“Science” mischaracterized: a tale of three news stories
March 6th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
A guest post by
Sharon Friedman
The recent restoration of a requirement for consultation with FWS and NMFS for ESA was correctly characterized by the Denver Post Wire Report and the Washington Post and mischaracterized by CNN (and perhaps President Obama) (see quotations and links below, the bold in each story is mine.).
President restores rule benefiting endangered species
Denver Post Wire Report
Posted: 03/04/2009 12:30:00 AM MSTWASHINGTON — In a move that will subject a number of government projects to enhanced environmental and scientific scrutiny, President Barack Obama is restoring a requirement that U.S. agencies consult with independent federal experts to determine whether their actions might harm threatened and endangered species. The presidential memorandum issued Tuesday marks yet another reversal of former President George W. Bush’s environmental legacy.
CNN:
Obama overturns Bush endangered species rule
The regulation, issued a few weeks before George W. Bush left office, made it easier for federal agencies to skip consultations with government scientists before launching projects that could effect endangered wildlife.By doing overturning the regulation, Obama said during an enthusiastic reception at the Interior Department, he had restored “the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations.”
Under the Bush administration rule, there was no need for a federal agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Services if that agency determined that no harm would come to an endangered species as a result of its project.
But the determination of what “no harm” meant rested with agency bureaucrats instead of scientists.
Obama issued a memorandum that effectively suspends the regulation while ordering a review to determine whether it promotes “the purposes of the [Endangered Species Act].”
“Earthjustice lawyer Janette Brimmer, ..”I think the Obama administration now is going to take a step back on these projects. It needs to bring science back into the equation,” Brimmer said, adding that her group will not drop its lawsuit until it can assess how the new policy is working.
Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an activist group, said the switch would help guard against the potential conflicts of interest and lack of expertise that could color decision-making by any agency hoping to press ahead with a particular project. “After years of scientific scandal, the Interior Department and its partner agencies need desperately to regain credibility by making decisions with honesty, clarity and transparency,” Grifo said. “
As the Denver Post correctly reports, FWS and NMFS as regulatory agencies, and the agencies doing the actions requiring consultation, all hire “experts”- professional wildlife and fisheries biologists. They meet the same educational requirements, belong to the same professional societies with the same codes of ethics, and have great dedication and values for the environment and the species. The ones in the regulatory agencies face different kinds of pressures than the ones in the management agencies, and it is reasonable, in my view, to prefer that kind of independence in reviewing documents.
But to assert or to imply that regulatory agency wildlife biologists are “scientists” and the management agency wildlife biologists are not, is simply incorrect. They either both are, or aren’t. In fact, they are hired by both kinds of agencies and move from regulatory to management agencies and vice versa. To suggest that would be a wee bit of a slur on the professionalism of the management agency wildlife biologists — and this would bother me — except that I think most people are actually not familiar with the facts, nor with real agency wildlife biologists.
The Washington Post was careful to quote people making that claim, including Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who pointed out to “conflicts of interest” (I believe possible) and “lack of expertise” by other agencies. I don’t know about Ms. Grifo’s personal experience with management agencies’ wildlife biologists, but I have to think that this “lack of expertise” was assumed, rather than observed.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“But the determination of what “no harm” meant rested with agency bureaucrats instead of scientists.”
I can attest that this is often true. As one outcome of this “consultation” nightmare, I was once ordered to plant many trees on the NORTH side of a famous trout stream to help lower water temperature, DESPITE my repeated protests that the sun just don’t shine from that direction and the trees would do absolutely no good. The stream may be prettier now because of those trees, but it is not cooler. True story.
The regulators are now so afraid of lawsuits from environmental-extremists that the nation is very close to complete gridlock, as far as new development. I am fairly certain that wind-farm progress would be immediately stopped, were it not for the fact that it is currently PC.
March 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Sharon. you may be right that what you call the “managment” agencies (agencies that are not charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act) employ scientists who are just as much scientitsts as their colleagues at the “regulatory” agencies (here, the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Services), but what does that really tell us?
While the “science” vs. “nonscience” rhetoric is a bit much, the shorthand in the articles you criticize still seems basically accurate: that federal agencies whose primary missions have little or nothing to do with endangered species preservation are being asked to clear the possible ESA impacts of their activities with the agencies that are primarily charged with such responsibility.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
TokyoTom, my point was that agencies of whatever stripe hire wildlife biologists from the same pool and the same professional societies. These wildlife biologists are equally “scientific.”
One role or responsibility is to be a regulator- to see that the regulations for ESA are followed. Another role is to be the expert in the land management agency- to give advice on how to protect species, both endangered and other.
There is a preference for independence, in that the land management agency experts might be inappropriately influenced by peer pressure to not be objective. However, it might be pointed out that regulators can take advantage of their position to pursue their own agendas, and also not be objective. However, I agree with the preference for independence- unless the regulatory agency is so underfunded that the projects to be reviewed are backlogged for years, or the regulators are so busy that they have no time to give the review serious attention.
To me the difference is in role of the agencies, not in the amount/level/correctness of science involved. Regulation is inherently no more “scientific” than land management. Regulation and management both collect scientific information and then make judgments about what is best for political/policy/practical purposes.
Jae- I am not clear on your point- it sounds like the regulators told you to do something not very real world oriented, were they wildlife biologists or bureaucrats?
March 7th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Sharon:
“Jae- I am not clear on your point- it sounds like the regulators told you to do something not very real world oriented, were they wildlife biologists or bureaucrats?”
Well, the “guidance” was handed-down from the bureaucrats, of course. The strange thing about this case is that there could not possibly been a scientific reason for the requirement. We almost certainly would have won the argument in Court, or maybe in an official hearing, but those avenues were not pursued, due to cost and political considerations. It was far cheaper just to shut up and plant the trees.
Another thing that irks me about these consultation process is that every agency involved seems to have the attitude that the entity proposing the project “owes” each agency something, and the agency will not “sign off” on the project without getting its “share.” So, for example, NMFS gets the trees planted, the state Fisheries Dept. gets logs and rocks placed in the stream for enhanced fish habitat, EPA requires a big “what if” modeling exercise, etc. So It’s just like blackmail. The costs of projects goes up exponentially due to these things.
Consultants really love the consultation processes.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Jae-I think your experience illustrates a couple of my points.
1) Because a regulatory agency employee requires you to do something does not mean that it is “scientifically correct” or will work in the real world. The term “scientifically correct” is in quotes because reasonable people can disagree about what will happen in a given situation, given the same literature, because it is very rare that the literature is completely relevant to the situation and judgments must be made. I don’t think I can remember a situation where there is only one “scientifically correct” answer as to how to proceed, even where people agree on the science for need to act (like climate change!).
2) I think what you are terming bureaucrats are probably people with the same kind of technical background (wildlife, fish) transmitting recommendations from agency experts. When the CNN story said that “But the determination of what “no harm” meant rested with agency bureaucrats instead of scientists” they are asserting that federal employees with expertise in wildlife and fish with regulatory agencies are “scientists” and those with the same expertise in land management agencies are “bureaucrats”.
Again, I don’t think the background of the people (“scientist”/technical specialist) is the key issue; its the role of regulator compared to land manager. It’s a healthy tension in my view, but not a “science” issue.
Another good point was made in the press release for the final rule “Additionally, nothing in this regulation relieves an action agency of its responsibilities to ensure that listed species are not harmed during the completion of the Federal action, regardless of whether consultation is undertaken or not. In such cases where an action agency determines that consultation is not required and harm to a listed species results from that agency’s actions, full civil and criminal penalties, as laid out under other sections of ESA, remain in effect.” http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/121108a.html It’s a pretty obvious, but also pretty important, point in all this press information.
3) What you point out is an interesting question- the issue of resolving technical/scientific disputes between the regulators and the regulated. It’s almost as if there should be an independent panel (say in each state, due to more specific local knowledge) to review the scientific/technical disagreements. It would not be surprising to you to know that costs of government projects, funded with taxpayer dollars, can go up for the same reasons. Of course, setting up panels would also have costs. Still I think the arguments and counterarguments, say posted on a public website, would be helpful for science education, as well as to improve the quality of scientific/technical discourse and the regulatory and land management decisions made. Perhaps that is something to be discussed to increase openness and transparency of public decisionmaking.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Interestingly, the NY Times thought of these same FWS scientists/regulators as discussed above:
“The Interior Department’s scientists say that wolf populations are healthy enough, and state protections strong enough, to take the animal off the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho. We do not share their confidence in the states. De-listing allows for some hunting, and hunters in both places are itching to start firing away. Mr. Salazar should be ready to restore protections the instant the long-term survival of the species seems at risk. ”
Does that make the NY Times “anti-science” ?