WaterWired

Robert T. Lackey SAF Plenary Address: 'Is Science on a Path to Irrelevance in Policy and Management?'

Friend and colleague Dr. Robert T. 'Bob' Lackey is no stranger to these pages. He usually lights up these pages with a provocative talk, paper, or blog post. This one is no exception; he recently addressed the Society of American Foresters at their meeting in Portland, OR, speaking on 'Is Science on a Path to Irrelevance in Policy and Management?'

Download Lackey_Science_Irrelevance_SAF_Plenary_Oct2018

His Wikipedia post lists him as a fisheries scientist and political scientist. How about that!

His talk begins:

So, what is this irksome little question? Who posed it? And, why is it so troublesome?

The question was asked by a high school student at the end of a routine “science day”tour, one of many show-and-tell tours at EPA’s National Research Laboratory in Corvallis. Thisis one of those “other duties as assigned” that we all do, but trust me, these tours are not normally memorable events in the life of a Deputy Director.

A little context: with a staff of several hundred energetic but bureaucratically challenged scientists, as deputy, and for those of you early in your careers, keep performing well and you too might have a job like this, one similar to working as a school principal, especially a principal assigned to a middle school in a troubled neighborhood.

Actually, I enjoyed this job, but . . .

Lab science tours were often a welcome breather from my daily task of keeping the bureaucratic peace.

Better yet, lab tours were not intellectually demanding, nor did they ever get into deep and difficult topics and students always accepted your statements as the revealed truth.

In fact, as tour guide, your biggest challenge was finishing the tour with the same number of students you started with.

But one of these tours turned out to be very different.

After this particular tour, as we were waiting for their bus to return, one of the high school students pulled me aside and spoke to me in a quiet, intense, and worried voice. She asked something like this:

“Nearly everyone in my family makes a living off the land, mostly as farmers and loggers. Every one of them thinks that scientists are biased against their activities, and even biased against most anything that people might do to change the natural environment. Are they correct? Are your scientists biased?”

Read on! 

Enjoy!

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts.” - Daniel T. Moynihan (thanks to Bob Lackey)

Patrick Griffiths: Good Water News for the City of Bend - OWRD Conservation Award and More!

One of the first WaterWonks I met when I arrived in Oregon in 2006 was Patrick Griffiths of the City of Bend. Patrick hosted me on a visit to the water facilities and was a veritable fountain (pardon the pun) of information not only on Bend's legendary water system but also on Oregon water issues, people and idiosyncrasies. No question was too simple or vague.

Patrick and I have not communicated for a few years so it was wonderful to hear from him. He's now Water Resources Manager for the City of Bend so he was naturally proud of a recent award Bend received from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD).

Here is the email he sent: 

So wanted to share some good news – you can decide if it is noteworthy and worthy of sharing on WaterWired or other channels.

Bend has again won Gold – tying for first with City of Ashland in OWRD's recent Conservation Awards  (news release attached):

Download 18-08AnnoucementofWinners

Much of the credit goes to budget bounce back post-recession and hiring a great Conservation Program manager and staff, but for me after 18 years of chipping away on the conservation continuum as part of my water resources responsibilities and supply portfolio, we submitted our “Top Ten Integrated Conservation Strategies” to try and show the whole iceberg of work going on to support our public facing WaterWise Program.

They (OWRD) liked it and I think responded to the comprehensive nature of what we have going on.  The 2000-2017 water production graph is a compelling look at water use too!  Clearly always more to do, but big data is getting into the water world with mostly good results!

I have also attached part of our nomination submittal for your review!  Please share out as you see fit.

Download 2018SummaryTopTen ConservationBend

In addition, we are concluding a significant Reclamation Basin Study with some interesting results for the Deschutes, and the irrigation districts are doing some of their best “system improvement plans” (SIPS) to date and chasing big federal money to modernize.  A particular frog and some federal statutes are helping prioritize them a bit…  so lots going on at the basin level too.  Add in the Oregon Legislature apparently making water a priority again as well… could be timely to talk water education!  The state and the Tribes are putting on a invite only water summit Oct 21/22 and facilitated by Jamie Damon. Perhaps you guys can score an invite? (I will raise OSU staff invites at a planning meeting later this week too).

On that note, regardless of the water summit dates, since we now have a little OSU Cascades Campus over here (and growing), I would love to invite you and perhaps your hydrogeologist partner in programmatic crime (Todd) over to sip something from one of our breweries, distilleries or wineries soon to do some informal brainstorming on some water coursework of the future! Be great to chat regardless!  If you have others over here we should pull in, let's do it!

We could throw in a  tour of our new state-of-the-art Water Filtration Facility too and inspect the raw materials of above mentioned product tasting!

Let me know your thoughts and always happy to answer questions and explain our work to date!

Cheers

pg

So good to hear from Patrick and the work he and his staff have done in Bend. I just may take him up on a visit to the other side of the mountains.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

USGAO Report: 'Columbia River Basin - Additional Federal Actions Would Benefit Restoration Efforts'

Still another look at ecosystem restoration from GAO (see San Francisco Bay Delta, Puget Sound and Long Island Sound): Columbia River Basin: Additional Federal Actions Would Benefit Restoration Efforts.

Download USGAO_Columbia_Basin_Highlights

Download USGAO_Columbia_Basin_Report

Fast Facts
Activities, such as hydropower and agricultural practices, have impaired water quality in parts of the Columbia River Basin. This has put human health at risk and threatened the existence of some species, such as salmon.

Federal and state agencies, tribes and others have taken steps to improve Basin water quality. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget have yet to take actions required under a 2016 amendment to the Clean Water Act. EPA, for example, has not begun a program to oversee and help coordinate restoration efforts.

We recommended these agencies take actions specified in the law.

 

What GAO Found
Various entities, including federal and state agencies and tribes, implemented restoration efforts to improve water quality in the Columbia River Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016, according to GAO survey results. Entities implemented a range of restoration efforts. Efforts included activities to improve surface water quality and restore and protect habitat. For example, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho implemented projects on the Kootenai River to restore and maintain conditions that support all life stages of native fish.

Entities used various collaborative approaches. Entities' approaches to collaboration for selected water quality-related efforts in the Basin varied. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sought various entities' voluntary involvement to coordinate toxics reduction efforts in the Basin.

Total federal expenditures could not be determined. Entities reported using a mix of federal and nonfederal funding sources for restoration efforts in the Basin, but total federal expenditures could not be determined, in part because there is no federal funding dedicated to restoring the Basin.

EPA and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have not yet implemented Section 123. According to EPA officials, the agency has not yet taken steps to establish the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program, as required by the Clean Water Act Section 123. EPA officials told GAO they have not received dedicated funding appropriated for this purpose; however, EPA has not yet requested funding to implement the program or identified needed resources. By developing a program management plan that identifies actions and resources needed, EPA would have more reasonable assurance that it can establish the program in a timely manner. Also, an interagency crosscut budget has not been submitted. According to OMB officials, they have had internal conversations on the approach to develop the budget but have not requested information from agencies. A crosscut budget would help ensure Congress is better informed as it considers funding for Basin restoration efforts. 

Why GAO Did This Study
The Basin is one of the nation's largest watersheds and extends mainly through four Western states and into Canada. Activities such as power generation and agricultural practices have impaired water quality in some areas, so that human health is at risk and certain species, such as salmon, are threatened or extinct. In December 2016, Congress amended the Clean Water Act by adding Section 123, which requires EPA and OMB to take actions related to restoration efforts in the Basin.

GAO was asked to review restoration efforts in the Basin. This report examines (1) efforts to improve water quality in the Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016; (2) approaches to collaboration that entities have used for selected efforts; (3) sources of funding and federal funding expenditures; and (4) the extent to which EPA and OMB have implemented Clean Water Act Section 123. GAO reviewed documentation, including laws, policies, and budget information; surveyed federal, state, tribal, and nongovernmental entities that GAO determined had participated in restoration efforts; and conducted interviews with officials from most of these entities.

What GAO Recommends
is making three recommendations, including that EPA develop a program management plan for implementing the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program and that OMB compile and submit an interagency crosscut budget. EPA agreed with its recommendation. OMB did not comment, and GAO maintains its recommendations are valid.

Recommendation 1: The Administrator of the EPA should develop a program management plan that includes a schedule of the actions EPA will take and the resources and funding it needs to establish and implement the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program, including formation of the associated Columbia River Basin Restoration Working Group, and submit this plan to the appropriate congressional authorizing committees as part of the fiscal year 2020 budget process. (Recommendation 1).

Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency

Recommendation 2: The Director of OMB should develop and provide guidance on the types of projects and activities that agencies involved in the protection and restoration of the Columbia River Basin should include in their reports, as well as the processes they should follow in compiling the related budget and spending information. (Recommendation 2).

Agency Affected: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget

Recommendation 3: The Director of OMB should direct each federal agency involved in the protection and restoration of the Columbia River Basin to collect the information OMB needs for the interagency crosscut budget and to submit this information to OMB for inclusion in the interagency crosscut as part of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2020. (Recommendation 3).

Agency Affected: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget

See more on recommendations.

Enjoy!

“To those who know the speech of hills and rivers straightening a stream is like shipping vagrants—a very successful method of passing trouble from one place to the next. It solves nothing in any collective sense.” - Aldo Leopold

Not for the Faint-Hearted? Robert T. Lackey Opines: 'Wild Salmon Recovery in the Western United States: Four Facts and a Corollary'

Friend and colleague Robert T. 'Bob' Lackey doesn't mince words and calls a spade a spade. He wrote this piece for his blog and granted me permission to post it here.

The PDF:

Download Lackey_Salmon_7April2018pdf

The entire three-page document follows. 

 Wild Salmon Recovery in the Western United States: Four Facts and a Corollary
                 Robert T. Lackey 

Despite a few recent newspaper headlines heralding several “record” salmon runs, most salmon runs in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho are a mere shadow of their pre-1848 levels. Further, even most of these relatively small remaining runs are largely maintained by releases of hatchery-raised fish. Wild salmon — typically defined as those whose parents spawned naturally in natural habitat — comprise only a small portion of most runs and their overall abundance is a sliver of historical levels. 

The decline has been well known and for more than 160 years there have been concerted efforts to recover salmon runs. Especially during the past three decades, the number and cost of formal recovery efforts for wild salmon have substantially increased in large part in response to requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

While using hatcheries to sustain relatively large salmon runs is plausible — although technically challenging — the requirements of the ESA relative to wild salmon has made the role of hatcheries in sustaining or increasing runs legally contentious. 

In my interactions with professional colleagues over many years, they agree — usually only when speaking unofficially — that current efforts will not successfully recover wild salmon to abundances that would assure self-sustainability and support sizable sport and commercial harvest. Such a level of abundance would need to be at least a third or more of the typical pre-1848 run size. 

Even with the very large expenditures to recover wild salmon, what is it that pushes the most knowledgeable people to the stunning conclusion that these well-meaning efforts will fail? 

 To succeed, a wild salmon recovery strategy must address several overarching and undisputed realities about the West Coast that have developed over many years. Without addressing these realities, any wild salmon recovery strategy will fall far short of expectations. 

It will be added to a long list — well over a century in the making — of noble, but failed salmon recovery strategies. Even if society continues to spend billions to restore wild salmon runs, these efforts ultimately will be only marginally successful. 

What are these realities and how must they be changed to recover wild salmon to even a third of their historical level? Let’s look at the four key ones. 

Fact 1: Overall, wild salmon abundance south of the Canadian border, is very low and has been so for a long time. Most spawning runs are far less than 10% of their pre-1850 levels. Over two dozen Endangered Species Act “species” (distinct population segments) are now listed as threatened or endangered. Many runs have already disappeared and more will follow unless there is a reversal of the long-term downward trajectory. 

Fact 2: We have been well aware for a long time of the main causes of the dire state of salmon runs along the West Coast. These causes are well documented scientifically and include mining, dams, water pollution, habitat alteration, over-fishing, irrigation water withdrawals, predation on salmon by many species, competition with hatchery-produced salmon and other, often non-native fish species, and many other causes. 

Fact 3: Anywhere wild salmon were once plentiful (Europe, Asian Far East, Eastern North America), the decline in their abundance is roughly inversely related to the growth in the human population. Over decades and centuries, as the human population expanded in these regions, the size of salmon runs declined to miniscule levels. Since 1848, the West Coast is playing out similarly for wild salmon. For example, from a pre-1848 human population level of a few hundred thousand, California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho are now home to 50 million people. Over the same time period, wild salmon abundance in the four States has declined from roughly 50 million to a few million. And the future? Assuming expected human population growth in these four States, by 2100 they will be home to somewhere between 150 and 200 million people — a tripling or quadrupling by the end of this century — less than 90 years from now. 

Fact 4: It is not just the sheer number of humans (Fact 3), but their individual and collective life-styles that reduce the abundance of wild salmon. In the absence of dramatic changes in economic policies and life-styles, future options for restoring salmon runs to significant, sustainable levels will be greatly constrained. For example, by 2100, with 150-200 million people living in the 4 West Coast states, consider the additional demand for houses Costcos, Starbucks, air conditioning, drinking water, office buildings — the list is a very long one. 

Corollary 1: To succeed, a wild salmon recovery strategy must change the four facts or that strategy will fail. If society only continues to spend billions of dollars in quick-fix efforts to restore wild salmon runs, then in most cases these efforts will be only marginally successful and the long-term downward trajectory of wild salmon will continue. It is money spent on activities not likely to achieve recovery of wild salmon, however it helps people feel better as they continue the behaviors and choices that preclude the recovery of wild salmon. As important, it also sustains a jobs program for scientists and other technocrats by funding the salmon recovery industry. This industry has become is a multibillion dollar enterprise and collectively forms an influential advocacy group. 

Turning to the future to assess what is realistically plausible, maintaining sustainable populations of many highly valued non-native West Coast fish species (e.g., bluegill, walleye, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, brook trout, and striped bass) is feasible, because these species, unlike salmon, are well adapted to the greatly altered West Coast aquatic environments. Overall with a drastically altered aquatic environment, and not at all surprising, many nonnative fish species are doing well. Nor should it be surprising that wild salmon are struggling to hang on in environments for which they are poorly adapted. 

In conclusion, if society continues to ignore these four facts and the corollary, no one should be surprised by the lack of long-term success of wild salmon recovery efforts. Perhaps these billions of dollars being spent to recover wild salmon should be considered “guilt money” — modern-day indulgences — a tax society and individuals willingly endure to alleviate collective and individual remorse about the sorry state of wild salmon. After all, it is money spent on activities unlikely to achieve the recovery of wild salmon, but it perhaps helps many people feel better as people continue the behaviors and choices that essentially preclude wild salmon recovery. 

Dr. Lackey, formerly Deputy Director of EPA’s Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, retired in 2008. For his work on strengthening the role of science in salmon policy, he received the Gold Metal from EPA — the agency’s highest award. He is currently a professor of fisheries at Oregon State University. 

I am far from being a fisheries expert but I learned a lot after serving on the last NRC Bay-Delta committee - perhaps enough to be dangerous. I came away from that experience with enough pessimism to believe that Bob's analysis is spot-on. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? 

Enjoy!


“I would not waste my life in friction when it could be turned into momentum.” - Frances Willard

GAO Report: 'Puget Sound Restoration - Additional Actions Could Improve Assessments of Progress'

A few days ago the GAO released its Long Island Sound restoration report. It's now time to head closer to my adopted home: Puget Sound Restoration: Additional Actions Could Improve Assessments of Progress. 

Download GAO_Puget_Sound_Rpt_Highlights_July2018

Download GAO_Puget_Sound_Report_Full_July2018

Fast Facts

Puget Sound is the nation's second largest estuary, supporting millions of people and a wide variety of species. Development and use, however, have degraded its water quality and habitat, and harmed critical species like salmon and killer whales.

Federal and nonfederal entities have established two main interagency groups to coordinate restoration efforts. However, it's difficult to assess the amount of progress these groups have made, in part because they lack measurable targets for a number of indicators.

We recommended that these groups improve their ability to assess the progress of Puget Sound restoration efforts. 

What GAO Found 

Through its survey of federal and Washington State entities, GAO identified numerous federal and state efforts that, in whole or in part, supported Puget Sound restoration from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The efforts involved a variety of activities, including habitat protection, water quality improvement, and monitoring. Some of these efforts focused exclusively on Puget Sound restoration, while others had a broader geographic or programmatic scope. Funding for these efforts came from a variety of sources, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which reported expending about $142 million for activities in Puget Sound through the National Estuary Program and the Puget Sound Geographic Program during this time frame. However, total expenditures for all efforts are unknown, in part because of difficulties isolating expenditures specific to Puget Sound. A 2017 state audit recommended that two state agencies develop a plan to create a more complete inventory of restoration efforts and related funding. The state agencies concurred and have plans to develop this inventory by August 2019.

Federal and nonfederal entities coordinate restoration efforts through two primary interagency groups. First, the state-led Puget Sound Management Conference has developed a comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP), approved by EPA under the National Estuary Program, that serves as the primary planning document for Puget Sound restoration. Second, the Puget Sound Federal Task Force complements the work of the management conference by coordinating the efforts of federal agencies to support the CCMP, including by developing a draft Federal Action Plan that identifies priority federal actions to protect and restore Puget Sound.

The CCMP lays out a framework for assessing restoration progress, including 6 goals, 47 indicators, and recovery targets for 31 of the indicators. In 2017, the Puget Sound Partnership, a state agency, reported that progress had been made in some areas, but many key indicators had not shown improvement. For example:

• One indicator that showed improvement was acres of harvestable shellfish beds, which the Partnership reported increased from 2007 to 2016.

• One indicator that showed no improvement was the abundance of Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations, which the Partnership reported remained below desired levels.

The Partnership also reported that most of the 31 recovery targets that the management conference has adopted for 2020 are not likely to be attained. However, the Partnership's ability to assess progress has been limited in some instances, in part because the management conference has not developed targets for 16 of the 47 indicators. GAO has identified measurable targets as a key attribute of successful performance measures. By working with the management conference to help ensure that measurable targets are developed where possible for the highest priority indicators currently lacking such targets, EPA would better position the Partnership to assess progress toward restoration goals.

Why GAO Did This Study

Puget Sound is the nation's second-largest estuary and serves as an important economic engine in Washington State, supporting millions of people, major industries, and a wide variety of species. However, according to the CCMP, human use and development have degraded water quality and habitats and harmed critical species such as salmon.

GAO was asked to review efforts to restore Puget Sound. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) Puget Sound restoration efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, (2) how federal and nonfederal entities coordinate their restoration efforts, and (3) the framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration. GAO reviewed restoration plans and other documentation, conducted a two-phase survey of the more than 25 federal and state entities that GAO determined had participated in restoration efforts, conducted discussion groups with tribal and local representatives, and interviewed representatives from these federal and nonfederal entities.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making two recommendations, including that EPA work with the management conference to help ensure that measurable targets are developed where possible for the highest priority indicators currently lacking such targets. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations and highlighted steps the agency has begun taking and plans to take to address the recommendations.

Recommendation: The EPA Region 10 Administrator should work with the management conference on future updates to the CCMP to help prioritize among the indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible. (Recommendation 1)

Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency

Recommendation: The EPA Region 10 Administrator should work with the appropriate members of the federal task force regional implementation team to clearly link, such as through the tracking tool, the Federal Action Plan's priority federal actions to the CCMP's framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration. (Recommendation 2)

Agency Affected: Environmental Protection Agency

For more information, contact J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.

Enjoy!

"We all speak one language and that is water" -- Elder Nancy Scanie, Cold Lake First Nation (Canada)