The organizations responsible for managing lands associated with the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) are faced with the challenge of breaking new ground in managing large, fragmented areas for multispecies protection at the population and ecosystem scales. Many of the habitat management decisions to be made have no precedent and limited technical information on which they can be based.

There are limited resources available for management of the ecological reserves established under the NCCP program and for research of coastal sage scrub (CSS) ecosystems. Therefore, representatives from key federal and state agencies and from The Nature Conservancy initiated an effort to coordinate relevant research activities and facilitate the production of technical information that can inform management decisions. The Science Research Committee--in collaboration with local governments, public utilities, the San Diego Zoological Society, and others--held a conference in September 1996 to share information on ongoing research activities related to CSS and to discuss how this research relates to managers' information needs.

A Core Group of fourteen representative researchers, land managers, and planners was selected by the Science Research Committee (see Foreword). The group was convened at the September conference to further identify land managers' information needs and examine how research can address those needs. Science & Policy Associates, Inc. (S&PA) was asked to facilitate the Core Group based on their extensive experience in assisting similar groups to link research with decision making. S&PA acted as a neutral broker with no vested interest in the NCCP issues or role in research or management. S&PA's activities were sponsored by Southern California Edison, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Electric Power Research Institute.

At the Core Group's first meeting during the September conference they unanimously identified their mission as follows:

"To redefine the existing research agenda and develop a strategy for more effectively applying science to implementing NCCP policy and management."

The Core Group held a two day working session October 31 - November 1, 1996 to forge ahead with this mission. At a third meeting on December 20, 1996, the group refined and revised its conclusions and recommendations. Figure 1 illustrates the genesis and activities of the Core Group.

Objectives

The Core Group had three primary objectives:

1. To identify and rank the priority information needs of decision makers responsible for managing the land and resources of coastal sage scrub and adjoining habitats.

2. To develop guidance for how research can address those information needs and inform the decisions of managers.

3. To recommend a function and process for ensuring ongoing communication between and among the research and management organizations involved in the NCCP program.

When the Core Group was convened at the September conference, two members agreed to complete key tasks in preparation for the October-November meeting. Larry Eng of the California Department of Fish and Game talked with "on-the-ground" managers to develop a framework list of information needs. Peter Stine of the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (formerly the National Biological Service) organized a preliminary list of existing research activities and mapped them to the information needs elicited by Eng. Stine was assisted in his effort by staff from the San Diego NCCP office of the California Department of Fish and Game.

At the Core Group meeting, the preliminary list of managers' information needs was refined, reorganized, and prioritized. The list was then framed as potential research questions more completely mapped to the existing or recently completed research activities. This resulted in guidance on what research is needed to inform management decisions, and highlights those research needs not addressed by current research.

Finally the group developed recommendations for a needed function and process for coordinating research and information dissemination activities to serve each other most efficiently and effectively. This outcome was enhanced by the diverse perspectives and concerns of the group and by their willingness to discuss challenges, weaknesses, and opportunities candidly and openly. Figure 2 describes the primary outcomes of the Core Group's activities.

Inputs

Aside from the valuable knowledge and experience offered by the Core Group members, the two major inputs were the framework list of managers' information needs and the preliminary survey of research activities.

For the list of information needs, Larry Eng interviewed seven people. They included on-the-ground reserve managers, managers with responsibilities for multiple reserves, and managers with many years experience in identifying habitat lands for reserves. Each had experience in the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP area. Three of the interviewees were from California Fish and Game, and one each were with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, a public utility company, and another non-profit land management organization. Additional input from the Core Group enhanced the list, but it will require broad ongoing review and revision to become and remain comprehensive.

The resources managed by the interviewees included multiple purpose reserves, single or limited purpose reserves, urban reserves, and others. Some are responsible for day-to-day reserve management, while others deal with policy and funding issues. The needs identified reflected this variety. A common theme was the need for an assessment of what is currently known: what is established fact? what is experimental or assumed? what is recommended? what is the "state of the art?"

The survey of research activities identified almost 100 recent, ongoing, and scheduled projects related to Coastal Sage Scrub. While this is only a partial list, it provided a useful representative sampling when mapped to the information needs identified by active managers. The conclusion of the preliminary mapping exercise was that some research activities related to specific needs, but that many categories of information needs, such as what level of public use can be accommodated on reserve land, were not being addressed at all by research. This is not a criticism of current research, most of which was not designed to address managers' needs, but provides clear guidance toward opportunities for future management-relevant research.