Improvement of environmental impact analysis by application of principles derived from manipulative ecology: Lessons from coastal marine case histories

I discuss briefly how the basic science of ecology contributed to the resolution of environmental problems in eight different cases in which I have been involved over the past few years. I then draw from 2 decades of experience as an academic marine ecologist and biological oceanographer to extract general lessons from each case on how environmental applications could be improved by better use of the wisdom of the field of ecology. The eight cases respresent four pairs of contrasts covering a spectrum of applications of ecological science to environmental problems: (i) two assessments of the environmental impacts from coastal ocean discharges, one evaluated by data collected under traditionally designed, self‐monitoring programmes largely mandated by the agency granting the discharge permit and the other employing an academically designed programme of explicit impact testing; (ii) two assessments of the effects of offshore oil and gas development, one done before exploration drilling to assess the adequacy of available environmental information on which to base decisions about drilling permits and the other an analysis of natural resource damages after a coastal oil spill had occurred; (iii) two evaluations of environmental problems conducted by special ad hoc panels created to resolve the environmental disputes; and (iv) two examples of how rule‐making commissions employed ecological insights in the establishment of regulations, in one case to preserve environmental quality and in the other to manage natural fishery resources. From the experience of these eight cases, I derive 38 lessons for the future improvement of environmental problem solving by better use of ecological sciences. These lessons fall into four categories: (i) improvements in study design and analysis; (ii) recognition of the importance of the multi‐species, multi‐factor (‘ecosystem’) context in which populations are nested; (iii) acknowledgement of how social concerns constrain environmental decisions; and (iv) identification of common fallacies in environmental assessment.