(Justmeans.com / CSR News) - March 8, 2010 | Posted by Rod Fujita

Rod Fujita is Senior Scientist and Director, Ocean Innovations, for EDF.

The National Research Council Reviews Biological Opinions Designed to Protect Endangered Fish Species

On March 15th, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences will issue an important report. It will detail the NRC’s evaluation of the science that has been used to determine how much water can safely be pumped out of the Delta for cities and farms while preventing the extinction of endangered salmon and other fish.

This science forms the basis of the Biological Opinions at the heart of a very contentious debate over the role of science in policymaking. If science is to serve policy well here, expectations need to be realistic and the results of the NRC review must be accurately communicated. Otherwise, we may see political mischief – the science may be misinterpreted in ways that justify old ways of doing business in the Delta and serve special interests at the expense of salmon, the fishing community, the natural ecosystem, and the public trust.

Politics spurred a review of the science
The science underlying the Biological Opinions has already been subject to rigorous scientific peer-review, the gold standard of scientific credibility. The science-and common sense-supports the notion that salmon (and other important fisheries) require more protective flows to recover. The tricky part is to figure out how much flow will be needed. At this point, it is impossible to tell whether the recommended flows will prevent extinction of endangered fish species; we are only into the second year of implementation, so they haven’t yet had a chance to work. Hence, it seems clear that this new scientific review by the NRC was not triggered by performance issues. Instead, it is being undertaken at the request of Senator Diane Feinstein following appeals from agricultural interests squeezed by a 3 year drought.

The credibility of the National Academy of Sciences and its National Research Council is on the line. It is imperative that the NRC review panel not only get the science right, but also that it provides guidance to policymakers on the risks associated with the various courses of action on the table. The panel must also communicate its findings accurately, without bias. It is equally critical that policymakers interpret the NRC’s findings correctly, and resist the temptation to use the absence of certainty (which is inevitable) to justify the old ways of doing business or even worse.

The real world is not a laboratory
When scientists are working in the laboratory, they ask very precise, narrow questions and pose hypotheses – possible answers that they consider to be reasonable. They then test the hypotheses with experiments that are controlled – in other words, designed to eliminate other possible answers. Their results are held to a high standard, because the rigorous application of the scientific method allows strong inferences to be drawn from data. Even so, most scientific articles are full of qualifiers and never claim certainty.

In the world of environmental policymaking and natural resource management, scientists don’t get to ask precise narrow questions or conduct controlled experiments. Policymakers usually ask vague, broad questions like “how much flow do endangered fish need to recover” that are very difficult to answer. Moreover, policymakers often question science that points to actions that will result in short-term economic impact. This reflects in many cases a legitimate sensitivity to livelihoods and the health of economies.

Rigorous scrutiny of science that informs policy is a good thing. When the economic stakes are very high, however, policymakers often hold science to an impossible standard – absolute certainty – and then use the fact that science is uncertain to justify actions that serve their political interests or favor certain stakeholders. If policymakers believe that farm jobs and revenues are more important than fishing jobs, fishing revenues, preventing extinctions, and restoring the Delta ecosystem to health, they should just act on that belief and on those values. It is dishonest to use scientific uncertainty to justify their failure to protect natural resources.

We are dealing with a double standard here. NRC reviews of the science underlying economic development decisions – such as mining or dam projects – are almost unheard of. No one requires that these governmental decisions be supported by “certainty”. However, the scientific basis of actions aimed at protecting ecosystems and endangered species is often held to an unreasonable standard – the “certainty” that a specific amount of water will yield a specific ecosystem benefit. In fact, relatively high levels of uncertainty are inevitable regarding ecosystems like the Delta and that’s why we employ strategies like adaptive management.

This principle applies to many environmental issues and also to everyday problems. There is extraordinarily strong evidence, for example, that fossil fuel combustion has already led to major changes in the earth’s climate. Yet uncertainty remains, because it is not possible to conduct a controlled experiment using an identical earth with no fossil fuel combustion. The prudent action is of course to reduce fossil fuel use despite this uncertainty, because of the enormous risks associated with destabilizing our climate. However, opponents use scientific uncertainty to argue that we should delay action indefinitely.

People and societies routinely make decisions – some of which are extremely consequential – based on uncertain evidence, in order to reduce risk. Examples include buying insurance, going to war, and convicting people of crimes. We use various kinds of standards of evidence to make these decisions – but we never insist on certainty, because it is unobtainable in complex situations.

Klamath Basin: An emphasis on uncertainty contributes to environmental catastrophe
Unrealistic expectations of scientific certainty, combined with understandable caution on the part of scientists who wish to protect their credibility, can result in catastrophe. While many scientists view statements such as “the results of our review are inconclusive” as objective and prudent, policymakers often use such statements to justify the status quo (“we need more research before taking action”) or to favor a group of vocal stakeholders at the expense of environmental stewardship so that they can reduce conflict or win political points.

In the Klamath Basin, science supporting higher lake levels and more freshwater flows had been sufficient to justify higher flows for salmon in 2001. But a drought that year meant that these flows would result in reduced water diversions, angering some farmers. Suddenly, that same science was not good enough.

A National Research Council panel was convened to review the science. While the panel’s interim report concluded that most of the science behind the original flow recommendations was strong, it found the evidence used to justify higher lake levels and more flows to reduce temperatures “inconclusive.” The interim report itself was even-handed, but unfortunately press releases about the report emphasized the lack of scientific support for higher lake levels and more flows to reduce temperatures. The interim report also found that there was no scientific support for the lower flow levels proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation, but this finding was largely ignored. Politicians and policymakers interpreted the report as justification for keeping flows and lake levels at low levels.

In September 2002, following this decision, more than 33,000 salmon died in the Klamath Basin. An entire economic sector – sport and commercial fisheries – was completely shut down. The region is still recovering from this disaster ecologically, economically, and culturally. The misuse of scientific uncertainty to justify lower flows was a likely cause of this tragic die-off of salmon, whose populations could hardly afford the loss: they were already stressed by habitat loss and reductions in water flows.

Bay Delta: An opportunity for clearly communicated science to guide policy
We are now experiencing déjà vu all over again and this time, the stakes are even higher. Since the listing of salmon, smelt and other fish as endangered species over the last twenty years in the San Francisco Bay Delta, many management actions have been taken, including large habitat restoration projects and the removal of some dams to open up salmon spawning habitat. More natural patterns of flows are of course essential if such actions are to actually benefit fish and ecosystem health.

But instead of increasing flows and making them more natural, state agencies have instead relented to pressure from water users and increased water diversions. The drought resulted in less water for both people and fish, triggering reductions in these record high diversions. As a result, once again Biological Opinions are under political attack, and once again we face the possibility that influential people will play politics with the science and use the inevitable scientific uncertainty to justify the old ways of doing business and favor certain stakeholders, while risking the extinction of species and depriving others of their livelihoods, recreational opportunities, and their right to a healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem.

A lot of effort has gone into restoring habitats and improving water operations in the Bay Delta over the years. But improving habitats and tweaking water operations without restoring more natural flow patterns is like trying to resuscitate a patient by patching up the wounds but failing to re-start the heart. Water is the lifeblood of the Delta ecosystem and the species that depend on it, and the natural flow pattern is its pulse.

What’s certain: Salmon are at Risk
The irony in the current debate about the need for certainty before taking action to save our salmon, other fishes, and the fishing industry is that we are certain about the most critical issue. There is no doubt that these species are declining at an alarming rate and that absent protective actions they will disappear along with the commercial fishing industries and sport fisheries that depend on them.

Let’s hope that the NRC upholds its credibility and integrity in reviewing and communicating the science behind the Bay Delta Biological Opinions; and let’s hope that all stakeholders and policymakers will have the honesty and integrity to interpret the science as it is, not as they wish it to be.