reserve on the Big Sur Coast, Santa CNZ Island Reserve, and Valentine Eastern Sierra Reserve, for example. The vast majority of our sites however, are either inventoried very spottily or not at all. In some cases the inventory is data collected by Uni- versity classes.

Issues in the Conservation of Biodiversity - Animals

M.E. Gilpin: I want to focus on the intellectual done by a Fort Collins lab at the last minute, some aspects of endangered species conservation, such is- sort of consulting firm there worked up the precise sues as population viability, and the analysis and document for this. UC had almost no involvement computerization of the data that need to be assem- in this even though some good demography was bled to help us address this. done out at UC Los Angeles a few years back by a

I attended a meeting that Southern Cal Edison Ph.D. student who now works for the Bureau of put on in Victorville where they were preparing Land Management. They are doing this in an in- facilities so that 200 consulting biologists could he credibly piecemeal fashion, and there is no feedback trained to recognize desert tortoises, be shown how to take the data, to reanalyze it, and then to con- not to touch them, how not to blind them with mir- serve habitat on a regionalized basis nor has there rors. Of course, the desert tortoise was emergency been any effort yet to get the tortoise off the threat- listed about 10 months ago and was federally listed ened list. as threatened about a month ago. So now there is a I have seen a similar emergency approach now big business where all these guys are going to be with the Stephens' kangaroo rat which is in River- consulting with the developers. US Fish and Wild- side county. Suddenly Mary Price, at UC Riverside, life Service staff were pleading with them that after has as much money to do this sort of after-the-fact they got their certificate (and there is now literally a research as this entire Genetic Resources Conser- little certificate you can get that says you are quali- vation Program has. She gets a quarter of a million fied to look at tortoises but not touch them) to send dollars to do that. GRCP goes along year after year their data in because they had no way to compel with a quarter million dollars doing our little things; them to give them the data. They were asking them something's wrong. What we have to do is some- if they saw any violence being how get UC to the forefront in done to tortoises to r e ~ o r t that this. working with both state

I t m actually consulting . . .there are a lot of graduate students and' federal agencies. We need with Southern who would lik, to be involved with this computer databases so we can

on this, my post docs and I are identify things and seek help to tell them what to do. South- kind of research ifthere was af[ow of before they reach this ern Cal Edison feels this is money.. . -MEG crisis point. I think there are a areat. thev sav thev need ad- lot of eraduate students who & t h a t bhat;hey are doing is would l z e to be involved with so silly. They are making some sort of mitigation this kind of research if there was a flow of money efforts. so we can help identify when things should be listed

There are a lot of tortoises out there, some and then be involved in advising how to collect and people estimate as many as two million, but now the organize the data and manage habitat. Habitat must species has been listed. Why? There are many is- be managed in a way that accommodates the su- sues. I am not satisfied that the intellectual aspects perimposed needs of different species. of this were properly analyzed. Analysis was all In Riverside county, they got blind-sided by the

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UN~VERS~TY OF CALIFORNIA

coming next?" I would like to superimpose land ac- quisition so the same piece of property can simulta- neously benefit more endangered species than just a single one. Yet 1 see no real effort to get UC in- volved with this. The liaison of UC with agencies and planning bodies seem to be very ad hoc, very piecemeal, and always driven by outside events.

Discussion

MacMillen: We have a paradox here. The public is very interested in endangered species and so are de- velopers because these species can stop develop- ment. However, from an intellectual and ecological perspective, endangered species are merely symp- tomatic of sick communities. What we really need to be able to do is to recognize communities that may be prone to sickness before they get sick. That is not very interesting to anyone except basic hi- ologists. But this is where we

Gall: I do not know the Diversity Database program very well so I am willing to be corrected, but I would guess, from what I do know, that the pro- gram is a put-out-the-fires program. It is not one like Mike is talking about, an approach that identi- fies areas which could be developed someday, de- termines what is there, and, with what is found, decides where development maybe should happen and should not happen. But at the moment it is the other way around because developers are not going to give you money unless you do it that way.

Hoshovsky: I will talk a little more about that later, but we do have information from a lot of locations with important species that comes from not just sim- ply development pressures hut from basic research. We are able to identify areas that are not currently threatened.

Gall: What makes a species im- need to approach the problem, portant? because this is where it really exists. Basic ecoloeists have ...&Om an intellecrual and Hoshovskv: The ones we have a been doing it for but not perspective, endon~ered species are good inventory on right now are from the conservation perspec- merely s~mptomaric of sick communi- essentially the biologically rare tive. I don't think the UC sys- ties. What we really need to be able to species. We do not have data on tem ever has. This is my sug- do is to recognize communities that the other things, and that is the gestion. may be prone to sickness before they problem, we need a lot more

get sick.-REM work in that. Hoshovsky: I would like to comment about that. I will talk Millar: Maybe we are not capi- more about it when I give my talk about the intera- talizing enough on the highly visible public issues gency Natural Areas Committee, but the California such as the spotted owl. It has brought with it such Dept. of Fish and Game has developed a Significant a host of associated research that there has been a Natural Areas Inventory which is starting to identify complete revolution in the Forest Service on much areas that have multiple species that are important. more than just owls. It has led to the study of old We have an existing inventory now. It needs to be growth forests. It has changed the way the Forest improved significantly. We are making an effort to Service is going to be managing the wildlands. It is do that. because of a few issues. I do not think we want to

ignore work to rescue taxa that are extinction prone, Johnson: The Resources Agency has some funds to at the same time, let us capitalize on the big issues. address some of these other things.

Johnson: The same is true with the Resources Hoshovsky: We do have a mechanism that will en- Agency. We have a whole new perspective. able us to begin to identify important habitats. The information is gradually being filed into the Natural Hoshovsky: Another thing I want to add is that we Diversity Database. That is a good central reposi- are not just simply focusing on species with this in- tory for biological diversity information with spe- ventory. We focus on unique natural communities, cific locations where these things occur. It is not different types of habitats. Since we don't think we perfect, but it is the best we have. It is gradually can really pick up everything at the species level, being improved. Consultants are contributing, the community level is another way to address bio- agencies contribute to it, we work with the Uni- logical diversity. It is not like we are at ground versity and museums, to try and get information to zero, hut there is a long ways to go. update continually that inventory.

Kennedy: There is also a proposal that is being put

out for funding by Frank Davis and John Estes of UC Santa Barbara Geography Department and Mike Scott and Larry Suti out of the Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit entitled Geo- graphic Information Systems Analysis of Biodiver- sity in California. A key paragraph says, "The first step in mounting an effective ecosystem program to protect biological diversity is identifying which areas in ecosystems are most in need of protecting. This can be accomplished by determining what por- tions of vegetation types in areas of high vertebrate species richness are protected by existing preserves. Identified gaps in the protection of vegetation types in biologically significant areas could then be tar- geted to expand the current reserve system." Again, this is a park-type approach rather than a full sys- tems management approach. Their target would be to expand the current reserve system to include vi- able representatives of all vegetation types and spe- cies, not just the rare ones, that have not adapted to human-altered habitats, including both upland and wetland habitats. Quoting again from Davis and Estes, "This approach allows conservationists to he proactive rather than reactive in their efforts to pre- serve biodiversity. It should also result in fewer conflicts among conservationists and developers. We propose to provide a statewide assessment of biodiversity and protection needs at a relatively coarse level of detail in order to organize and syn- thesize existing information, and to identify ecosys- tems and species-rich areas with high priority for additional, more detailed analyses."

It is a very ambitious agenda, however, this has been done in Oregon and Idaho. California is different, and I wonder about whether we will be able to do it, but some people are beginning.

Hoshovsky: This effort would be able to take more of a landscape approach, saying, there are some areas that potentially support a lot of species in dif- ferent kinds of habitats. The mapping may be fairly coarse. For example, the vegetation will he mapped to a 1-to-250,000 scale so you will not be able to pick up riparian areas or small, but critical, wet- lands. Serpentine areas will he missing. But at least from a coarse wildlife perspective, they will be able to identify portions of small counties. For example, they might be able to say, "this topographic quad- rangle potentially has a lot of species." But even that is important, because then you can look at those areas more critically to determine if the site really

has what they thought it had. This will allow us to focus in on certain parts of the state. We will see what comes of it.

Kennedy: They are going to do pilot projects on a minor scale, north coast. San Joaquin Valley to the Sierra, and, 1 think, maybe in the desert. They are taking a stratified approach.

Johnson: The mapping program that I mentioned earlier is with a resolution of 5-acre units.

Kennedy: Yes, we are hoping to be able to take ad- vantage of that information. That will be valuable. That mapping I have heard is not only northern California, i t will also be done for the length of the Sierra, right?

Johnson: Yes. Right now we have the money for places that are getting the most controversy. We are doing those first, and then we hope to extend it down the Sierra.

S.P. Nation: This proposal from UC Santa Barbara is an interesting use of resources because they just became the National Science Foundation's Center of Excellence for gm-based information systems along with the State University of New York at Buffalo and the University of Maine. 1 had an academic ap- pointment down there in the mid-7Os, and they were doing a lot of good things then in geographic infor- mation systems. They are one of the state-of-the-art institutions in that field now. I encourage agencies to use Santa Barbara because one of the specifica- tions for being an NSF Center of Excellence is a demonstration of a past working relationship with government and private agencies. The designation requires a strong commitment from the center of ex- cellence to continue to emphasize this collaborative focus. 1 was down there when the peer review committee came through. I represented both the University and state agencies because I had had some experience with the Resources Agency in the past. One of the things we really pushed with the peer review committee was the record that Santa Barbara already had in dealing with these agencies. They need to continue to be gently reminded that this is part of the mandate. It is a good group of people down there. Please become familiar with them if you are not already.

BIOD~VERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Organizations Involved with Biodiversity in California

UC Natural Reserve System that mission, or that mandate, one of our first tasks was to develop a habitat classification scheme for

J.A. Kennedy: Let m e just give you a brief the Stateof California. overview on the Natural Reserve System. I really In 1975, N.M. Cheatham, our field representa- resonated with Subodh lain's observation that in the tive, and J.R. Haller, a botanist at UC Santa Bar- last 15 years he's lost approximately half of his field bara, published an initial version of a habitat classi- research sites. It was the collective similar experi- fication for the state that consisted of 135 terrestrial ences of many of the faculty that really were the types and 44 marine and aquatic types. That classifi- impetus for creating the Natural Reserve System in cation system was subsequently adopted by the Cali- 1965. In the late '50s and early '60s, some far- fornia Department of Fish and Game's Natural Di- sighted individuals, such as Mildred Mathias and versity Database, and it has been refined and elabo- Randy Pohls at UC Los Angeles and Ken Norris at rated upon to the point that it has grown from 135 UC Santa Cruz, saw the writing on the wall: habitat terrestrial types to 265 terrestrial types, and from 44 loss, population development, growth trends, and so marine and aquatic types to 150 aquatic types. We on. Each had tried individually to get the University are pushing 400 habitat types total. We y e s - to acquire and protect and manage important sites stimated that it would take roughly 50 sites, 50 re- for teaching and research. They serves, to encompass the State's were batting zero. They simply natural diversity. We started out could not get to first base, could with a portfolio of seven proper- not even get past the campus We guesstimated that it would take ties that the University owned at administrations, let alone get to roughly 50 sites. 50 reserves, to

. - the time of establishment of the the Regents of the university of encompass the State's natural Natural Reserve System. These ~alifornia. At the same t h e , diversity. -JAK were primarily gifi properties there were significant natural that did not have development habitats remaining on some of potential. The University tends our campuses that were being paved over, turned to look at land as an investment instrument rather into tennis courts, turned into parking garages, and than for its inherent value. In the succeeding 26 so on. So, the institution was not only not proac- years we have grown from the seven initial sites to tively concerned about sites beyond its border, but 26 formally dedicated reserves, and four affiliated it was actively paving over and destroying sites that sites, totalling about 130,000 acres, of which we it did have. Several of the faculty got together, and own roughly 18,000 acres in fee. The rest is by they approached the administration to take a state- conservation easements or use agreements. Our wide perspective, to canvass the state, look at op- largest reserve is Santa Cruz Island, which is owned portunities, look at trends, and come up with a pro- by the Nature Conservancy, consisting of some gram designed to address the needs, the field-ori- 55,000 acres. We have a real property of only two ented needs, of teaching and research. We came up acres or so on the island, which is our field station with, then, the Natural Reserve site. The next largest reserve System, which is a system of would be Deep Canyon Desert natural areas and biological field stations, an academic support program for teaching and re- search. It is not a conservation program per se. Conservation is in a sense an unavoidable bv-

... the mean reserve size is less than a square mile, 640 acres. l l u s . in the

long term, most of these vatural Reserve System] sites are going to require a good deal of active man-

Research Center out of Palm Desert. That's about 18,000 acres of which we own roughly 10,000 in fee, and we have a use and management agreement with ELM. our mission is nbt agement to keep any vestige of natural The majority of our re-

conservation, although we are systems. -JAK serves are, from an ecological very involved in conservation. perspective, postage stamp re- The system was, by design, serves. I'm sure the mean habitat driven. We wanted to get a representative reserve size is less than a square mile, 640 acres. cross-section of the state's natural diversity as char- Thus, in the long term, most of these sites are going acterized by its habitat types, vegetation types, or to require a good deal of active management to keep ecosystems, whatever term you want to use. Given any vestige of natural svstems.

In any event, I want to give you a sense of what we have been able to accomplish from a habi- rat perspective, in terms of biodiversity. I did an analysis in 1980 from the Cheatham and Haller list. Keep in mind all these classification schemes are hi- erarchical on sort of a decimal system, they go from the units level of classification down to, at that time, the one-thousandth place, four levels. At the highest, or coarsest level, we have 100% coverage. At the next level down, it was about 81%. At the finest cut, we had 56% of the identified habitats within the Natural Reserve System. At that time we had only 24 or 25 reserves. We were pretty much on the money in terms of our initial guesstimate that we would need 50 sites to encompass the hulk of the diversity. Now that the classification scheme has been further refined (l don't have any definitive fig- ures for the aquatic types), I'm sure the representa- tion is quite low, as the classification is on a drain- age basis. I imagine we might

a library, sort of an ecosystem library. We make ourselves available to faculty and students, teaching, and research. We also have some public service programs, and our use is ad hoc. It varies from year to year and from site to site. On occasion we have tried to take a more proactive position. For two and a half years we had an assistant director for aca- demic programs, Ron Carroll, who is an agroecologistlcommunity ecologist. He had several initiatives before he departed, one of which was to submit a proposal to the NSF-funded Long-Term Ecological Research System for an agroecology site.

We are doing a bit of research now as a sys- tem, as opposed to what faculty and students are doing, which I call management-oriented research. We are one of four state agencies that are trustee agencies under CEQA. We manage the land re- sources of the Natural Reserve System in the public trust. Given that responsibility, then, we need to

develop the theoretical concepts encompass maybe lo%, if we're and the practical tools and doing really good on the aquatic

- - - methodologies to manage effec- side. On the terrestrial side our One area of growth, significant tively and protect, preserve, and coverage. if we include not iust growth, lhat1 see in thefuture, isfor make available our resources. the ~ & r a l Reserve ~ ~ s t e m , b u t the Natural Reserve System to P~QY an One area of growth, significant also some of the other ancillary active role in developing the disciplines growth, that I see in the future, sites, such as White Mountain of conservation biology, restoration is for the Natural Reserve Sys- Research Station, Sagehen ecology, landscape ecology, preserve tem to play an active role in de- Creek, and Whittaker's Forest, design, corridor analysis, networking veloping the disciplines of con- is anywhere from 41 to 100%. of reserves into metareserves, servation biology, restoration On the decimal level of the hier- and so on. -1AK ecology, landscape ecology, archy, the latest classification preserve design, corridor anal- scheme has five levels, so at the ysis, networking of reserves coarsest level again we have into metareserves, and so on. 10096, and then it goes 76, 57, 42, and 41%. We also see some potential for, if not out of the Re-

In terms of what all of this means to academia, serve System itself, at least the Reserve System be- in the most recent reporting year, 1987-88, we have ing the catalyst for the campuses to develop pro- actually compiled all the statistics in the report that grams for in-service training for resource manage- you have been given. We have supported approxi- ment professionals. There are a number of field sta- mately 8,200 individual users within the system. tions and reserves nationally that are moving ahead This is not a huge constituency given that our stu- in that sector, the Anders Experimental Forest in dent body is 165,000 students. But as reserves go, Oregon, for example. as field stations go, as natural areas go, it's a pretty We also see some potential for developing sizeable usage. We currently support over 340 ac- teacher training at the K-I2 level in the environmen- tive research projects. I don't know what the tally is tal arena, particularly focusing on ecology and bio- in terms of classes, but the trend is upward. Even diversity. We feel that there is some role for the Re- though the demographics above the faculty level and serve System to play in terms of inventory, baseline the student level seem to be declining, sort of corn- documentation, and environmental monitoring. petitive displacement with genetic engineering and This, of course, depends rather significantly on microbiology, we seem to be bucking the trend. Our working with the faculty and working with the re- biggest problem seems to be that we are one of the serve managers to identify questions that we wish to better kept secrets within the University. The prob- address with the monitoring program. Typically lem we face is making people aware of our exis- there are monitoring programs developed that gen- tence and the services we can provide. We are at erate data that are not particularly useful, but we do present primarily a passive resource, very much like have some experience in this area. The Bodega Ma-

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

rine Lab and Reserve is one example 1 would like to cite. It is one of the sampling sites for the National Mussel Watch Program. It is a baseline site. I think that it is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. At any rate we use Mytilus edulis, mussels, as a bioassay, a bioaccumu- lator, to indicate water quality. These mussels then are pureed and analyzed, and we get some sense of what the ambient water quality is. We also have a system called MOMS, the Marine Ocean Monitor- ing System, that looks not only at the terrestrial environment, but also at the intertidal and subtidal environments. We do wave-frequency analysis, and we provide data to the Coast Guard and to a variety of agencies and organizations.

We also played an active role taking inventory and monitoring one further step in working with re- searchers from Scripps to address the issue of TBT or tributyl-ten in the marine environment. It is an anti-fouling agent. We organized a workshop to ad- dress this issue, and this resulted in legislation in the states along the Pacific Coast to control the use and application of tributyl-ten.

As I said, we are not ourselves a conservation organization per se, but to the extent that we pro- ceed with our acquisition program to complete the system and to acquire buffer zones to our existing reserves, we can contribute in a small way towards biodiversity conservation. More significantly, I am seeing increasing potential for NRS reserves to serve as off-site mitigation banks. This is a very controversial process. Not all of our sites are suit- able receiver sites. None of us is buying into the proposition that habitat restoration or "improvement" on a degraded site counterbalances the loss of viable natural sites. However, one area, our San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve, is a remnant patch of freshwater wetland. It bas been rather significantly manipulated and degraded, and we are using it as a receiver site to mitigate projects by the Irvine Corporation and other developers in the region. We are not representing those habitat improvements as actually balancing what is being done, but we are taking the position that there will be a net improvement at the San loaquin Freshwater Marsh, and it is on that basis that we are proceed- ing. Our Motte Rimrock Reserve in the Perris Val- ley area south of Riverside is going to be a receiver site for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat habitat acquisitions.

In terms of management, I've already men- tioned management-oriented research, but we have a number of cooperative interagency projects under- way. I think our most successful one has been de- veloped by Mike Hamilton at the James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve as a Coordinated Resource Man-

agement and Planning effort. He has developed a computerized geographical information system (his macroscope) of a wildfire model that he is making available to multiple agencies to address wildfire concerns and interface with concerns in the San Ysidro-Santa Rosa Mountain Range. He recently got funding from the Man in the Biophere Program to extend that down into northern Baja California. Some of you may know Rich Minnich at UC River- side who is doing some interesting studies looking at differing fire regimes in Mexico, where there is no fire suppression, and in California, where there is, and making comparative analyses. Similar kinds of collaborative work are going on at Santa Cruz Island Reserve, Landels-Hill Big Creek Reserve, Hastings Natural History Reservation, and Bodega Marine Reserve.

Lastly, 1 would just like to make some of you aware of a report that has come out from the Na- tional Science Board. It is titled, "Loss of biological diversity: A global crisis requiring international solutions." It is very complementary to Deborah Jensen's report. They have five recommendations, one that NSF as a matter of National Science Board Policy should provide leadership to undertake the inventory of the world's biodiversity. They are pro- posing a major increase in funding for that purpose and to enhance the Biological Research Resources Program to handle the data management end of things. They are calling for increased funding to improve the scientific basis for conservation biol- ogy, restoration ecology, and environmental man- agement; that is, $3.5 to 10 million per year. They are calling for education with public awareness pro- grams, particularly K-12, as well as graduate train- ing. Finally, they are calling for enhanced support of developing countries' sites and institutions. I think there is some potential for the Natural Reserve System to collaborate, particularly with Mexico and Central American countries. A case in point would he our Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program here in California.

There are some really exciting possibilities. You could do comparative and collaborative re- search along the latitudinal moisture gradient going from California all the way down into Costa Rica looking at the seasonal dry tropical systems to the south and our seasonally dry temperate systems and draining systems in the north.

Discussion

M.E. Mathirs: There is a need to amplify the bio- logical orientations of the reserves. Some of the re- serves are really physical science stations, sites for

research on water quality or geophysical research. Even the small sites are important. Some, though small, are surrounded by National Forest land. We are trying to emphasize that the reserves with labo- ratory facilities can he used as centers for studying larger surrounding areas. The NRS is now in the throes of a strategic planning committee, chaired by UC Riverside Chancellor Barbara Schraer, that hopes to report in the fall. The NRS has only a small staff, everything else has run on income from gifts and soft money. There are no state funds.

Hoshovsky: What's the likelihood of getting new reserves in the future?

Kennedy: We have a number of reserves in the pipeline that go a long ways back, and they have a momentum of their own. The four sites designated "affiliated sites" are essentially in the process of be- coming official sites. One of these four aftiliated sites is the Eagle Lake Field Station, which is owned and operated by Chico State University. We will be entering our fourth year in a cooperative management agreement with Chico; we share the operational cost of that site. Another is the Northern California Coast Range Preserve. It is a Nature Conservancy Site for which we'll be entering our third year of a three-year cooperative use and man- agement agreement, with the intent of incorporating it into the full system. The third is the Fish Slough Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), about a 62-square-mile land area centered on a de- sert spring habitat system. We cooperatively man- age that site with four other agencies: the US Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, US Bureau of Land Management, and Los Angeles Department of Water & Power. The ACEC Management Plan is trying to get involved. The fourth site is Stunt Ranch in the Santa Monica Mountains.

There are a couple of other opportunities, shall we call them, apropos to Mildred Mathias' appro- priate correction to my presentation with its over- emphasis on biological versus some of the other geophysical things. There is a site called Tick Can- yon, which is on the US Borax mine, it is a fahu- lous geology field mapping site. Some 40% of the petroleum geologists in the world have done their field geology mapping at Tick Canyon. There is some potential for further acquisitions: Cedric Ranch in Santa Ynez Valley is a 6,000 acre site. It is already UC property. But we increasingly come up against the problem of funding. This means that as habitat is disappearing, our options are being lost. We feel a compelling obligation to preserve as

many options as we can for future generations of faculty and students. So we are somewhat opportun- istic. Part of it is opportunistic by virtue of this habitat classification scheme and by doing a gap analysis and so on. We try to take advantage as ac- quisitions become available. But again we are an academic support group, and so our merit review, so to speak, depends upon terms of academic use and productivity. The single most important factor in facilitating academic use and productivity of our reserves is our research facilities on site. I just did a statistical analysis, the first one we have ever done in the system. I looked at published reports of aca- demic use versus reserve size, habitat diversity, distance from the campus, academic facilities, which are housing, labs, offices, and meeting space, but not workshops, storage, or garages. The only sig- nificant correlation was with academic facilities. The correlation coefficient was about 0.86. Every- thing other than that was 0.5 or less, and a lot of it was down to 0.06. Even more interesting, and I don't know what the meaning of this is, instruc- tional use correlates with nothing, correlation coef- ficients were 0.02 to 0.18. Yet we feel we've got a valid data set, because when we run a correlation of academic publications versus academic use, we get a 0.87 correlation coefficient. I think this is germane to the Research Natural Area issue. Research, at least within academia, is done in the sense of busi- ness. Time is important. You have a choice between going to a place which facilitates research, where it is easy versus where it is hard. This Jane Goodall image of doing research out of tents and wandering the bush, that's largely a myth. It doesn't happen.

Millar: What about NSF-funded fellow Barbara Bentley's plan to us a common garden study at the Bodega Marine Reserve?

Kennedy: We had an NSF-funded Distinguished Research Fellow, Barhara Bentley from State Uni- versity of New York at the Bodega Marine Lab and Reserve for a period of time, and she wanted to do a common garden experiment. She brought plant ge- netic material in from different populations and grew it in a garden. It raised the question of genetic pollution, if you want to call it that, assuming of course that we have a pristine population to begin with. We have developed a set of policies and guidelines currently in draft form. At least at an in- tellectual level, it would raise the issue of how do we deal with this. Our reserve manager brought this up before our faculty advisory committee and pre- sented a proposal to convene a panel of faculty of managers and administrators and also agency per-

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

some1 to address this. What we ended up doing was modifying or tailoring some policies to fit Califor- nia and the NRS that had actually been developed for La Selva, a reserve in Costa Rica. Barbara was allowed to proceed with her common garden ex- periment, subject to certain conditions. The plants could not set seed.

G.E. Bradford: I was just going to comment as I looked at the map of stations that there is a particu- lar absence of stations in the foothill coast range area. There are however, two UC field stations of 5,000+ acres in northern California. Each of those has something on the order of 500 acres completely unmanaged. The one at Hopland has gone for 35 years with no grazing, no vegetation manipulation, nothing. It seems to me that those areas and perhaps other parts of that station could be considered part of the Natural Reserve System functionally. There may be impediments to that.

Kennedy: Early, initially, in the history of the NRS, we actually approached the field station and got a rather cool reception.

Bradford: There is now a new superintendent at Hopland, and I think you will get a much better re- ception at that level.

Kennedy: From time to time, there has been a pro- posal to make White Mountain Research Station a pan of the Natural Reserve System, but in the re- cent director's report was a very clear message that they are not interested in that. In that particular case, it would be the tail wagging the dog. The White Mountain Research Station, for a constella- tion of four sites, has a budget something on the or- der of $325,000 to 350,000 a year. The budget for the entire 30-reserve system, staff salaries, benefits, operations, everything, was $1.5 million.

Bradford: We have talked here today about the in- terface between agriculture and conservation biol- ogy. It seems to me that a message to the UC ad- ministration on this might be appropriate. I think there is an opportunity for some useful collabora- tion. 1 know Hopland station fairly well; I think with the present superintendent, if you can get his superiors to agree to it, something could be worked out. There are laboratories there, too.

Gall: What is it that NRS would require of such an arrangement that would cause the Station to reject it?

Mathins: I would be happy to answer that. I think they are concerned that we will be bringing in all sorts of students. I think basically students are per- ceived as an operational complication.

Bradford: Incidentally, there has been much more student use of those stations in the last decade.

R.O. Skoog: What would be the advantage for the Station of being part of the Natural Reserve Sys- tem?

Mathias: Publicity.

Botanical Garden - UC Berkeley

R. Ornduff: Six of the UC campuses have bo- tanical gardens or arboreta of various sizes. The oldest botanical garden in the UC system is the UC Berkeley garden which is celebrating its centennial this year with a series of programs aimed at conser- vation. The purpose of the gardens and arboreta is consistent with the UC system as an education and research resource for its campuses. Until last year, our garden was part of the College of Leners and Sciences, it has now been transferred to the College of Natural Resources. In addition to the UC gar- dens, there are some other substantial collections of living plants in Santa Barbara, Rancho Santa Ana, Strybing Arboretum, erc., to name a few of the most outstanding. Ten percent of our collections consist of California plants, we have about 400 na- tive California plants, although we don't have the exact information on hand. It would be possible by visiting several of these gardens to see perhaps 40 to 50% of California's plants growing in cultiva- tion, whereas, for one to see that proportion of ani- mals in California, one would have to go to the mu- seums, mostly private museums, and see them dead. Any time you lead a tour of people through a ho- tanical garden, you soon realize that as soon as a fence lizard scampers across the path, you have lost your group. So I think dead animals and living plants probably are on a par.

The garden has a very serious commitment to conservation. We are a member of the Botanic Gar- dens Conservation Secretariat of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Re- sources. I am on a sub-comminee of the species sur- vival committee. We are one of three botanical gar- dens in California which are members of the Center for Plant Conservation (CPC) which is a rather un- usual organization housed at the Arnold Arboretum,

but not run by the Arnold Arboretum.* The other members in California are Rancho Santa Ana Bo- tanical Garden and the Tilden Park-East Bay Re- gional Park Garden. The fundamental requirement of membership in the CPC is that each of these gar- dens brings five endangered species per year into captivity and forms a seed collection from them ac- cording to specific protocol. The taxa to be col- lected are nominated by the individual garden and then approved by the CPC. The seed is then sent to the deep freeze in Fort Collins. I don't mean to sound cynical, but this is the worst kind of conser- vation. The CPC represents this as a major accom- plishment in preserving biodiversity, and you can see that it certainly is not. If, indeed, it is true that there are 660 species of plants in California that are threatened or endangered, that would be 220 plant species per member garden. It would take our three gardens 44 years to bring into the deep freeze those plants which are listed as endangered in California. Of course, in 44 years many of them will already he gone.

The CPC has more recently become more than just a passive organization, and they are interested in encouraging research and education. That func- tion has also been carried out by the National Wild- flowers Research Center in Austin, Texas which is actually way ahead of the CPC as far as propaganda to state oreanizations is con-

dens is conservation. I think their potential is largely an educational one.

There are some other functions that are less common, and I want to discuss them. One is that in botanical gardens we can provide sites for experi- mental studies of various kinds with a reasonable degree of security. We know in our case where our plants came from and how long they have been in the garden. So there are plants from known ages and that have grown in more or less standard condi- tions for a period of time as they would in nature. This certainly provides marvelous opportunities for various kinds of studies of physiological ecology, phenology, germination requirements, and even for investigation of storage techniques for seeds. There are three gardens which are members of the Center of Gardens for Plant Conservation in Hawaii which is the state that has the largest number of rare and endangered plants. However, there is virtually no information available on storage techniques for seeds of tropical or sub-tropical plants. Virtually all the techniques that have been worked out have been worked out for plants in temperate zones.

Gardens also provide a place for researchers and grad students to work. This way research meth- ods can be tried out before being transferred into the field. It is amazing to me how many of our stu- dents go to Costa Rica and other places in the trop-

ics to work and have never ac- cerned. T ~ ~ - C P C has to move - tually touched a living plant or in that direction, or it will be attempted to manipulate it. Then dead on its feet. If. indeed, ir is true that there are 660 they arrive on the scene and

At Berkeley we have a ma- Vecies of plants in California that are suddenly realize they don't jority of ~alifornia 's rare and threatened or endangered. that would know how to pollinate the endangered and threatened na- be 220 plant species per member flower, they don't know how to tives growing in cultivation. garden. It would take our rhree collect seeds, they don't know One of the difficulties with our gardens 44 years to bring into the deep how to climb a tree safely. We success in growing so many freeze those plants which are fisted as don't recommend they climb our species is that it could suggest endangered in california, ofcourse, in trees, but we employ techniques to people that gardens are the 44 years many ofthem ,,,ill already they might want to utilize in the places where conservation be gone. -RO field. Bagging flowers, for should go on. I would say that example, so they won't rot and is absolutely not the case. If to exclude pollinators is a very anything we may be doing fel- simple thing. Students think low conservationists a disservice by announcing that such things are easy until they get into the field and we have so many growing successfully. I think, realize they don't know how to do it. They are then however, that the primary reason for growing these thousands of miles from their major professor, who plants is an educational one. People are taken by prohably also does not know how to do it. rare and endangered plants and organisms. After Another service that our garden has provided is seeing them, it brings home the message that no our collection of seeds, most notably for Amsinckia matter what the organism may be, it is a real entity. grandiflora which has been reentered into the wild. Thus, I don't think the fundamental function of gar- It is an annual plant which is known from only a

single or two small populations in the Lawrence )oratories property in Contra Costa

Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO. County and trom which seed collection is no longer

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

permitted. The garden had been studying the kinds of arguments that we as scientists are forced species' general growth requirements in cultivation to convey to the public. "We may stumble on a dis- and increasing its seed supply. It has been rein- covery like Alexander Fleming." I just don't buy troduced into the wild in the that. sense that one generation has es- - Another function we have

is that of a simple clearing tab'ished heif but, I think it is a mistake to tell the public house for information Many of course, there is the question of how many generations of char the reason for conserving native who want information annuals have to persist on the plants is char some of these plants may about native plants donst site to which it has been intro- have On economic~Orenfial Or may know where they can find it, duced before we claim suc- Serve as sources of new gene material. and the garden is the organi- cessful reestablishment. While . .. I think the reasonfor conservation zation to which they turn. They we were able to provide seed is the same as we use for having major ask us about what is rare, who for this reintroduction carried museums and major libraries in which is doing what, where they can out by Bruce Pavlik at Mills case we are talking about cultural see things, literature sources, College, we unfortunately had heritage. Plants and animals represent identifications, human re- no information on the lineage or our biological heritage. -RO sources, ere., assuming that we genealogy of our seed source. have that information at our This is an important consid- fingertips. eration for future collections. We have a very active

We also grow the Raven manzanita which is docent program. This year, last spring, a much known as only a single individual in the wild. We needed Biology 1B class visited the gardens. It is an don't know if it is self compatible; we don't know introductory class for majors in biology and pre- what its genetic structure is. If it is self compatible, med. Nine hundred of these students visited the one can imagine recreating a population of mama- garden during one week in their lab sections which nita individuals that are genetically different and were broken up into smaller groups and led through actually putting them back in the wild, establishing the garden by docents. This is a remarkable a natural population where the genetic diversity situation where the public volunteers from the would be distributed among the individuals rather community are educating the university students. than in the single individual that now exists. We do Now again next fall, and next spring, Biology 1B not have an in-house research program; we have the students will be coming out. The opportunity to plants and are certainly willing to provide them to expose 900 students to plant diversity cannot help anyone who is interested and has the funds. but rub off on them. Being in the Garden is dif-

I think our main value as a UC resource is in ferent than in the lab with pieces of plants brought educating the public. I have talked to at least three to you. One of the unique things we have done in or four reporters in the last six weeks, two of whom our Garden is that we have tried to recreate natural said, "Why are you bothering to concern yourselves habitats. I think we may have the only captive with preserving rare plants? Who cares?" This was vernal pool. We have a salt marsh, a fresh water not an academic or rhetorical challenge. The person marsh, a very successful alpine fellfield, a beach who asked me this was absolutely serious. He came and dune area, and a pygmy forest which is the real from an independent journal of the Contra Costa thing with dwarf plants. This really turns people on limes. Who cares? Well, I think one of the prob- when it's interpreted in a meaningful and lems that I find is that 1 don't buy the rationale that unthreatening way. I think we have to remember is usually offered for plant conservation. I think it is that students, whether they are Berkeley students or a mistake to tell the public that the reason for con- the grade school kids who came up to our rain for- serving native plants is that some of these plants est rap earlier this spring, or the public members may have an economic potential or they may serve who come through on their own, most of these as sources of new gene material. I think that is ah- people will become voters. Without voters and solute baloney. I think the reason for conservation boards of charitable foundations, without politi- is the same as we use for having major museums cians, conservation will fail. There is absolutely no and major libraries in which case we are talking way that any of us can make headway if we don't about cultural heritage. Plants and animals represent have public support. We feel that our mission is to our biological heritage. I think those are the generate public support over a long-term process of arguments that should apply rather than these argu- educating all segments of the public. That's our ments about how they may be useful. These are the prime mission at the present time. -

Discussion Museum of Vertebrate

Partltt: You were talking about - Zoology -UC Berkeley arguments for conservation biol- Without voters and boards of charitable ogy such as the cultural heritage foundations, without politicians. H.W. Greene: The Museum argument. Do you ever use an conservation will fail. There is of Vertebrate Zoology has been ethical argument, that we have absolutely no way [hat any ofus can for over 75 years a center of re- basically a for made headway ifwe don't have public search on biodiversity in C d - conservation? support. -RO ifornia. There are other muse-

ums and collection+riented Ornduff: I have not used it. I agencies within the University am sure it has been used by our system such as the Museum of education staff. I am not sure that ethics applies Paleontology at UC Berkeley. The Museum of with an awful lot of people. Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ) was started in 1908 by

Joseph Grinnell who was brought to Berkeley from Millar: Can't you push the utility argument, from what is now the California Institute of Technology economic to aesthetic utility? It does not have to be by M. Alexander. She was a hunter and friend of limited to their future potential economically. Teddy Roosevelt, and she wanted a place to store

her grizzly bear skins. But she also wanted to set Omduff: Well, there certainly are cases. The Lim- forth a program for study of biodiversity in western nananthes oilseed that promises to replace sperm North America. For the first several decades of the whale oil is one. There actually have been very few MVZ's history, there were strong policy restrictions plants that have been put into cultivation in the last on where research would be done. That is in con- 200 years that are of any significance. Blueberry, trast to today where most of us work all over the macadamia nuts, and a few others come to mind. world. We now have about 600,000 specimens of That is the argument the Center for Plant Conserva- amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals from all tion promotes, potential utility. This quote from Sci- over the world. The records are all computerized, ence captures the CPC argument: "As a collection each specimen has about 40 descriptors so you can grows and its diversity becomes more widely appre- survey the collection for one or all of about 40 ciated, researchers may comb through it looking for points of view. Many of these 600,000 specimens sources of unrecognized medicinals or other poten- are accompanied by detailed field notes. Over the tially useful chemicals." course of the last 80 years the museum has pro-

duced more than 4,000 publications. We now em- Millar: What about the argument that the rare and ploy professorslcurators and about 25 graduate stu- endangered plants are valuable as functional mem- dents. All the curatorial staff are also professors of hers of the ecosystem as well? what was the Department of Zoology hut, in terms

of the reorganization on the Berkeley campus, is Ornduff: Yes, although human beings are func- now the Department of Integrative Biology. We all tional members of the ecosystem as well, that is also have both teaching and research and also curatorial an important argument. Yes, I agree, I think having appointments. any species growing in isolation is a totally phony The roles of the museum are severalfold just construct hecause all species grow in nature inter- like other academic departments. We have one main acting with others. It has now become quite clear undergraduate course and three upper level courses that cycads, which are, of course, selected largely that are strictly museum courses. We have a very for horticultural purposes and have been in many popular course called Natural History of the Verte- pans of the New World, are probably insect polli- brates that draws about 75 to 125 students every nated. They are most likely pollinated hy species- spring. Many of them go on to take either herpetol- specific weevils. There have been suggestions of ogy, mammology, or ornithology during their sen- restoring decimated populations by taking the cy- ior year. These courses are extensively field ori- cads and putting them back in nature. However, ented as well as museum oriented, so, for example, their pollinators are not there anymore, they will for the natural history course, undergraduates are in not be reproduced. That is an ecosystem problem. the field every week of a whole semester. That is probably true of many flowering plants We interact by teaching and research with the where there are specific pollinators or seed dispersal Natural Reserve System. We also profit from the lo- agents. cal East Bay Regional Park System, which makes it

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

possible for us to have an extensive field trip pro- most of us actually think when we watch a nature gram. Research in the Museum has traditionally em- program that the information it presents was phasized systematics and ecology. If you were to gathered by the narrator or the film maker, rather look up the standard reference than by somebody measuring on geographic variation on most specimens, slogging through the - -- - .

mud, breaking their leg, etc. te"estial- vertebrates of n e r e is a general tendency not only The other pmhlem We have from sociefy bur also- biologists that of ever-spiraling, lorreas. find that the information came

from either dissertation or fac- not to realize that there is a ing, bureaucratic restrictions on ultv research at the Museum of foundation of museum work in what we do. 1 wish I could say I

almost everything biological knew where to place the blame Today there-has been sort scientists do. -HWG for this, but when I talk, for

of an evolution of technique, - - - example, to the people that I such that although we still do interact with in the Dept. of traditional external characteristics and measure Fish and Game in California and Arizona, which are skulls, count scales, and so forth, we also have a two of the places 1 have worked, or in Costa Rica polymerase chain reaction lab so that we can use where I have worked, I also encounter very profes- DNA techniques to look at variation at the sional people who seem to appreciate research. But molecular genetic level. Some of us emphasize more somehow there is someone involved who makes natural historical approaches and so forth. For rules about collecting regulations, fishing permits, example, my own research involves everything from and the ever-growing numbers of protocol re- collecting jaguar droppings to putting radios in quirements. These are literally stifling. large vipers.

The Museum has had a conservation emphasis Discussion since its founding. In 1908 Joseph Grinnell was an early critic of predator control programs in the Jensen: Following up on your last comment, Harry, United States. There has always been an emphasis one of the constraints on doing research on endan- on conservation. The man 1 replaced was Robert gered species has to do with this bureaucracy that Stebbins who was one of the foremost advocates of you have to go through. I think it is a disincentive putting some kind of lid on off-road vehicle impact to doing research on federal- or state-listed taxa. on the California desert. You could work with a congener and do the same

We serve a variety of counseling roles at all hasic research and then not have to spend significant levels. We frequently advise the US Bureau of Land portions of your time worrying about getting per- Management, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the mission to do what you want to do. It is not a new US Forest Service, and the California Department concern, but I do not know that progress is being of Fish and Game. I answer literally hundreds of made to try to streamline this. It is something where calls per year from the general public. the interests are obvious. The agencies need more

We have all the impediments of other units help getting research information so they can make within the University such as chronic lack of fun- some decisions, but they do not really facilitate ding. A couple of other prob- researchers working on those lems, although perhaps not quite taxa. so widespread, have to do with a lack of appreciation for the role of systematics in ecology and conservation biology. There is a general tendency not only from society but also from biol- ogists not to realize that there is

One of the points we are starting to raise within the California Dept. of Fish and Game is why is it so much

easier to destroy a species, than it is to do research on the species to conserve

it? -MH

Hoshovsky: That kind of con- cern is really widespread among a lot of people. One of the points we are starting to raise within the California Dept. of Fish and Game is why is it so

a foundation of museum work in - much easier to destroy a species almost everything biological sci- than it is to do research on the entists do. I spent a total of four years on the Ani- species to conserve it? mal Care and Use Committee on the Berkeley cam- pus and finally concluded after arguing with molec- Greene: An example given last week on TV was of ular biologists about the value of systematics and someone in San Jose killing gophers in a local San studies on distribution and molecular variation that Jose park using some kind of smoke bomb. He got

-

widespread coverage, and it was viewed as a some- what comical activity. There is nothing restricting someone like this from killing the gophers. He does not have to ask anyone's permission, as far as I can tell he is not breaking any law. However, if Jim Panon of the MVZ faculty wants to go out and col- lect gophers and preserve their tissues and skins, he has to go through not only a bunch of permit proce- dures, but also an incredible process within the UC Berkeley Animal Care and Use Committee to get approval. You can't believe the lengths you have to go to defend this kind of work, to a bunch of neu- robiologists, even. It is a very widespread problem that is reaching critical levels.

I want to turn this back to the educational thing I brought up earlier. This is in part a reflection of the fact of society's widespread misunderstanding of what science is, what it can and cannot do for us, and specifically what real biology is and what it can and cannot do for us. So ultimately we are also talking about undergraduate education again. 1 sure hope a focus on education is something that comes out of all of this.

Gall: I support everything being said. Another twist to it from my experience, that may be as important as the one that has been brought up, is that unless a project has somebody in the agency that wants to work on it with me, they will not fund it. I do this not because I cannot get funding someplace else, but just to make the chain work, then you work on that particular species with that problem. The difticulty with that is that you are driven now by an outside force that is deciding what science will and will not be done. 1 think that might be even more critical. For the last 10 years now my procedure has been to find an agency person that I can talk to. We write a contract that seems to fit the bill; 1 can get some- thing out of it and they get what they want. They give me $10 thousand to $100 thousand or whatever it is, then I do my part.

Qunlset: Harry Greene's comment about extension activities, answering the phone, and all that, is an important one. The more that such services are known and can be provided in this area, the better the public will be served. However, 1 am not sure it should be you as an academic professor who spends so many hours a week doing that. There is a vague notion at Davis about an environmental extension service, it is supposed to complement the agricul- tural extension service presumably. I think it is il- lustrating a need in that area, but 1 do not know where the idea for this is going.

Greene: I make a point to speak to Audobon groups and interact with the public because I became con- vinced while being on the Animal Care and Use Committee that many have this TV cliche of the University professor who cannot do anything in the real world. Since I can do some real world things pretty effectively, I try to interact with the public.

Hoshovsky: The California Biodiversity bill (AB 1324) is proposing to set up a research institute within the UC system. Though that may not go anywhere, I understand there are informal discus- sions trying to get something going. I would like to see some kind of a mechanism established in which you can have the UC and CSU researchers get to- gether to meet with the public agencies to under- stand what their needs are and propose areas of re- search that they think the agencies are not really ad- dressing, to develop some kind of dialogue on per- haps a twice yearly basis. You could bring up the issue of how difficult it is to get permission to do research and also find out from the agencies where the funding is so you can perhaps rearrange your re- search to get some of these funds.

H. Forhes: We do not have as many problems with plants as I am sure you have with animals because of the furry, f u u y factor. Through the Center for Plant Conservation, we formed a California Region Priority Task Force on Endangered Plants. This is a tire crisis-management type of activity. At the Ran- cho Santa Ana Botanical Garden at the end of April the Center hosted a meeting of botanists and other representatives from various agencies with interests in endangered plant species. The CPC wanted to identify listed taxa in California with high priority for action. We set a few criteria, including a deiini- tion of what successful action would be. Then we went over all the listed species that met the criteria. As we went through that list, the participants con- tributed any information on each taxon that they had from their perspectives. The meeting was a way of getting real agency cooperation, and it helped elimi- nate any kind of problems with getting permission to do research. That sort of thing 1 think will hap- pen more frequently.

UC Wildland Resources Center

J.A. Helms: I convey Don Erman's regrets at not being here. He is the current director of the Wildland Resources Center (WRC) which is a statewide Multicampus Research Unit administered by DANR. It has heen in existence for about 30 years. The Division supplies the funding to support

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVA .TION A N D THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

the half-time director and also a program assistant. The WRC has no permanently funded program. What it does with its limited resources is facilitate the exchange of information on wildlands within the University system. Wildlands include not only for- ests but also riparian areas, wetlands, lagoons, ver- nal pools, estuaries, and so on. WRC sponsors and coordinates symposia and workshops in such areas as cumulative effects.

WRC distributes information within the system that might be of value to researchers. For example, it has published directories of scientists in the UC system and in the California State University system that have interests in some aspect of wildlands. There are about 1,100 UC and CSU academic staff listed. WRC has a fairly large database and key- word retrieval system. It does not have conservation of biodiversity as a keyword, but Don ran about 10 or 12 keywords that relate to this, such as species distribution, species sensitivity, species diversity, and these sorts of things, and of those 1,100 scien- tists listed, about 600 in the UC system and 250 in the CSU system were identified with these key- words. Many of these people would be identified by multiple references, but there is quite a large num- ber of people that can be readily identified by this particular database, which, of course, can be modi- fied and changed if we received some incentive to do so. One possible modification would be to in- clude new terms that might be of interest to this group.

Don feels that the organization of the Wildland Resources Center itself could he of some service to this group in that it does exist and has contact with the researchers within the system that might be able to tie into research or information exchange that re- lates to biodiversity. Currently the Center is ex- panding its resource base by soliciting information from state and federal scientists who have interests in wildlands. The fourth edition of the directory will include scientists from the public sector and private institutions as well.

Access to the database is gained by inquiry to us, write a letter or call. We could give you a di- rectory which lists those people that have interests and also the keywords by which these people can he sorted.

Discussion

Hoshovsky: Is there a mailing list for notification of WRC-sponsored workshops?

Helms: The Center would send out the information to individuals it can identify in its own datahase that

P

might be interested in that particular topic. There- fore, as we get the state and federal agencies into the database, we will be able to contact them also. WRC also sends out information about the avail- ability of research monies that are available by competitive grants, informs about various other ac- tivities, and makes individuals aware of the avail- ability of sources of funds for research programs in the area in which they have listed their particular interests. I think as interests in information ex- change and research in wildlands continues, this Re- sources Center can play an increasingly important role. It has been in existence for 30 years, hut for a large portion of that time it has not been very ac- tive. It does not have a permanent budget, but there is probably an opportunity here for it to become much more active in the future.

UC Genetic Resources Conservation Program

C.O. Qualset: Three of the UC campuses, Davis, Berkeley, and Riverside, have the Agricul- tural Experiment Stations, and that has been the dominating activity for the UC Division of Agricul- ture and Natural Resources. Beyond that, as issues come forward and the University is asked to address them, special programs have been formed, and GRCP is one of those programs. Ken Farrell is the UC Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Re- sources with Lowell Lewis as Associate Vice Presi- dent and Director for Programs. There are three Assistant Directors for Division Programs. Jim Lyons is the Assistant Director to whom GRCP re- ports.

The Division Programs were created because of special needs and interests, and in most cases spe- cial funding was allocated to those programs. The funds are used by various University scientists, faculty members, and grants programs or special studies. We heard today already from one of these programs, the Wildland Resources Center. They were very instrumental in creating the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program (IHRMP). That is an action program created with joint funding from the California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Pro- tection and the University. If you consider this pro- gram carefully, you would probably find it to be sort of a model case for conservation biology which involves an interaction of land users and grazers, and focuses mainly on oak trees. But the IHRMP is a little broader than that. It involves extension peo- ple hired for educational purposes and grant writing for various aspects of regeneration and monitoring -

of oak trees. You can consider these various programs in

DANR and regroup them into those that have some biological resources component or land, water, or atmospheric resources component. This produces some multiple listings obviously, because some of the programs impact all natural resources.

Among its active departments, researchers, and extension people, the Division has reorganized re- cently. It considers planning issues under various topics organized into eight division planning groups @PGs). Biological resources show up in quite a few of those. There are some special aspects of biological resources involved in those areas. In the Animal, Avian, Aquaculture, Veterinary Science DPG, there have been position statements done for each of these topics, and one of them is biological resources and diversity. If you look at the DPG for Natural Resources, as another example, there is an issue identified as Management of Ur- ban/Rural/Wildland Interfaces, and there is to he a biological resources position statement written for that one. The idea is to take those statements and develop action programs either in education or re- search relevant to these resources. In this way a lot of the extension programs are organized around these topics.

GRCP was formally initiated on July 1, 1985 as a result of discussions and legislative action dur- ing 1984. Bills had been introduced to create something like a center for biological diversity or genetic resources. One bill had sought to create a commission. The University was asked to do an evaluation of a current program and decide if this was an area that should be taken further.

The University then did that, and we had a symposium in Napa in 1984 which came up with mission statements for an activity within the Univer- sity. Because the University agreed to do some- thing, authors of bills withdrew their bills, and the University went on from there to propose a pro- gram. The budget for this program was approved by DANR and the President and the Regents at a $1 million per year. It got to the governor's oftice and was cut back to a $250,000 annual budget. Lowell Lewis and others decided it would still be worth trying with this reduced budget. The budget has re- mained at that level for the past five years. With this smaller budget we decided that a statewide ge- netic resource conservation plan could not be ac- complished. The scope of all the things you are hearing about today and all the interagency activities that are involved, confirms that. We decided we could make rapid gains by looking at conservation of special collections and research materials, so we

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERV

started a grants program for imperilled collections. We have allocated some but not much funding for research. We sponsored with UC San Diego a small workshop at San Diego on conservation biology education. The purpose was to get representation from all UC campuses plus some state university campuses to see what their plans were in terms of education programs. We discussed training and fel- lowship funds for graduate or high school teacher training. We still think that is a viable idea, but that it should take a multicampus approach.

I would like to mention some examples out of the range of things we supported this year with the grants program. Even small amounts of money can make a difference in terms of buying a freezer, for example. We spent relatively more money on cryo- preservation on the animal side because the main need there is for adaptation of cryopreservation methodologies. Some of these projects involve spe- cies native to California, others are research spe- cies. There is some maintenance of stocks that are used in agricultural research. We have had some interaction with the Natural Reserve System, spe- cifically the Hastings Natural History Reservation, providing some equipment for their work and some funds to do some DNA sampling and preservation. You don't hear much about conservation problems with microbes, but we do provide some support to collections that are representative of a wide range of ecosystems all over the world and are used in sys- tematic work of various types. Other collections are used in research on diseases and in breeding for re- sistance. The various yeast collections at Davis are important in the brewing and wine industries, as well as for research and systematics.

Many of the collections were developed for particular economic species, in particular, crop plants. The Tomato Genetics Resource Center is one example. It illustrates what we are trying to do to facilitate conservation. The internationally known Center needed long-term support. We created a task force to study the need for the collection, to assess how it has been and could be used, and to define its value. They made recommendations for funding, fa- cility, and personnel requirements necessary to maintain the Center over the long term. Those rec- ommendations have been accepted by the system, and a curator has been appointed from permanent funds. The USDA has agreed to provide annual funding for operating expenses. An industry com- mittee is raising money for an endowment fund; their goal is $1.7 million. Interest from this fund would help provide operating costs for the Center.

Another project to which we have supplied some h n d s is the Seed Saving Project run by the

'ATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Student Farm at UC Davis. It is a grass roots con- servation and education program where gardeners grow heirloom varieties and distribute to other gar- deners in the network. They also hold workshops on seed saving and biodiversity. The program is small but has gained some national importance by associa- tion with the Seed Savers Exchange out of Iowa.

To mention some of the research projects: Bob Wayne at UC Los Angeles is doing DNA sequence analysis on fox species from the San Joaquin Valley and the Channel Islands. That is partly research on means of defining genetic diversity and partly on methodology for analyzing diversity at the DNA level. The methodology will be used in developing a conservation strategy for fox species. There is a project at UC San Diego on genetic diversity in the harbor porpoise. Mike Gilpin, also at UCSD, re- ceived a small amount to support his development of an expert system for answering questions on op- timum management of captive animal populations. Brad Shaffer at UC Davis is documenting the ge- netic variation in the California tiger salamander, a threatened endemic species. Elmarie Hutchinson, UC Davis-Bodega Bay Marine Laboratory, has re- ceived support for study of the genetics of Menzies' wallflower, another threatened California endemic. Thus, we have several projects to which we have contributed relatively small amounts of money.

Another part of the budget has been used in support of conferences, workshops, and task force activities to help generate permanent conservation plans for collections. One task force, chaired by Eric Bradford, worked on a concept for an ex situ animal conservation center. It would involve cryo- preservation, research and storage, dealing both with economic animals and also noneconomic ani- mals species, endemic and exotic.

A current goal is to see what more can be done on a general biodiversity or genetic resources con- servation plan for the State. Where does the Univer- sity fit into this? That question is really the motiva- tion for getting everybody together here today. We were very pleased to see the report that Dehorah Jensen's group has developed. It is right on target, addressing issues that we are concerned ahout. That is a big step forward in this whole area.

At the national level there is a National Plant Germplasm System that is concerned almost entirely with economic plants. It maintains collections of many accessions of a number of species; in other words, genetic variability within species is captured in those collections. Collections are all ex siru. There is no in situ conservation in that system at all. As far as it relates to California, the people working with plants are interacting closely with the

national system, and draw upon it for sources of material. We do not duplicate things from the na- tional system in California unless we need to main- tain a particular collection for research purposes. Dan Parfin was the original curator of the National Clonal Germplasm Repository at Davis (one of sev- eral such facilities in the national system) which conserves stone fruit, grape, and other species. The Repository was operated by UC Davis for the USDA until 1989 when the USDA assumed the management responsibility.

Discussion

Showers: Most of your projects deal with economic species. Is that because most of the proposals you have received are from researchers who are doing work in that area?

Qualset: That is true. Also the bulk of the collec- tions in the UC system are economic species. There are also species collections that are not represented at all in the grants program because they have not applied to us for help. For example, there is a major yeast genetics stocks center at Berkeley, and they are pretty well funded. Others may not be well funded but did not respond to our call for proposals either because they are not threatened or because the amount that we can give is too small to bother with.

Public Service Research and Dissemination Service - UC Davis.

G.A.E. Gall: Almost three years ago now, w e initially asked what we thought was a very simple question, "How could agricultural production con- trihute to conservation of biological resources?" We knew we were asking a different question, but we didn't realize how serious it was. That additional, implicit question was, "How can we get people (biologists and social scientists) with a bent toward the environment to talk to scientists and sociologists with a bent toward food production and forestry and fisheries?" Now to the thinking person that might sound like a ridiculous question, because it might seem that both groups obviously are interested in the same thing. That happens not to be true. Indi- viduals, based on their backgrounds and their cur- rent positions, have their own perceptions about what they think they are talking about. But our ex- perience will demonstrate how serious those differ- ences in perspective were.

We started on the Davis campus with a small group. We posed two questions, "How can agricul-

turd production contribute to conservation of non- target species (i .e. , species not involved in agricul- tural or forestry production)?" and "What are the commonalties of expertise among faculty or staff in agricultural sciences and environmental sciences that could enable them to focus together and help solve some of the problems we are facing?" Discussions went on for almost a full year under the auspices of the Public Service Research and Dissemination Pro- gram. PSRDP had long-standing funding, first from the Kellogg Foundation and more recently, the Wil- liam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, to examine questions on the environment. After this one year of frustration, we convened a larger group including all the people that had been on the initial committee at one time or another during that year plus a few more. The consensus of this group seemed to he that what was needed was a small committee to or- ganize a meeting with the purpose of setting an agenda against which persons could determine their interest. We thus convened a small group and came up with the plan of holding a workshop. We made the conscious decision to hold it at Asilomar to break down the turf problem. At this workshop, one third of the people were from the UC system, one third were from other states in the US, and the other third were international, from Australia, Swit- zerland, England, Mexico, Venezuela, and Canada. This was a four-day workshop. By the third day, some concepts had been proposed that now needed another workshop to develop. Some position papers were produced, and, six months later, we had a second workshop, lasting three days. With about 40% new faces, we had expanded from 25 partici- pants to about 35. That three-day workshop was very productive, it concluded with a complete re- organization of the way we had structured things in the position papers. The outcome will he a book, Integrating conservation biology and agricultural production. There will be 12 or 13 chapters, all hut one of them have been edited once. They are cur- rently going through peer review. Here are a few excerpts from the executive summary.

... Until very recently, agricultural practice had not been a concern of biolo- gists interested in conservation. However, the realization in the 1960s that agricul- tural activities were having a negative im- pact on wildlife resulted in conservation biologists adopting a very pessimistic view of agriculture. The result was antagonism between farmers and conservationists.

Clearly, the differences in perspec- tives and priorities of agriculture and con- servation biology stem from many causes,

- BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION

some perceived, some real. But it is also abundantly clear that conservation biolo- gists and agriculturists have much to offer each other and that dialogue between the two groups is long overdue.

Pressing issues concerning global bi- ological resources demonstrate the not so widely recognized common ground for conservation biologists and agriculturists.

The continually increasing human population and global environmental changes are going to strain the limited earthly resources needed to sustain food and fiber production as well as the health and well being of all living things.

Agriculture has been highly success- ful in increasing production efticiency but economic and social pressures have taxed available renewable resources.

To ensure sustainability of agricul- tural systems, agriculture must strive to achieve a new balance between production methods and production efficiency.

The level of terrestrial, as well as aquatic, biological productivity dedicated to the support of human beings is steadily rising.

The survival of many of the species with which we share the earth is in jeop- ardy if population growth continues - or even if it remains at its present level.

The most obvious common ground for agriculturists and conservation biolo- gists is the very shrinking earth upon which we live.

... Because of increasing demands by a growing human population, conservation hiologists recognize the parks and reserves will inevitably be too small to carry the full burden of their efforts to preserve and maintain biological diversity.

Ways could be found to design and exploit agricultural systems so that they provide hahitat for species other than the target species.

Agriculture can play a unique role in conservation biology because of the scale at which conservation research could be carried out in agricultural systems. Coop- erative use of private and public resources would make possible intensive studies on a scale much larger than that normally pos- sible under research projects supported by scientific funding sources.

Ways can be found to encourage in-

AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

teractive and disciplinary research on farming systems that will capitalize on the cooperative nature of agriculture.

That's about one third of the executive summary. 1 think it gives you the flavor of the kind of document that we are trying to prepare. In the final analysis what we are talking about is the planning of a land- scape, not preserves versus reserves versus ag fields versus cities, but a whole landscape. We chose to select a landscape on the mesoscale rather than on a global scale. We concentrated on what we consider the temperate zone.

Our effort in Davis now has expanded to in- clude the urban-rural interface. We knew from the beginning that this was necessary, but we didn't want to complicate our workshops. We are cur- rently discussing how we should structure andlor develop a program at Davis that would he focused primarily on research in the

this integration with the administration and help the faculty and departments discuss this kind of activity for a period of time. We plan a faculty workshop or strategic planning session for some time later in the fall or winter quarter at which UC faculty would help design this program.

Finally, we agreed, partly at the request of the Hewlett Foundation, to do an assessment of existing course offerings that might be of value in this gen- eral area.

Discussion

Kennedy: What is the relationship between the UC Davis Public Service Research and Dissemination Program and the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources?

Gall: None. That's one of our advantages, we are an independent little group on

general areas of human dimen- the campus that is actually sions, agriculture, and conserva- =----- supervised by the Vice Chan- tion biology. We have the final . . .Our rea'problem is nor lhe of cellor of Business and Finance.

of our current ~ ~ ~ l ~ t t conservation biology or the need to do Poundation funding. It is being conservation, it's how and when are we Kennedy: Do you have any used to generate interest on the going to do i f and who will do it. - plans to interface with the campus in this program by GAEG Division? means of three particular thrusts - that we have started. One is that Gall: What we hope or what we we set up a graduate student competition for expect in the next 12 months is that this idea that we funding of research proposals. Projects will he have initiated will spin off and become an awarded funding in the neighborhood of $1,500 independent operation, PSRDP will no longer have with a maximum of $3,000 possible. Those appli- anything to do with it in a direct administrative cations are now in and will be reviewed next week. sense. What hasn't been decided on campus yet, is I have to say, however, that there was very little re- what that h ture structure will he and where it will sponse. 1 believe the low response was due to the he housed. The Chancellor doesn't want to do it fact that we required that the proposals integrate himself, so one of the deans, I presume, will be conservation biology and agricultural production. asked to pick it up. Whether that's the Division of Early reviews suggest that some proposals attempt Biological Sciences, the College of Agricultural and the integration we requested, Environmental Science, or the but most do not. This read- - College of Letters and Science dresses the Our real prob- It seems to me that ifyou want to get hasn't been determined. lem is not the theory of con- servation biology or the need to cooperative ventures, you have to do W.L. You made a

do conservation, it's how and something with the reward structure. - comment ahout the need to do - - -

when are we going to do it and WLL farming systems research, and who will do it. we in the Sustainable Agricul-

Our second thrust is what ture Research and Education we call a visitor program. Departments were invited Program are trying to improve that same kind of to identify an expert, again with the restriction that thing. But there are structural impediments to this in this individual be interested in discussing this inte- the UC system. I feel the faculty reward structure is gration of conservation biology and agriculture. We not favorable to cooperative ventures and efforts. It would pay full expenses for a period of two weeks seems to me that if you want to get cooperative to a month for this expert to he on the campus. Our ventures, you have to do something with the reward intent for this program is to have the expen discuss structure. I have faculty and extension people telling

me that to get involved in that kind of thing is have successful folks who have survived the system. detrimental to their career because it is not what can advance them. Liehhardt: No, we have to do better than

surviving. We have to address Gall: I don't think it has to be a critical state problems. problem, don't lhink lhrre is nY role the University has to play is You can put your energy '*Iy a need change the sy!- one of education and research in a very trying to change the sYs- tem. I think there is an att~tudl- nal prohlem right now that has broad sense. -MTC tem, or you can put your energy resulted in the so-called basic - into trying to accomplish what scientists having the upper hand in determining what it is that we are rewarded for doing. Secondly, the reason I am not running to the Division for support is that it itself is one of the impediments to getting a lot of work done. There is an inertia in the Division. The problem is not in the desire of people, not in the attitudes of people, but in the inertia that is there. What I think the cam- puses are currently doing is to work hard to streng- then and develop internally the programs important to them and then trying to pull them together as a university. I don't think we can do it the other way around, but maybe the Division needs to.

Liebhardt: Well, it seems to me that the Division is a mission-oriented institution, organized to handle a state-wide mission. What you don't see happening is the subversion of the mission.

Gall: I also wanted to respond a little bit more to your idea that faculty have a notion that cooperative work will he very detrimental to their rewards. I think there is evidence of a lack of originality in the development and design aspect of their research.

Liebhardt: 1 am talking ahout going out in the field and doing something.

Gall: It's same thing. As long as you don't ask fac- ulty members to take the whole hall game and work on it, then

you can with the system the way it is and hope that the system will respond to you. That's how I see it.

Clegg: The role the University has to play is one of education and research in a very hroad sense. De- veloping, for example, the kinds of policy state- ments that Graham outlined is an important function of the University. Of course, execution of that pol- icy may he difticult. Society has a say in deciding how policy is executed. We all have roles in cre- ating ways of making new policy and new links to address pressing problems. I thought there were a lot of interesting and provocative suggestions in what Graham has said, particularly about bringing together conservation and agriculture into a single integrated and coherent theme.

Qualset: 1 think that the easiest thing to do is your own thing. But one of the challenges here is to see what the University of California can accomplish. In other words, there are some strengths that we have to offer the whole system on this problem of con- servation of natural resources and biodiversity. We have seen over 50 to 80 years quite a concerted ef- fort on the agricultural side.

Kennedy: Let me play the devil's advocate. Taking the perspective of the state government, we have a

statewide issue of concern: con- servation of biodiversity. We

they can do that without taking ... we have a statewide issue of have this presumably enormous up all their time. But if they pool of resources of expertise in have to look at the whole big concern: conservation of biodiversity. the University of California, ~ i c t u r e all the time, I agree that we have this presumably enormous pool How do vou Dut the two to- . - ihe reward svstem won't work. of resources of expertise in the eether? If ;ou h'ave more or less -

University of California. HOW do you an uncoo;dinated collection of Liehhardt: I think the put the two together? -JAK individual faculty going off into perception that one's career will their own little research groups, be threatened is more fundamen- it makes it very difficult for the tal to the question of cooperative research than any University to make a focused contribution to ad- other that I can think of. dress this issue. It's a practical problem. I agree

with what you are saying, Bill, about the structural Gall: Well, that's been a constant battle at UC impediments in the University. That's why I asked Davis. It can be defeated, and it has been. We still Graham if there was any formal interface with the

BIODIVER~ITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Division.

Gall: It is not a Division problem, it is an Academic Senate problem. I think I can have a little tiny bit of influence on the Academic Senate at Davis. I will try to do that because that's where we have to make those small incremental changes. You have to be original in the designing of research programs so you can accomplish both. You can accomplish a lot of research, and maybe have a little effect on the system that will slowly change it.

Kennedy: Except research follows resources. To the extent the Division has resources to be made available, it would be nice if they could be used to direct research efforts.

W.J. Libby: My comment is that the perception that Bill presents, namely, that cooperative and in- tegrative research is a difficult way to make it through the promotion process, is certainly a widely held perception, but I don't think it's really true. I don't think there's anything in the University that really stops such research. Let me put forward an example: the comparison between high energy physics and agriculture. In high energy physics when they carry out some of those experiments at the Lawrence Lab, you have 12, 15, 30 people working on them, maybe not 30 too often, but 12 or 15 is surely common. One of the things they do that our folks don't do, is very carefully and critically identify what everybody's contribution is. We are so spooky within the general fields of agriculture and biology about this that, if at any time seven names appear on a paper, it is thought (especially during promotion reviews) that only one person is doing the work, and the other six are writing. I think what you have to do is simply not give in to this. Certainly we promote physicists, and, in fact, we tend to promote them faster than we promote biologists. What we have to do is get the word out that when one is involved in these things, when it comes to promotion time, that the participation is critically presented, and it's not just put in as a list from which you make what you can out of it. We really have to educate our pwple how to do this and keep their career going, not simply how to do it sci- entifically. That process is still at the experimental stage.

Liebhardt: I agree with what you are saying. I have spent two years on one experiment with a group of 12 pwple on the Davis campus, who are carefully documenting what each is doing. We tried to bring in another person when we needed some very basic

work done in another discipline. A new faculty member said, "I would really like to get involved with this, but I can't take the chance on getting involved with 12 pwple and not having my own thing." There are also the structural impediments in the system. Even if everything else was equal, the structural impediments for doing this kind of thing are enough that a lot of pwple say, "I don't want to be involved with that kind of stuff, there are too many." Those are the problems that I see within the system. If there was a level playing field in terms of getting the research up and going, and a level playing field down the road, 1 wouldn't see any problem. The problem is that right now there is no level playing field.

Gall: Of course, if you pull young faculty members in and expect them to devote all their time working with those 12 pwple, I would agree that it would be hard to get cooperation. But if you ask them for an effort of 15 or 20% so they can do some coopera- tive work, but still have the resources to get their individual papers done, then it's ok.

Clegg: One of the interesting and unfortunate devel- opments in the last year or two has been a very dramatic reduction in individual research grants, both through the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. That may, in a sense, be an opportunity for pwple working in the environmental sciences, where they can present their case for environmental research in a team fash- ion, much as it has been done in the past.

Center for Conservation of Genetic Diversity, Institute of Forest Genetics, US Forest Service

I . M a : I am glad to share what w e in the Forest and Range Experiment Station of the Forest Service have proposed as one answer to how agen- cies should he involved in planning for biodiversity conservation. We are launching the Center for Con- servation of Genetic Diversity. This is something of a restructuring of what already exists with the hope of putting together a new program in a new di- rection. 1 hope that we can work together with the University.

What we are then is a national program, we will he addressing problems of genetic diversity not just in California but in the broader, temperate for- est and woodlands of the US. We hope to bring un- der this umhrella all of the conservation efforts that we have traditionally heen doing as well as new

programs. We will build initially on our work with forest trees. We have many different researchers who are involved with many aspects of conserva- tion. This Center will part of the Institute for Forest Genetics which has facilities for laboratory work as well as for maintaining a seed bank and plantations and nurseries. We are responding to the criticism that the Forest Service is looking at the trees and not at the forest. We are broadening our own re- search scope and conservation scope to include other plants beside trees, which was the initial work of the unit; now we will be looking more at other annual plants and shrubs and animals as well.

The tradition of the Institute of Forest Genet- ics, which has been going on since 1925, has fo- cused primarily on the genetics of forest trees. For those of you who do not quite know the organiza- tion of the Forest Service, there is the national, land-managing branch and there are the experiment stations which is where the research happens. We are centered in the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; our headquarters is in Berkeley, and that's where half of our offices and laboratories are. We have a field station in Plac- ewille which has molecular biology and biochemical laboratories, seed storage facilities, arboreta, nurs- eries, and greenhouses where we can do both re- search and actual conservation, There are seven sci- entists, three of whom will primarily be involved in the Center and will share partial responsibility for its coordination. We would like to promote collabo- rative work not only with other agencies, but also with the University. We are involved in a number of interagency programs, and we have a history of cooperative agreements; maybe that is how collabo- ration will continue. We would like to offer re- search associateships which may be a way of draw- ing individuals who want to work together. We hope to continue to sponsor workshops, symposia, and field courses. We will provide consultation on specific issues and opportunities for sabbatical leaves. At our site in Placerville, we have resi- dences where researchers can stay very cheaply and have access to laboratories, technicians, and the library.

Discussion

Hoshovsky: One thing that comes to my mind, is something that foresters in UC can work on more. The Forest Service is designating many Research Natural Areas (RNAs) throughout the State, and one of the problems is that those research areas are not

being greatly used for research. There are various incentives to get both the CSU and UC systems more involved with using these areas. I have heard the words "use it or lose it" with reference to the RNAs.

Millar: I don't have a real problem with that be- cause I think in the meantime, these RNAs are serving as biodiversity reserves. That is part of their mandate, so we are at least providing that opportu- nity. But, I wanted to mention that we are also con- cerned about working with the national forest sys- tem to promote wise genetic management to the extent that's possible working under whatever "multiple use" means these days. That's to be our first focus.

Parfitt: Do you see most of your research being done in house as far as funding or are you looking at the possibility of funding research by seeking co- operative grants among yourselves and outside sci- entists?

Millar: Oh, absolutely. We are in as sad a shape for funding as everybody is. All of our work is self funded.

Partitt: Do you have a source of funding for the program?

Millar: We have. The scientists provide their own funding and the technicians too. The facility is per- manently funded, and so the direction of the re- search will continue on with that phase. We have in the 1991 budget a high priority item for funding that would be directed right to this. I think that would be the best opportunity because we would be able to have specific dollars at the Center. In the meantime they might agree on reorientation of exist- ing monies.

Gall: What approach do you expect to use to make this transition from forest species improvement to other organisms?

Millar: The genetic questions will be the same, the species will be different.

Mathias: Isn't there a Memorandum of Understand- ing between The Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service dealing with natural areas?

Millar: It is with the Forest Service and does not affect the Experiment Station.

(ATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

National Animal Gerrnplasm System (Proposed)

G.E. Bradford: M y subject is animal genetic resources and the National Animal Germplasm System. There is currently no national animal germplasm system in place. But this is not to say there are not some conservation efforts; I will com- ment on a few, principally with regard to domestic animals, and then I will say a little about the inter- face between domestic animals and wildlife. The minor breed conservancies are very active in the US, Europe, and some other countries. They really are conserving quite a lot of domestic animal ge- netic variation as small breeding populations. An- other resource that is not well catalogued or inven- toried is the artificial insemination organizations. These principally involve cattle hut also some other domestic species. There is a large amount of frozen semen that has been collected over the last 30 to 40 years. It represents a substantial resource, but it is not substantially catalogued or inventoried in one place. Cal has mentioned the UC Genetic Resources Conservation Program effort to support the preser- vation of gametes from the mammalian species which we in the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis have worked with and from inbred lines and mutant stocks of avian species coordinated by Hans Abplanalp and Ursula Abbott of the UC Davis Department of Avian Sciences. As far as I know this is the first and only program of the UC system in this area.

In terms of attempts to organize national ef- forts, there have been a number. There was a 1959 AAAS symposium that identified the needs in this area. There was a 1981 Department of State study. The Council of Agricultural Science and Technol- ogy prepared a fairly comprehensive report in 1984. The Office of Technology Assessment report of 1987 dealt with domestic and nondomestic species. There have been a number of international confer- ences sponsored by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The National Academy of Sciences has had a review effort in progress since 1987. There are draft reports from that task force entitled Managing global genetic resources: Agricultural imperatives. These various efforts have identified the needs and made some conclusions that are perti- nent. For instance, one of the conclusions with re- gard to domestic livestock species is that the current commercial breeding efforts maintain a good level of genetic diversity in the extensively managed spe- cies that are kept in a wide range of environments, such as beef cattle, sheep, and goats. There is not a

threat to genetic diversity there. However, for the intensively managed species for which production environments are becoming more uniform and dis- ease control programs are progressively more uni- form, such as dairy cattle, poultry, and swine, threats to diversity are developing. A priority for these species has been set.

This past year there has been a joint task force created between USDA and the National Associa- tion of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) which held its first meeting in April. There are two segments to this effort. One is on ge- netic resources conservation and one on animal genome mapping. On the latter, there was a little blurb in Science a month or so ago, but, as I recall, there was not any mention about the genetic re- sources conservation aspect of the task force in that article. I think between the National Academy of Sciences review and the current USDA-NASULGC Task Force, there will be a recommendation for a USDA-coordinated effort for germplasm conserva- tion of domestic species. This was discussed at our April meeting. There seems to be a reluctance to include wildlife, particularly on the part of USDA, since they are an agricultural organization. I think there is concern about getting swamped by the wildlife people, concern that perhaps some criteria might be set that would be less scientifically objec- tive. But it seems to me there are arguments for these two groups getting together. For instance, the techniques worked up for cryopreservation of do- mestic species, while they are different for each species, can be extended by appropriate research to zoo or wild species, where that may be the method of last resort. The people interested in wildlife can gain support for animal conservation generally.

Discussion

Skoog: The Forest Service works with endangered species, are they going to be involved?

Bradford: Not to my knowledge. The Animal Genetics Task Force convened by

the California Genetic Resources Conservation Pro- gram has produced a draft report that some of you may have seen. The report suggests the recom- mended research and facility would involve domes- tic species and zoo and wildlife species. The re- port's recommendations deal primarily with ex situ rather than in situ conservation.

It is possible that out of the current efforts a national program will he developed. It could involve association with units such as the one the GRCP task force proposed. To date on the national and

international scenes, there has been a great deal of talk, but not very much action.

Interagency Natural Areas Coordinating Committee

M. Hoshovsky: T h e California and federal In- teragency Natural Areas Coordinating Committee (INACC) is composed of representatives of 10 of the agencies that have the largest land-holdings in the State. The UC Natural Reserve System is a member, as are other California state agencies: the Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Dept. of Fish and Game, the State Lands Commission; federal agen- cies: the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Nature Con- servancy. The primary goal of working together is to see if we can at least coordinate our activities that concern natural areas. I tend to view natural areas in terms of not simply protection but also of natural diversity in general. The lNACC can deal also with natural areas that are currently private land. Our general approach involves (1) developing a working definition of biological diversity that relates to something that can be defined at a site, (2) identify- ing important examples of biodiversity throughout the state, (3) determining how well protected those sites are, (4) identifying the greatest needs for either protection or stewardship, and (5) proposing ways we can work together as agencies to meet some of those needs.

For the working definition of biological diver- sity, we look at areas that meet at least one of four different types of criteria; these areas are called Significant Natural Areas. One criterion is that a site must contain extremely rare species or natural communities. By extremely rare, we mean fewer than six locations in the State of California. The second criterion is that the area must contain three or more rare taxa. The third criterion is that the area be identified as species rich. We have a fairly good inventory due to the Natural Diversity Data- base, but we recognize that there is more to biodi- versity than just rare species. A recent proposal by Frank Davis at UCSB is one step in trying to estah- lish a statewide identification of species-rich areas. The fourth criterion is that the site be the best ex- ample or be a representative sample of a community common in California. We seek examples that are in reasonably undisturbed condition. Some common habitats are being degraded very slowly over time; if we are not careful, we may not have any good

examples of those communities left. The California Dept. of Fish and Game has

used the Natural Diversity Database's Inventory of Rare Species to identify areas that meet the first two criteria, the ensembles of rare species or extremely rare ones. We now have a working inventory that is available for anybody who wants to know where some of these sites are throughout the State. What was interesting to me as I did this analysis is that if you used only the first criterion, the extremely rare species, you find about 800 sites throughout the State in which there is at least one or more ex- tremely rare species. If you also consider criterion two, we identify about 1,500 sites throughout the State. Thus, if you want to protect that aspect of biological diversity you must work with all 1500 sites. These sites are identified strictly by biological criteria. We did not consider who owns the land or what kind of protection or management exists, we simply wanted to get an assessment of what are the important areas. From that we need to figure out how well some of these areas are protected.

The INACC is essentially composed of one representative from each agency, and that is not enough to really do this job for a state the size of California. We started last fall is to work more at the local level and involve more of the staff from the different agencies. We decided to break the state up into areas more manageable on a human scale. The approach we have taken is to base these sub- sections of the State on the physiographic provinces, of which there are 1 1 . For example, we have the Sacramento Valley, Southern Sierra Nevada, the Mojave Desert, ere. Every three months we go to a new area and hold a workshop, invite all the plan- ners, land managers, and the biologists from a vari- ety of agencies, not just simply those that are part of the INACC, but a variety of state, federal, and local agencies as well as private conservation groups. We bring them together and lay out what we want to do statewide and propose they organize themselves as sort of a local interagency committee to deal simply with that province. We suggest they meet on a regular basis, however often they think is necessary, maybe twice a year. The purpose of meeting is not only to update each other on what is happening within that province but also to work to- gether to develop specific plans or projects they can use to protect the biological diversity of that area. By having a regular forum like that, they can iden- tify different areas of expertise an agency might have or identify certain funding that may be avail- able. The sharing of that information is a much more efficient approach to protecting the biodiver- sity of that province. We want to have these work-

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

shops focus not only on individual sites but also look at a regional natural area system for that province. That may be a long time coming.

So far we have had regional workshops for the Klamath and Modoc regions, the south coast from Ventura to San Diego counties, and the Sacramento Valley. Every place we have gone, people are say- ing, "We are so glad you are here." That is because there is very little coordination. There have been ef- forts coordinating on a given species here, on a specific area there, but there has been nothing on a biological province basis.

We get a lot of encouragement from people. At the Klamath-Modoc area meeting, we had about 60 people from about seven agencies. At the South Coast meeting, we had about 70 people from 20 or- ganizations At the Sacramento Valley meeting, there were some 30 organizations represented. In each place where we call a workshop, we try to recruit local volunteers to do the coordination, because we know we cannot do it from our statewide perspec- tives.

So that is the approach we are taking with the INACC. As far as our interaction goes with the University System, or GRCP specifically, we can offer a forum for you to consider on site preserva- tion of genetic resources. We offer a forum that would allow you to deal with a variety of organiza- tions all at once if you recognized a particular site as valuable for genetic resources and wanted to se- cure protection for it.

We have a good inventory. We would like some information from the UC system to help iden- tify additional areas. There is, for example, this ap- proach about identifying the best examples of com- mon communities. That is an overwhelming task.

We do not really have a good vegetation map of the state. We need work on that. We need to improve the vegetation classification system. We need help with research in terms of monitoring areas, with making inventories, with determining basic life his- tories of certain sites, and with developing manage- ment techniques. There are also policy questions. What kinds of policies can be implemented to im- prove the status of biodiversity in the State? One thing UC could do is help us work more at the ge- netic level. The state and federal agencies really do not have a strong mandate to protect genetic re- sources especially on site. The UC system could help in evaluating such needs. I think we have the beginnings of a means to deal with the species in the ecosystems, but on the genetic level, I think we need a lot of help from geneticists.

Discussion

Mathins: A representative from the Nature Conser- vancy is not here, hut I can report that one of the things they are doing on their own sites is to map endangered plant species on a regular basis, usually by graduate students, sometimes by the site's man- ager. They visit the populations on a regular sched- ule, the same form is filled out at each place, identi- fying the size of the population each year, the area it is covering, and so on. They are trying to keep this updated, it has only been going on a few years. I think that for these species this will be useful in- formation on population variability. The Conser- vancy also makes it a point to consider the presence of endangered species in their site selection process. Their work with mega-reserves will, of course, pick up more and more endangered species.

General Discussion

C.O. Qualset: We would like to turn to a little mation that already exist about biological diversity. summarizing and think about specific activities that the University of California does or should do or Qunlset: Assembly bill (AB 1324) introduced last can do. How can we interact with some of the March by Assemblyman Campbell was to create a agencies? W e will also talk about an activity related Center for Biodiversity Research in the University to AB 1324, that is, to create a biodiversity research of California. It was a very short, simple bill. It center at the University. It seems that the Legis- recommended that such a Center act as a liaison lature would like the University to agree to do some mostly with the Fish and Game Department. It cov- things. We should talk about that. ered a broad purview of biological diversity issues.

One of the things included in the bill was that the Clegg: One of the things that struck me during the University would do a study to understand the course of the afternoon was the fact that there is a problem or how a liaison could be better developed variety of things going on in the biodiversity area. to coordinate with State agencies and the University There are a number of different ways in which bio- with respect to the research and instructional ca- logical resources seem to be maintained and a num- pabilities. Apparently this bill is not going to be en- ber of different avenues of research on them, as acted. What the Assembly people would like is for well. 1 noted, among other the University to agree to create things, Natural Reserve System - a group or a task force to carry holdings, Forest Service Re- M a t really struck me was that most of out a study of its own capabili- search Areas, Botanical Gardens the effons that we heard about were ties. The University would in- and Museums, the Genetic Re- uncoordinated each and ventory its human resources and

Conservation "'gram, many of them were efforts that I had what they could do; inventory the research interest capabilities; " Germplasm only heard about for thejirst time this and inventory what kind of System, potential animal genetlc

resources programs, and a vari- afternoon. -MTC interaction our people would be ety of other ways in which work able to have with agencies. That is being done on biodiversity. is what has been requested of What really struck me was that most of the efforts the University; it was essentially a direction in that we heard about were uncoordinated with each which we were headed. I think, in any case, one of other, and many of them were efforts that I had only the reasons the bill is not going to be passed is that heard about for the first time this afternoon. It the University would prefer not to have bills passed strikes me that there is a much greater need for co- that tell it to do things. If a bill is passed that re- ordination of research efforts and better communi- quires the University to do things, usually it costs cation. There don't seem to be any good networks money. If there are no appropriations coming for- for the exchange of information. While there are a ward, it means reallocating or reassigning funds, multitude of state and federal agencies which seem and that is troublesome. Another reason is that what to be involved in one way or another (either periph- needs to be done can be accomplished in other erally or directly) with biodiversity, they all seem to ways; that needs to be explored. That is something have their own agenda. Probably the lines of com- a task force can discuss in order to create a better munication among these agencies and between them liaison between the University of California and the and the University could be improved. State.

There are impediments to research, particularly This meeting will help us define that task force impediments which have arisen owing to various and how it might proceed. Presumably, Vice Presi- kinds of bureaucratic requirements in recent years. I dent Farrell would recommend to President Gard- was quite struck by the need for general access to ner, or appoint himself, this task force. It has been good databases. We heard in three or four different suggested from the Assembly that the task force instances about databases that are being either de- would have representation from State agencies. It veloped or maintained, but I don't think that they would be basically a University of California group are generally accessible. They are probably not in generating the data, but there would be membership formats that are easily interchangeable. There needs on the task force from agencies to help learn about to be a much better effort directed towards evaluat- or provide information on what people are doing. ine. maintainine. and collatine the kinds of infor- The outcome would be a reoort that would oresum-

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

ably have recommendations for future activities. The financial implications of those activities would be unknown. This would be the first step.

If the bill never gets passed, one of the options is that the University agrees to do something like they did for GRCP. They just agree to do it, put in relatively minor funding for it, and then everybody is supposed to be happy. Legislators made their pitch, and they got some agreement; the University did their thing, and they just go their own way. 1 think we have gone that route before, and I'm not happy about that.

The other route would be that as a result of the report, all of the agencies are identified and all of those interactions become well known. There could be a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) devel- oped between the University and agencies. Both sides would agree on what kind of services each would provide. The agreement could be binding in terms of financial considerations. Marsha can speak soon about her experience with some of these MOUs. Jim has had experience with some of these also.

The third scenario would be, I guess, that nothing is done, and we just go on about our busi- ness. The easy way out for us professors is to go find a few bucks, do some research, publish our pa- pers, train our students, take sabbatical, and have a good time. However, I think there is too much at stake on the educational side and on the research side to accept this scenario. We should try to do more.

Let me read some things out of the bill just to give you a sense of what was being proposed.

Existing law does not provide for monitor- ing and preservation of biological diver- sity.

This bill would establish the Califor- nia Center for Biological Diversity Re- search at the University of California, with specified functions, to provide lead- ership in the role of monitoring the state's biota, determining causes of its decline, and providing methods and technologies to appropriate state agencies for the purposes of reversing this trend. This bill would re- quire the center to prepare and transmit an annual repon to the Governor and the Legislature, as prescribed. The bill would appropriate an unspecified sum to the De- partment of Fish and Game for purposes of establishing the center pursuant to this bill.

This is not the final version. I think the next version had that last sentence taken out. But, that was a fairly clear and simple statement of what is to be done. Further, it says, Article 903:

There is hereby established, at the Uni- versity of California, the California Center for Biological Diversity Research, the primary purpose of which shall be as fol- lows: ...@) To carry out the following specific functions in fulfilling the purposes of this article:

(I) Establish a cooperative network of in- stitutions, private organizations, and gov- ernment agencies for the purpose of gath- ering data relative to conservation of the state's biota and landscapes.

(2) Review, in coordination with the Natu- ral Heritage Data Base within the depart- ment, adequacy of existing data bases for monitoring biological diversity in Califor- nia.

(3) Conduct research on those taxonomic groups and geographic areas which are of rare occurrence or in decline.

(4) Prepare, with the assistance of the de- partment and other appropriate agencies, lists of communities, species, and popula- tions that are threatened with extinction or loss of viability.

(5) Publish reports, atlases, and guides on the status of the state's biological diversity and on methods to conserve the diversity, and to make this information available to the public and resource management agen- cies.

(6) Coordinate with federal agencies and agencies of adjacent states on their pro- grams affecting California's biota.

(7) Assist state agencies in conserving bi- ological diversity by providing relevant data on appropriate technology and meth- ods to facilitate long-term sustainability of resources.

There is research in there, there is database manage- ment, there are many things. However, nothing con- cerning funding remains in the current version of the bill.

Ahlstrom: It would seem to me that the bill covered a couple of things. The first has to do with some co-

ordination of activity, some transfer of information on what everybody is doing. Clearly, each agency, the federal agencies, the state agencies, have differ- ent kinds of mandates. They have different kinds of problems that confront them. Therefore, to solve these problems, they often need information which is perhaps slightly different from someone else. So, you end up with, in some cases, databases, informa- tion bases, GIS systems, such we have in the Forest Range Systems Program, which may not necessarily correlate with what other people are doing. It seems to me that there is a coordination effort that really needs to be done. I am not exactly sure of the best way to attack that. Clearly that's one issue.

The other issue is what the rest of the bill dealt with, generation of additional databases, other kinds of information, and research. It would appear to me that the University is uniquely situated to accom- plish these things, provided they have funding. The coordination effort could be done at any level. It could be done by any one of the State agencies, or it could be done in conjunction with the University.

But this whole concern brings to mind the Inte- grated Hardwood Range Management Program that you mentioned earlier. The attack there was that there was a significant need for information, there was a significant political problem. The State Board recognized it; after some arm-twisting, the Univer- sity recognized it. Political

Hoshovsky: At least for the Interagency Natural Ar- eas Coordinating Committee, there is an MOU signed by all the member agency directors that man- dates the coordination.

Qurlset: Certainly there is a lot going on, and Cali- fornia has taken a lot of leadership in this area, but there is clearly some need.

Skoog: The same is true for the Coordinated Re- source Management and Planning activity. The agencies work together in management planning for various natural resources.

Hoshovsky: There are 23 agencies involved includ- ing both public and private land managers.

Skoog: The lead agency has been the US Forest Service, but it will now be the US Bureau of Land Management for the next two years.

Qualset: If the University were to do a study then, it would identify these coordination efforts and de- termine how they can be strengthened and where more are needed.

Lihhy: It seems to me that this bill was either de- railed or stalled. It might be a good time to substi-

tute some different wording in pressure was brought to bear to the places where we don't quite generate the kind of interagency - - agree with it now. I would like agreement and funding that you I think something is to suggest what was said very now see in that pro~rarn. I am covered, and is probably not well well by Mark iust before we ad- . - not sure that we can generate understood, is the idea that the really journ2 whe' he was talking that same level of concern nec- interesting ecosystems are the ones that about the criteria for significant essary to do that same thing are working. -WJL natural areas. The first two are with biodiversity, but it might - covered hy the bill, namely rare be something to consider, at and endangered things. But I least, as a way of attacking the problem. think something that is rarely covered, and is proba-

bly not well understood, is the idea that the really Hoshovsky: I think a good first step for the task interesting ecosystems are the ones that are work- force is to identify what areas of coordination are ing. Those are the common ecosystems. This would already going on and then find out where the holes be a good place to make that point. Mark also men- are. For example, with some of the GIS projects, tioned species-rich ecosystems. That is another in- there is a state computer mapping committee that is teresting area for research. doing some coordination. Whether it is doing an adequate job or not needs to be determined. As far Hoshovsky: One thing I'd like to see, if the report as natural area activities, you already have the In- is generated, is that some kind of regular forum be teragency Natural Areas Coordinating Committee. established so that the University could discuss with Whether they are doing a good enough joh or not state and federal agencies what their needs are and needs to be determined. There should not be dupli- talk about the details of research. The permitting cation of effort. process that was discussed earlier is one example of

an issue that could be resolved at a forum. Another Qunlset: Is that coordination activity voluntary? use of the forum would be to communicate between

an agency that might have some funds for a specific

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

kind of work and someone in the UC system or and it has a component that is directed towards the CSU system that could do that work. A discussion conservation of systems. That would be a natural to forum like this, maybe even as often as twice a explore. year, could improve the whole research situation. Gall: There's another dimension

that I'd like some response to. I It seems that in the long term, if we are think it,s very important and Qualset: The research people in the UC system who ought to be going change way we do things, probably related to education, involved might number 400; way we The way 1 classify the question thev are not eoine to come to live or use water* in California Or is: how are we goine to oav for - - meetings three times a year. If anyplace else, then it is going to cost a conservation? I-doct me& the the meetings were to be topic- little bit more. -GAEG research and the things we're specific, they would not be re- talking about here. It seems that hashing the same topic year af- in the long term, if we are going ter year. Part of it is that University people are to change the way we do things, development, ag- pretty much individuals working with agencies as riculture, the way we live or use water, in Califor- they can. They are working on some very interest- nia or anyplace else, then it is going to cost a little ing things, but it would seem to me that the priority bit more. We are going to have to pay more for sening is not clear or easy when you are shotgun- food or highways or homes. Where do we pick up ning these projects. A coordinated activity would that kind of input into the program? lead to some planning to determine what is the most One suggestion that became very obvious to us important thing to do and where can you learn most when we were making this workshop effort on the with the limited money you have. Can a given result agriculture production-conservation biology inter- be applied to additional, similar systems? That face, is that even current federal subsidies for farm seems to me to be worth a lot. There is a lot of support are all disincentives to the farmer with re- money being spent. We are all here on some kind of gard to conservation. They drive the fanner to do salary, and this goes on day after day. There is a lot something that the farmer himself or herself might of money being spent, and we should certainly use not really want to do because it has a negative effect it as best we can. on the environment. So, 1 would suggest that this

task force and the program that the bill might ad- Hoshovsky: I know we are talking about research dress he expanded to address social science and here, hut would there be an educational role for this policy aspects of these questions. Is it possible for task force? conservation to fit into everybody's thinking, and, if

so, how can we get it there? There is no sense in Qualset: Very definitely. The opportunity is there. coming up with fancy ways of conserving some eco- We have to start at a lower level in the school sys- system if it is going to be politically, societally, or tems. in some other way incompatible with what we are

doing. Hoshovsky: One of the things that could be worked on is getting professional con- Libby: I have been trying to servation biologists together to work with the University to re- commend curriculum, whether it be K-12 or college levels.

Qualset: There was some effort last year to get more conserva-

- Common ecosystems, by the fact that they are working, are probably going

to be more cost effective rhan i f we knocked them out of whack. -WJL -

figure out how we wouid Ton- vince anybody that they wanted to conserve representative sam- ples of common ecosystems. Common ecosystems, by the fact that they are working, are ~robablv going to be more cost

tion into the state framework for kffective than- if we knocked science education at the K-12 levels and to try to them out of whack. We might be able to make that mandate writing some conservation biology exam- argument, that we ought to study these things and ples for textbooks. find out why they are working. Let me suggest that

we put that economic argument in there. Helms: The University institution that has had a big impact on education is the Lawrence Hall of Sci- Hoshovsky: Another thing the group could look at ence. They have a very strong educational program, is research funding policies. A lot of money is go- - P

ing into large projects, but many times small re- them. We can deal with that, I think. search grants can be very effective and maybe more effective. Maybe we should look at science research Bradford: 1 think there are some cases where re- funding policies to see how we ports can be recognized as can get more effective research scholarly contributions. For ex- done-to meet our needs. ample, a report to the State Clearly that is the kind of thing that we Board of Water Resources by a Parfitt: There's been a lot of are looking for, new information that faculty member, a rePo* which talk about research, and when I will help the agencies do a benerjob. clearly represents some intellec- first came in today, there was a in this case, of maintaining tual effort and has impact on discussion about things that are biodiversity. -GEB policy is recognized. 1 think likely to lead to promotions in - there is a need for more rec- the uc system. 1 ihink it might be interesting to clarify what we mean by research, because some of the things that have been discussed might not be things which could be published in class one journals and, therefore, would not lead to promotion. Given that situation, unless a lot of extra money was being put into these grants to make it at- tractive to researchers to do it, I wonder how many people would really undertake those tasks if there was a relatively minimal return, and they couldn't see where the publication of results was going to come out of that.

Hoshovsky: That is why I am trying to suggest that we look at policies and at how research is being done.

Gall: If 1 remember right, Cal, when we got this thing chucked to us from the Assembly, there was a lot of discussion with regard to the University man- agement of a program such as the kind this bill would implement, which said there had to be a defi- nition within the University of staff positions re- sponsible for much of the work that would be car- ried out. A lot of the work would be public service type of work and would not be true research. We have the capability within the University to define positions that are something more than staff, ones that were outside of the normal researchlteaching review process.

Qualset: Let's just follow that for a second. Cer- tainly the University has to think about its role in service activities, and there is service involved here. Typically, the University from the Agricultural Ex- periment Station heritage has a lot of service in its role. There is the Cooperative Extension Service. We have a Specialist series and a Research series, both are non-tenure-track and both can involve service components. The tenure track positions do require research for tenure, but it can be research that is needed to solve certain problems. Research- ers would be recognized for their ability to solve

ognition, but I think the mecha- nism is there to recognize this kind of service. Clearly that is the kind of thing that we are looking for, new information that will help the agencies do a better job, in this case, of maintaining biodiversity.

C. Krass: You have another possibility, and that is, if you are going to coordinate an effort with the various agencies, state and federal, the University would not have to perform the research exclusively, particularly at the field or grunt-labor level. Many of these agencies have many people in the field that could be collecting data. If we are going to coordi- nate an effort, some of the research could be coordi- nated as well.

MacMillen: 1 think that's a very good point. The role we can play best as University academics is to do what we are supposed to do, our own basic re- search, and then, our teaching. We could direct our teaching towards a very sound program in conserva- tion education and then coordinate activities through the agency personnel who are hired to do this kinds of research.

Gall: I find the agency people in the field to be just the same as faculty members in the sense that if they happen to be particularly interested in a particular problem and you happen to find them and you can work together, they are the greatest colleagues you could have. But, it is the same as walking into a de- partment on the campus and saying, "Hey, we want somehody to work on this problem." Nobody's go- ing to do it unless there happens to be somebody interested. I think we should take advantage of those field people who have the interest.

Qualset: That could be encouraged, couldn't it, with a funding program or some identification of projects with a certain level of student involvement?

MacMillen: Slowly we could work graduate stu- dents into those kinds of research activities, too,

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERV 'ATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

working with personnel of the agencies and as part maybe the funds could be pooled for such purposes of the education process. and drawn upon for high priority projects.

Jensen: I would just like to second the comment on Mathins: The Stanford Center for Conservation the need for more conservation education. I am Biology uses graduate students. Whatever agency starting to hear anecdotal comments that there are they are working for provides the funding. some problems finding entry level people to hire in some State agencies and certainly in the environ- Greene: I think there are two things that really need mental consulting business. There are not enough to be stressed. (1) Most of the people that I know students coming out of schools with a Bachelor's that work on vertebrates, both in California and in degree that have organismal biology or field biology foreign countries, think that the next 10 years is it. experience. There is starting to be a dearth of stu- We used to talk about maybe we had 20 or 30 years dents to hire that do not have graduate training, but to solve these problems, but everyone I have heard are basically beginning their professional career. In speak about this publicly, and it is my own opinion the spring it seems, every year now, there is a for the areas I work in, maintain that this really is scramble to find field assistants who have a Bache- the decade to solve the problems. I think when you lor's degree, but have not yet gone to graduate put that in the context of the incredible changes that training. It speaks to declining enrollment in organ- have come about in global politics in the last two ismal biology classes. Perhaps that is because there years, this is the issue for the 1990s. This is the is- is not a perception that there are sue that could make George jobs to go to with such a de- Bush a famous president. This gree. Perhaps it is because con- is the single most important is- servation training has not quite 'f Ihe people that ' how sue facing the world in the next caught up to the need for jobs On ve*ebrates, both in California 10 years, biodiversity. when students get out. and in foreign countries, think that the (2) The second thing is

next 10 years is it. -HWG money, money, money. That is Gall: It has not been long since the key thing. The amount of there was a phenomenal surplus money allocated to this research of students with biology degrees. We've got to face is preposterously tiny compared to things like the that question very carefully, or we could overpop- human genome sequencing project. They are talking ulate again very easily. about $15 to 20 million a year for sequencing the

human genome with the payoffs in human health to Hoshovsky: One thing this task force could also come 40, 50 years down the road when they finally deal with is the fact that within the University sys- finish that project. We are talking here about a tem there are a lot of graduate students and under- problem that we have to solve in the next 10 years. graduates looking for research projects. There is a The disparity between funding and urgency is just lot of energy out there. We need a way to coordi- incredible. I think that cannot be stated too force- nate that with some of the needs, to be sort of a fully at whatever level we are working, local, clearinghouse. You could say, here is a research Alameda County, State of California. need, and here are all these bod- ies that are willing to do some- Krass: Interagency types of thing related to that. What we ne disparity betweenfunding and funding are not unknown. Sev- do not have is a good central era1 years ago there was a new understanding of where the urgency is just incredible. I think that disease in Monterey pine that funding sources are and what be Stared tooforcrfuNy at showed up in the Bay Area, and are they specifically allocated wha"'ver level we are working...-HWG we had a joint agreement with for. Even with the Interagency UC to do some work that was - . Natural Areas Coordinating contributed to by the Dept. of Committee, we still don't understand all the differ- Food and Agriculture, by the Dept. of Forestry, and ent funding sources of the different agencies. There by CalTrans. Those three agencies were supporting is a lot of money, 1 think, that is out there, not be- a project in the University. There is precedent for ing used very efficiently. That would be a good this type of thing. role, to try to coordinate that a little bit more.

Gall: The unfortunate thing is those precedents are Qualset: If there was a good trend to he developed, always based on putting out some fire. If there is no -

fire, we cannot seem to get that same kind of dis- Libhy: Following Harry's line of reasoning, which cussion started. What we are talking about here is I sincerely agree with, although it is a little hard to how can that be done? How can the climate or the manufacture a sustained crisis for something like ethic change, so that there this, 1 think we can make the would be that kind of interaction argument, and correctly so, that before crises? any type of science that one can I think we can make the argument, and imagine doing, will be done Krass: You create a crisis. That correctly $0, that any WPe of scimce more effectively five or ten is what the bottom line is. As that one can imagine doing, will be yeas hence, when we know soon a. the Legislature oer- done Or years more. However. conservation ~. .~~ - ~ - ~~~ ~ - ceives a crisis, they will Htart hence, when we know more. However, biology is the one outstanding attempting to deal with it. Until conservation biology is the one out- exception to that. We will not they do, it goes on the back standing exception to that. We will nor be able to do biological conser- burner because there are other be able to do biological conservation vation as well five o r ten years crises that demand their atten- as wel[five or ten years hence. -WJL hence. I think if we made that tion. argument forcefully it might

carry some weight and add an Gall: That is dangerous in this element of "Let's get started now." regard because if you take the attitude of, well, we have got 10 years or we are going to lose the whole Hoshovsky: We were talking about education and works and if you happen to be wrong, you have lost recognizing that the general public does not seem to face for the next 50 years. be aware of the problem. Maybe the task force

could make a recommendation on what kind of tac- Greene: 1 don't think we have really lost it, by any tics are necessary to raise public awareness better means. What I am saying is that 10 years from now than what we are now doing. How can we improve we will have in place the mechanism to save what- our situation? We are doing some environmental ever we are going to save. I know of several in- education. Is that enough? Is that the right ap- stances in the last year in which new species were proach? Is there a better approach? being described and have gone extinct while the de- The other suggestion I had is there is a lot of scriptions were in press. 1 think that the common research going on that state agencies, public agen- perception is that this is a crisis on the horizon cies, can use, but unfortunately, the people on staff when, in fact, it is one that is quietly going by us. are often so overworked that they don't have the We are not aware of it because there are not any big luxury of finding that research so that they can in- fires, as you called them. corporate it into some of their decisions. Maybe

there is a mechanism to funnel that research back Krass: You are aware of that; but is the public into the state agencies in a handier format to readily aware of that? incorporate into planning.

Greene: Certainly not.

Krass: Until the public is aware of that, until the public says, "Mr. Assemblyman, Mr. Senator, hey, I've been reading about this now for three months, and why aren't you guys doing something?" you will not get any action.

Ahlstrom: I don't think that legislators remember 10 years. For example, one of the most outspoken recent proponents of global warming who is saying, "It is here, it is upon us, we are doomed," is the very one who 10 years ago, almost exactly, pub- lished a noted book that maintained we were enter- ing an ice age. The same individual, same scientist. Nobody has raised that issue.

Bradford: With respect to the issue of visibility and increasing public awareness, I am wondering if one of things the Genetic Resources Conservation Pro- gram could do would be to sponsor a statewide con- ference bringing in as many other agencies and peo- ple as possible to focus on the issue of biodiversity, to present information such as was presented here today and a good deal more, and to work with the news media in planning the conference so you get publicity. I hesitate to suggest another conference. We all have too many to go to. But I sense there has not been a statewide conference that involves all of the relevant agencies. I have learned a tremendous amount of new things here today that I did not know were going on.

Qualset: Let's stick with that suggestion for a bit,

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

which I think is a very good one. You could have a major conference with the Governor, or whoever you want, to bless it. But when do you do it? I don't think it would he right two months from now, but it might be right when we have a clear idea of what we need to do. Then the agencies could come in and talk science and tactics. Then you could go from there with a lot of support from the political side and the public.

Showers: I think a biodiversity conference is too broad. I think we need to have a goal or a focus in that conference specifically towards some actions that have been suggested or some program that can be developed rather than just talk about hiodiversity and throwing up our hands and saying, this is terri- ble.

Qualset: I think you have to present some very im- mrtant action items for the fu-

relations firm in the state and start doing space ads and television advertising like people who sell cars. It may sound on the face of it a little ridiculous, but there are organizations that are very good at devel- oping publicity and reaching the people, like the Si- erra Club, outside the official state or governmental agencies, but those organizations can really reach the public.

Qualset: That is not a bad idea, as long as it is staged in time so that the right action could be taken following the conference or workshops.

There's one other issue, how do you create public awareness? You know there is a biodiversity aspect to almost all of the things the public deals with now. The pesticide issue: farmers cannot use pesticides when there are endangered species around. The sustainahle agriculture issue: sustain- able agriculture may mean diversity of crops, new

plants and animals. or it may &re. Then you can turn to the mean new pest control devices question of how broad could - - such as biocontrol agents. 1 VOU eo. There's one other issue, how do you think there are some elements - - create public awareness? ... there is a that have not been pushed along Krass: A little advance public- biodiversiry aspect to almost all of the in the current crisis. ity on the Capitol steps never things the public deals with now. -COQ hurts. Davis used to bring a Showers: 1 think another group couple of milk cows over for that we could consider, too, are the legislators. That sort of thing gets the TV and engineers, CalTrans engineers, Army Corps of En- the newspapers out. You might need a couple of gineers. Their engineering projects have a tremen- displays, maybe some of your dead animals that are dous impact on the environment, and they come no longer around, things of this sort that will attract from a completely different background than biolo- public attention, media attention, and legislative at- gists do. We somehow need to bring those people tention. in.

Call: Other groups have been effective by preceding Qunlset: They are not certified biodiversity experts, a conference with what I think they call legislative are they? There is some level of certification and seminars. The faculty go in and give a half-day or a professionalism that people should have if they are fullday seminar with the intended audience of legis- advising. On the hiodiversity side, you could take a lative staffs and research office staffs from the Sen- soils course and an entomology course, and you can ate and the Assembly. They're invited, they come be a civil engineer and advise anybody. in, they get some coffee, they sit down for three hours and hear three or four people discuss some- Showers: The University could play a role in in- thing in a very focused and very specific manner, volving engineering. giving them something that they can walk away with. You do that about three times before this con- Mathias: One of the things La Selva station and ference. OTS did was to get Congressional staff and assis-

tants, 15 or 20 at a time, and tour Costa Rica as a Skoog: This was the approach that was used by the class. They do this once a year now. They take Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program. them around the country to view what is being cut It was a big help in getting that going. They held a down and destroyed, what type of agriculture is number of workshops and two big conferences. going in, what this particular dam did. They visit all

the various projects. This has been very effective. It Parfitt: If you really want to talk ahout reaching the has heen responsible for raising a lot of support in public, what you need to do is hire a good public the federal government. They had tried it first with

the Congressmen themselves, and they found that are interested in working on research issues with did not work. It has been more effective to inform agencies and University people and others interested staff and assistants. in research, that is another thing. I really think there

is an important role to be played here, and we ought Gall: I think getting to the legislative staff is more to pursue it. There are so many different ways to effective than getting to the public out there. They stage it, and they are very expensive. A conference take it back home, and then they take it back to the is expensive. It takes a lot of people's time. If you legislator. try to do it all, you may fail.

Jensen: I agree with Dave's concern that a confer- ence on biodiversity would be so broad as to be hard to structure and perhaps hard to get any prod- ucts out of. The audience would range from politi- cians to the public to researchers. It is going to be hard to structure it to reach them all. We also have issues which range from agriculture through urban planning through economics and ethics. We could set these up as workshops, but the audiences for each would be quite different. Perhaps instead of having one program as the an-

Jensen: The other comment that I want to add is that there is really a lack of understanding of this is- sue in the academic community outside of the scien- tific community. I am actually working on a paper about biodiversity with a political scientist at Ber- keley because, after discussions during our process of putting together the report and after reading our report, he realized, which was a wildly new idea to him, that all environmental problems were not the same. For those of us in the room, that is obvious,

of course, but the political sci- swer, there need to be several ence community, the people different approaches. The train-

- who are doing policy work,

ing of legislative staff and aides is a lack of understand- who are not working on envi- is one a~proach that might be ing Of piodiversiN in [he ronmental issues, think all en- completei; distinct from a con- academic community outside of the vironmental problems are ference bringing together agen- scienrific community. -DBJ analogous. They think that they cies and University researchers. can use any environmental prob- I think the hardest problem is lem as a model for how to think getting to the public by an effective means. If there about and design solutions for all problems. We were a research-oriented technical conference, there have a not small task just to educate the political would also be a very large contingent of environ- scientists in academia and policy makers in general mental activists who would come to it, Sierra Cluh- that the nature of all environmental problems is not type people, who would be interested and would the same. Air pollution and hazardous waste and have some kind of technical background. They are biological diversity are different. They are very dif- mainly interested in the issues, but would come and ferent both in their technical aspects and in their participate. It is not clear that it would possihle for social and economic aspects. Part of the difficulty GRCP to coordinate a meeting directed at the public will be getting the word out in an academic setting; activism level. Setting up a research-oriented con- a wide ranging conference might or might not be ference, perhaps over several days with a really able to do that. I have never been to a conference broad mandate, a broad set of questions, not just that would have that broad a scope. It is hard to biodiversity and sustainable agriculture or biodi- conceive. versity and forestry, including some of the eco- nomic issues of the valuation questions such as MacMillen: The real problem with conferences is "Why do we care about these resources?" and that they will attract the people who are already "What are they worth to us?" might work. I think, knowledgeable and educated. They are not the ones though, we would have to partition the project. we want. Many people are hostile to the idea of bio-

diversity. Those are the ones we need to reach. Hoshovsky: A conference like that will not neces- How you do that, I don't know. sarily get to the unenlightened public. That is what is really needed. Showers: At the California Native Plant Society

conference a couple of years ago, they had a special Qualset: The goal for a meeting has to be very session on Saturday just for educators. They fo- clear. If you are to influence policy makers, that is cused specitically on educators and the role they one thing. If you are to influence environmental could play in plant protection. As Deborah said, groups and their staffs, that is another thing. If you you could compartmentalize the broad topic a little

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UN~VERS~TY OF CALIFORNIA

bit to focus on particular target groups, such as elementary school teachers, for instance, who may not have that broad a background. Maybe they are trained in social sciences, but they are required to teach a certain amount of science. They may not be aware of the broad issues other than what they read in a couple of textbooks.

Hoshovsky: I think that's a great task for this task force to take on. How do you reach out to these dif- ferent audiences, what's the best medium to do it, and how can you be effective in it?

Gall: There is a model that I have heard people talk about, but I have never been involved with, and that is having overlapping sessions with at least three or four conferences going on simultaneously. When you are putting it together and getting folks there, they don't even know that there are three others go- ing on. They are coming to the one and when they get there they find there are four going on at the same time. They get a big eye opener by seeing what else was going on at the same place at the same time in different rooms.

Hoshovsky: The medium of a conference is not re- ally the best one for a lot of the general public. How many people that work down in the local fac- tory want to go to a conference? Those are the people you really need to reach.

Qualset: Our goal must be, though, to reach the policy makers in the first instance. In other words, we have got to develop a program carefully with all the right people, and then sell it with a hang.

Hoshovsky: Are the things we've been discussing the kinds of ideas you want for this task force?

Qualset: Everything seems relevant. It seems that the task force needs a representation that has some understanding of agencies and the University. It will have to deal with research needs and opportunities. It will have to determine what are the areas of re- search that are badly represented now. One can find books all over the place now about what the issues are. That's not the problem. What is important to us in California? For example, I think the genetic ele- ment is left behind. In other words, what is the ge- netic diversity within a species, and how does that relate to a conservation strategy? You can't do ge- netic analysis on hundreds of species. But there are a lot of indicators now. We've got model cases which we should evaluate as to how relevant they would be for similar species. Maybe the literature

has some good information. There are relevant studies that were not done for conservation pur- poses.

Hoshovsky: When establishing the task force, I think you should look beyond simply getting biolo- gists involved, but look at a broad range of what disciplines are really involved in conservation. That would involve people from the political sciences, social sciences, and general education.

Bradford: To change the subject away from the idea of a conference or symposium for the moment, the recurrent theme this afternoon and this evening has been the need for education. How many UC campuses now have a curriculum in conservation biology? Where are they on this? I am not even sure I know the answer for the Davis campus.

Skoog: Do you mean a program or just a single course?

Bradford: No. I mean a curriculum for profession- als to study and also a general education compo- nent. Maybe we should look inwards a bit on this issue.

Skoog: There's something building at Davis with the Institute of Ecology in the Division of Environ- mental Studies.

Qualset: San Diego has something going. The little workshop that we had in 1988 clearly identified no serious program, no majors program. There are courses here and there, but groups of few faculty on each campus are moving in that direction. We can get at that. It will be important to determine this. If general education is an important issue on all our campuses, then why isn't this one of the GE topics?

Bradford: Is this something this task force can en- courage, some tangible work on curriculum devel- opment?

Qualset: That could certainly be part of the task force's mission, to find out what is going on at the various campuses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Further, they could determine whether there is any kind of summer institute to train high school teachers that could accommodate a conservation bi- ology curriculum.

Ahlstrom: 1 get the feeling that there is an evolution here towards a task force. I would question if maybe there are some other vehicles to do some

other things, or to look at the very good suggestions that have come out for this task force to do. Maybe there are some other vehicles that are better suited, perhaps, to address some of those issues.

The second thing that concerns me a little is that I wonder where all these good ideas are going. For example, you are talking about education as something that is extremely important. You say we ought to try to reach Joe Blow who works in a fac- tory and get education at that level and at K-12. Then I hear we have got only 10 years to deal with. You can forget it. You are not going to be success- ful at anything. Your education effort will not show any fruition in 10 years. Maybe this is more merce- nary, but I would look at where I want to go, and what I need. I want to have a program. I want to have a program in place in nine months or in 12 months. Perhaps I have to get into the legislative cycle, and I need to have a program in place to do something before the end of the next budget and legislative cycle. Okay, the question is, how am I going to accomplish that? We've really got to stir the pot hard in order to accomplish that. We are not going to stir the pot hard with education. While I agree it is very, very imponant, it will not accom- plish the goal of having a funded program bringing together concerns for biodiversity within any kind of reasonable time frame. We must go at it with that specific time frame in mind and only deal with those specific kinds of activities that are going to generate that. Talking to school teachers is not going to gen- erate that. But, certainly, talking to legislative staff, having high visibility, high political force attendees at conferences and get-togethers, having news con- ferences, these things will certainly begin to gener- ate some pressure in that direction. I would like to see some s o n of program. 1 would like to see it soon. I would like the effort directed towards those activities, and those activities only, that would gen- erate enough political, forceful support to generate dollars and

really involved in education, as one part of an overall program. We have research and other com- ponents that cost money, but here is one that is go- ing to help people train young people coming along. At the same time, we get on with the action pro- gram, the critical species, critical population analy- ses. So, we have something for everybody. I don't know if that makes sense to you or not.

Ahlstrom: Yes, it does make sense to try to get something for everyone, but you have to ask your- self where your power base comes from. If the schoolteachers can generate a power base for you, then that's great. I don't think they generate the kind of power base that, say, the Sierra Club does. So, if you've got limited time and limited resources to expend to get the job done, to get this program on line, you can see where you want to spend the time and who you want to be cultivating.

Hoshovsky: I think it would be the role of the task force to try to figure out what steps need to be done in the next 10 years and develop that program for a 10-year time frame.

Qualset: The task force would do it in a month rather than 10 years.

Hoshovsky: Right, in a very short period of time, they need to figure out what needs to be done over the 10-year time frame.

Gall: There have been a lot of good suggestions brought up, but I don't see this task force function- ing. That's why 1 wonder about the other vehicles. 1 don't care if we say months. That means at least a year or two for the task force. Then you still have to get not only the Division to buy into it, but also the President's office; that's the more difficult one.

The alternative is to do it with a task force that hands it right to

get the job done.

Qualset: Let me try this out. We produce a report recom- mending certain activities about research and coordination and education. It should be sold to

I would like to see some son of pro- gram. I would like to see it soon. I

would like the effort directed towards those activities, and those activities only, that would generate enough

political, forceful support to generate

the Assembly; they pass a bill; and then Jim has to say, "Well, folks, we've got it, whether we want it or not." Is it possible to structure an effort that could short cut that by about 90%, that is, get it down to seven or

the legislative body as a com- dollars and get thejob done. -GA eight months total? That's the plete program. The education problem. component might be something that the high school teachers would all really love. Parlilt: How different would It might be a scholarship program or summer schol- the composition of the task force he from a group arship program. There could be components that like we have here? would attract the attention of the people who are

BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE L'NIvERsITY OF CALIFORNIA

Qualset: I'm not sure. I think it would be similar. Steve Nation, Peter Moyle, and I had a little session about this recently. They really want a good repre- sentation of agencies, but not every agency. The task force is meant to be small enough that they could address issues and then call upon some other folks to help them. They would like to see some en- vironmental representation or conservation organi- zation representation. I don't think they are asking for any legislative representation.

Partitt: If your objective is to get things going quickly, you probably have a lot of your task force sitting right here. You don't have to go through a lot of initiation and authorization. All you've got to do is to get everybody to agree to go to a meeting at some point in the future.

Qualset: We can do a study, but there's no point in doing something that isn't going to be wanted by anyone. So, we have to be sure that there's a little bit of pressure applied from the Assembly or Senate side, They have to want something done, and the University must say, "We will approve it." Then we go to work. Then we have a better chance that our product will be used.

Krass: You've also got to generate a product first, before you can go out to sell it. You need your task force to put together a product. Then maybe you get a different group to go out and sell it to the Legis- lature.

Qualset: Well, all of us in the University seem to be used to writing proposals and assessments. It's not like it is something we don't do. We work hard to sell our ideas to somebody. I feel confident we can get people to get the job done.

Gall: I've been running under the assumption that it would be the University that would have to try to sell it to the Legislature. We can't expect the agen- cies to. But the task force should have that repre- sentation, so that when the University does go for- ward with a proposal, we don't get blind-sided.

Krass: You need the agencies siding with you. Oth- erwise, the Legislature could generate a bill, hut when it comes over to the agency, it might say that it interferes with its program and would kill it. The University could be the lead agency and work in co- operation with others. The bigger the list of others, the more impressive it is.

Hoshovsky: If the goal of the task force is to de- velop a plan within a period of nine months that will direct some activities over the next 10 years, during those nine months there will not be simply one or two meetings. I would envision it would be probably as often as once a month or more, which is going to involve a lot of staff time. If you're go- ing to be having representatives from State agen- cies, you have to have willingness on the part of that agency to commit somebody for a significant amount of time during that nine months. I don't know how you're going to get to that.

Qualset: That's one issue of logistics for the task force that would need to be looked at carefully. Whatever is done, it's going to cost some bucks. We're going to have to find some, maybe not a huge amount. I think finding some money some- where would also be desirable because it would in- dicate that somebody believes in what you're doing, too. 1 think the critical issue is to move very quickly. We know a lot about this topic. Let's get on with it. We want to get it moving through the process within a few months.

Ahlstrom: Along those lines, Cal, generally with legislation the process is that the idea is sold to some individual in the Legislature. It then moves through the legislative process. The plan doesn't precede that legislation; the plan follows it, as an outgrowth or a product of it. I'm suggesting what you do is push the idea of this sort of thing as a legislative proposal.

Qualset: Isn't that where we are now? They've al- ready initiated legislation. We are reacting now be- cause they're saying there is interest.

Johnson: The bill had the wrong timing, the wrong author. There were lot of things wrong. It may be that next year will be a different story. You'll have new people, for one thing.

Krass: If you have a task force working on this, it doesn't mean that you can't, at the same time, be working the Legislature to get them enthused about the concept that this group is going to come up with a plan for a 10-year program.

Qualset: Where do we stand? Any other thoughts?

Mathias: Who are the right legislators? Who would have been the right one?

Johnson: I'd have to think about it a little bit. Someone a little more in the middle. Perhaps you would go to the chairs of the policy committees.

J.L. Lyons: 1 spent all morning in a meeting where agencies and the public health service were talking about farmworker health. Farmworkers do not have any advocate. In fact, there was a consumer survey that talked to consumers about food safety. Are you concerned about food safety? "Oh yes." Are you concerned about farmworker health? "Not in the least. What's that got to do with us?" So don't worry about The Public in that sense. You're going to have to get leadership in the legislative process to carry these things, because the public is interested in the bottom dollar, what they can get in consumer goods, without causing them any problems. Biodi- versity doesn't sell.

Johnson: We've been talking about conferences. You don't want to have politicians come and hear dry papers. You have to be able to translate your is- sues into terms that they can understand.

Lyons: On that point, you're talking about a task force that spends a lot of time to write things. Isn't there a lot already written? What would it take you to do a four-page position paper? Is that going to take months of meetings? Isn't there enough wisdom around the table to sit down and do that?

Hoshovsky: 1 don't think you need a position paper. I think what you need a list of actions, what needs to be done.

Lyons: Whatever you call it, a background paper, for the legislators, it shouldn't be more than four pages.

Skoog: If the University takes the lead, what are the prospects of the President's office approving it and moving ahead?

Lyons: The President is not interested in any hill that's going to tell the University to spend money that they don't have.

Skoog: Then I'm wondering if it's better if the agencies, maybe the Resource Agency, have the lead on it.

Johnson: What about a Governor's Commission on Biodiversity? I could see that as a very realistic pro- cess with either one of the candidates that are run- ning now. If it makes it not just UC, but makes it a

little more generic, it would lend itself more to- wards an interdisciplinary approach.

Skoog: It might be more palatable to the legislators also.

Johnson: Especially if the Legislature gets to ap- point people to it.

Qualset: Would this commission be long standing or a short-lived thing? We're talking about some- thing that would work fairly quickly and create pro- grammatic suggestions to be taken into action by legislation or agreement.

Gall: I think, too, the University has to play a ma- jor part if it's going to he what we've been talking about today. Otherwise, it might just as well be the Resources Agency coordinating like they coordi- nate. That's why I'm concerned ahout a commis- sion. As an agency, you coordinate the activities of a number of departments. If some Governor's commission decided to do that, then we'd have lost the ball game.

Bradford: If there were a Governor's Commission on Biodiversity, where would the University figure in it? Would they have some representatives on it?

Skoog: They'd he a strong component.

Clegg: The thing about commissions, at least at the Presidential level, is that they are designed not to deal with the problem, but to confuse it.

Jensen: Marsha, what's your perspective on this group focusing more on the research issues that are UC-oriented and the curriculum issues that are UC- oriented, things that more directly follow AB 1324? There have been a lot of ideas on the table tonight that seem more appropriate for your idea of a com- mission because they are so broad reaching. That doesn't mean that this group needs to wait for the new Governor to make progress with the coordina- tion of research in which UC needs to participate, defining the critical research that's not getting done, and determining what to do about curriculum and the educational functions.

Gall: Who requested the task force? How important is it that the task force do something even if it's nominal?

Qualset: Assemblyman Campbell's oftice sees that the hill isn't going to move this year, but they'd like

BIODNERSITY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CONSERVATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

to see this activity move ahead, if the University agrees to take some action. That's the tack that's being taken now. There's another bill, by Senator Garamendi, on some task force for wildlife protec- tion.

I see the need for pulling together this informa- tion. It seems to me important to understand what the University can do and what our capabilities and interests are. We should move with that information to coordination with agencies in one way or an- other. We should see how that can be implemented with agencies. I don't see anything wrong with moving ahead toward that, with or without legisla- tion, with or without strong advocacy by a legisla- tive office. I believe if we do that properly and carry out some liaison with some of the people con- cerned with the environment, we would be moving towards something that's important to California. We would hope others could get behind it and work with the process. None of us are equipped to do lobbying. I think that's what we should be moving on. The signals aren't all that clear, obviously, about why we should move ahead on the basis of legislative activity, but it seems the right thing to do to me, if we're going to go ahead and influence the protection of natural resources.

Hoshovsky: If you have the flexibility of getting people within the University system to start working on drafting ideas and then occasionally pull in agency representatives to get some input, so that they don't spend a lot of time in the development of it, then I think that will be an efficient way to get something moving.

Qualset: The agencies know a lot more about what they're doing than the University knows about what the University is doing. There are so many pro- grams on so many campuses, that we don't know what they're doing and how they all might fit to- gether. Until we know better, we're in a weak posi- tion.

Hoshovsky: What kind of follow-up actions do you envision?

Qualset: I think Vice President Farrell is being asked formally by a legislative office to consider creating a task force. I am not sure what scope or timing it should have. In my opinion, something will go forward. The time is right. The Sliding to- ward extinction report had a big impact on legisla- tive people. Deborah's report brought forward a lot of solid scientific issues. The next stage is to look at the human resources to carry out the proposals.