6
Applying Science to Management

INTRODUCTION

The weaknesses in the models addressed in previous chapters largely result from an ad hoc development and application of science to ecosystem management in the Klamath basin. Those weaknesses also suggest a lack of consensus regarding which hydrologic and biological facts are most pertinent to Klamath River operations and their effects on agriculture, the river’s salmon fishery, and imperiled species. Similar concerns were expressed in the previous National Research Council (NRC) report on the Klamath River fishes (NRC 2004a), which described ecosystem management in the Klamath basin as “disjointed, occasionally dysfunctional, and commonly adversarial.” Disappointingly, nearly 4 years later those descriptors still appear to apply. The previous report explicitly identified key gaps in knowledge regarding Klamath basin fishes, and stated that implementation of the Endangered Species Act “cannot succeed without aggressive pursuit of adaptive-management principles, which in turn require continuity, master planning, flexibility, and conscientious evaluation of the outcomes of management.” Applying an adaptive-management framework to ecosystem management remains essential and notable by its absence.

The utility of the ecosystem models assessed in this present report, no matter how scientifically sound the models might be, is in their application in managing flows, native fishes, and the Klamath River ecosystem. These applications are not possible without institutional links, or at least communication, among those who develop and run the models, those who make decisions about water allocation and flows, and habitat management.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 196
6 Applying Science to Management INTRODuCTION The weaknesses in the models addressed in previous chapters largely result from an ad hoc development and application of science to ecosystem management in the Klamath basin. Those weaknesses also suggest a lack of consensus regarding which hydrologic and biological facts are most perti- nent to Klamath River operations and their effects on agriculture, the river’s salmon fishery, and imperiled species. Similar concerns were expressed in the previous National Research Council (NRC) report on the Klamath River fishes (NRC 2004a), which described ecosystem management in the Klamath basin as “disjointed, occasionally dysfunctional, and com- monly adversarial.” Disappointingly, nearly 4 years later those descriptors still appear to apply. The previous report explicitly identified key gaps in knowledge regarding Klamath basin fishes, and stated that implementation of the Endangered Species Act “cannot succeed without aggressive pursuit of adaptive-management principles, which in turn require continuity, mas- ter planning, flexibility, and conscientious evaluation of the outcomes of management.” Applying an adaptive-management framework to ecosystem management remains essential and notable by its absence. The utility of the ecosystem models assessed in this present report, no matter how scientifically sound the models might be, is in their applica- tion in managing flows, native fishes, and the Klamath River ecosystem. These applications are not possible without institutional links, or at least communication, among those who develop and run the models, those who make decisions about water allocation and flows, and habitat management. 16

OCR for page 196
1 APPLYING SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT Model products and the data they are based on should serve to inform the dialogue among policy makers, management agencies, scientists, and the basin’s water users over long periods of time and for specific decisions. Individual models, no matter how sophisticated or complex, should not be viewed as having by themselves the potential to solve complicated problems of ecosystem restoration. Models are intended to improve conceptual understanding and trans- parency of ecosystem management problems and solutions and to provide the ability to experiment with and test potential solutions with less field experimentation, time, cost, and ecosystem risk. The essential role of sci- ence in ecosystem management is generally acknowledged, as is the method of delivering science to large-scale resource management efforts, referred to as adaptive ecosystem management, or adaptive management. Unfortu- nately the Klamath River basin currently lacks institutional structures and relationships or decision-making arrangements that can facilitate adaptive management. The committee does not presume to know the exact contours of a mechanism for dealing with the intersection of science and policy for the Klamath River basin, because these arrangements are best designed by the people who live there and who participate in the agency frameworks already in place. However, the committee can provide general guidance in the form of identifying the various attributes that such arrangements should have. The committee drew upon experiences from other parts of the United States to learn what these attributes might be and how they might fit to- gether in a coherent structure for science and policy. The following pages outline these attributes of successful management mechanisms, focusing on the application of adaptive management to the Klamath River. The committee’s conclusions on these topics, in addition to agreeing with and following up an earlier NRC (2004a) report, also largely share the spirit of the recommendations of at least two other reports on the basin, that by the so-called OSU-UC Davis Group (Braunworth et al. 2002) and the report of the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST 2003). Perhaps the agreement among such diverse groups would lead to optimism for the future. ADApTIVE MANAGEMENT Adaptive management is “learning by doing,” wherein management actions, system modeling, data gathering, and decision making inter- act to maximize information gains, allowing for increasing management effectiveness and efficiency (Holling 1978). The details and scope of adaptive-management programs are diverse in type and application, but they frequently are categorized in one of three ways: efforts involving trial

OCR for page 196
18 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN and error not based on an underlying hypothesis or conceptual ecosystem model, active adaptive management, or passive adaptive management. This committee does not endorse hypothesis-free trial and error approaches, because they inevitably are less effective and efficient than other hypothesis- based versions of adaptive management, and they frequently are more costly (NRC 2003, 2007b). The most powerful form of adaptive management is the active form, which uses available information to develop models of how the system might respond to various decisions and conditions and allows the assump- tions of the models and their conclusions to be tested experimentally in the field (see NRC 2007b). The combination of modeling capability and the experimental approach to management helps to identify the benefits and disadvantages of various management choices. Some managers are reluctant to be seen as experimenting with public resources, but in practice, choosing management options without experimenting is even less conservative. A more-widely used approach is passive adaptive management, which is based on available information to construct “best-guess” conceptual models of the managed system, with management choices informed by a generally accepted conceptual model. Passive adaptive management typi- cally is based on a single alternative developed from a conceptual model fol- lowed by monitoring and adjustment, whereas active adaptive management is based on alternative hypotheses that are examined experimentally. Moni- toring and adjustment are critical components of any adaptive-management approach. Science in adaptive management responds to clearly articulated management needs for information. Many restoration programs use a cycle of planning, management ac- tion, and data gathering, but the approach described in the literature of the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program is particularly useful, as it shows a relationship between research and monitoring in adaptive management as they play sometimes distinct, but often complementary, roles in meeting the comprehensive restoration goals (Figure 6-1). It is too early to know how well the approach has succeeded (or will succeed) in practice. Three critical attributes of adaptive management link science to man- agement and policy development; hence adaptive management requires a programmatic (organizational) structure that facilitates communication and cooperation in decision making. Adaptive management requires the following: (1) Clear articulation of program goals, with a description of antici- pated application of information derived from research, monitoring, modeling, and risk analysis. Adaptive-management programs need to determine whether current or proposed management practices or actions are maintaining the target en-

OCR for page 196
1 APPLYING SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT ESTABLISH ECOSYSTEM PROBLEM GOALS/ OBJECTIVES Revise Goals and Objectives Reassess Problem Explore Policy SPECIFY Alternatives Using CONCEPTUAL Simple MODELS Simulations Redefine Models ASSESS EVALUATE ADAPT Continue with Restoration INITIATE RESTORATION ACTIONS Undertake Targeted Undertake Pilot/ Implement Large Research to Demonstration Scale Restoration Provide Necessary Projects Knowledge MONITORING FIGURE 6-1 Flow diagram for adaptive management of scientific activities. 6-1.eps vironmental system and the ability of the system to deliver expected goods and services (examples in the Klamath basin would include numbers of salmon smolts or erosion control by vegetation). No universal set of goals or objectives can characterize a “high-quality” environmental state or can apply to all ecosystems subject to management and monitoring. But each proposed or current management action for which monitoring is intended should be accompanied by a set of specific project goals that are used to guide the development of monitoring objectives. The Comprehensive Ever-

OCR for page 196
200 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN glades Restoration Plan (CERP) is a good example of identifying goals and performance measures for a restoration plan (NRC 2007b). Management goals take many forms: they can be articulated in refer- ence to a legal mandate (for example, associated with recovery goals under the Endangered Species Act or as attainment goals under the Clean Water Act); they can depend on science that has informed legislation (for example, the mandate in the Florida Forever Act to reduce phosphorus concentra- tions in the Everglades); or they can emerge from scientific studies that have been properly framed to help address management issues (for example, fishing restrictions pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conserva- tion and Management Act based on properly conducted stock assessments, and the Trinity River Restoration Program goals, which were informed by data from the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Report). Whatever the basis for a management goal, it should be articulated so that clear, quantifiable objectives can be identified and direct the monitoring design, and it should be based on the best available information vetted through program par- ticipants with policy, management, and scientific expertise, and with input from stakeholders. (2) Development of models of the system to be managed that de- scribe ecosystem attributes and the environmental stressors that perturb them. The quantitative ecosystem models reviewed in this report show sub- stantial sophistication and are highly evolved reflections of specific under- standing about the hydrology and certain aspects of the ecology of the main-stem river. Such models often emerge from conceptual models (see Chapter 3) that have been vetted in their much simpler form and have ben- efited from review and some degree of general acceptance. Well-designed, generally agreed upon conceptual models enable research and monitoring programs to investigate relationships between causes of environmental perturbations and likely consequences. Conceptual models outline the in- terconnections among ecosystem elements and environmental stressors, the strength and direction of these links, and attributes of the system that can be used to characterize the state of resources. Conceptual models should in- clude a representation of how environmental systems work and should em- phasize anticipated responses to natural and human-caused disturbances. Conceptual models should explicitly link ecosystem attributes, which include both abiotic and biotic elements and inputs, to system stressors. The expected cause-and-effect relationships that result in ecosystem changes in the model should guide the selection of candidate indicators for measure- ment in the monitoring program. Vetting conceptual models with program participants can document any consensus about facts pertaining to the re-

OCR for page 196
201 APPLYING SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT source management challenge, as well as technical or scientific controversies in particular need of attention. There are inevitable barriers to the attainment of management goals and the success of restoration efforts. These barriers arise from the actions of both human-generated and natural environmental “stressors.” Stressors are physical, chemical, or biological entities or phenomena that harm eco- systems and their constituent elements; stressors include wildfires, exotic species invasions, stream diversions, changes in stream temperatures, and conversion of natural vegetation to agriculture. Disturbances or stressors can be categorized for monitoring-plan development based on such at- tributes as characteristic frequencies of occurrence, extent of occurrence, magnitude (in both intensity and duration), selectivity (elements of the system that they act on), and variability. Disturbances or stressors that act on managed ecosystems need to be described in terms of causes and effects. That causal description is best presented as a conceptual model that links environmental stressors to environmental attributes of concern. Discussions among adaptive-management participants regarding the roles, intensities, and interactions of system stressors can serve as a forum in which differ- ences of understanding and opinion about how the managed ecosystem operates can surface. Where greater knowledge exists, partial or complete quantitative models can be developed. Quantitative models can provide greater precision for developing promising solutions and experiments and are commonly more testable in the field than conceptual models. (3) Selection of representative indicators of ecosystem status. Ecosystems are far too complex to permit measurement of all of their attributes. Therefore, ecosystem conditions, their responses to restoration actions, and their susceptibility to long-term change must be assessed using a limited set of indicators. The theory and practice of indicator selection is demanding (for example, NRC 2000, 2003, 2005c, 2007b); the selection of the “wrong” (ineffective) indicators can cause a monitoring program to fail, as can the selection of too many indicators to be monitored with avail- able resources. In addition, indicators that show intuitive or demonstrated relevance to program objectives can contribute to public support for the science and restoration efforts. The most effective indicators possess several key attributes—they re- spond similarly to the dynamics of the greater ecosystem of concern; they respond rapidly to changes in their environment; their changes in status can be accurately measured; their natural variability is sufficiently limited such that changes in response to management can be differentiated from background variation; and they can be measured cost-effectively. For monitoring in support of Klamath operations, at least three cat-

OCR for page 196
202 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN egories of monitoring indicators can be recognized (see also NRC 2000). First are function or process indicators, which measure ecosystem processes and their rates. Processes might include primary productivity, nutrient cycling, sediment accumulation, or water flows. Second are indicators of ecosystem structure, which can be used to assess ecosystem structure at any spatial scale from basin-wide distributions of spawning gravels to riparian vegetation distributions and connectivity along a tributary reach. Third are species-based indicators, which are important for the environmental- restoration program with its focus on at-risk and listed species. Species may be selected as indicators because they are members of groups thought to be important to ecosystem functioning (predators, primary producers, decom- posers), may provide some insights into the functioning of the ecosystem (that is, they may serve as umbrella or keystone species or may be ecological “engineers”), may be the direct targets of management (because they are recognized as threatened or endangered), or may be especially sensitive to ecosystem change. It is striking that even the better-studied anadromous fish species, Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead, are not nearly as well understood in the Klamath basin as they could be; other anadromous species that also are important, such as Pacific lamprey, green and white sturgeon, eulachon, and others, are known even less well. Candidate indicators for monitoring will include a subset most likely to provide the clearest “signal,” alerting managers to the state of the sys- tem in time to respond with appropriate action. These “early-warning” indicators (NRC 1994) depend for their effectiveness on an understand- ing of the mechanistic behavior of the indicator in response to a specific stressor. Since the information necessary to guide and assure selection of the best indicators in all management scenarios is very seldom available, professional judgment must be used in their selection. Subsequent data col- lection will allow the assessment of the effectiveness of any given indicator. Similar to the development of conceptual models, input from participants in the adaptive-management process into the identification of programmatic measures allows different opinions regarding value and priority of managed resources to be considered in ecosystem planning. These three essential activities that enable adaptive-management plan- ning are essentially undeveloped on the Klamath River. Their absence holds back contributions from science needed to enhance the effectiveness of ecosystem management efforts. In contrast to the science generated in an adaptive-management program, science efforts in the Klamath River basin have often been reactionary, data collection and modeling being discon- nected, and initiated in response to immediate management crises rather than developing coherent understanding or technical capabilities. Such a science agenda is hardly peculiar to the Klamath basin, but the approach is financially costly and ineffective in terms of providing management and

OCR for page 196
203 APPLYING SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT policy insight and generating better understanding of the system. More im- portant, science in reaction to crisis often does not focus on critical underly- ing uncertainties and may appear to be driven by the concerns of the party that sponsors the scientific effort. Reactive data collection and modeling tend to undercut stakeholder support of programmatic science, since sci- entific information seems to arrive too late to help resolve institutionalized management conflicts and sometimes does not provide clear choices when it does arrive (Figure 6-1). Adaptive Management in Other Settings Several approaches have been used to bring better knowledge to re- source planning at regional spatial scales, similar to that of the Klamath River basin. Ecosystem-focused restoration programs that have been estab- lished for a decade or more offer organizational structures that explicitly integrate science into planning and project implementation and might serve as models for an integrated Klamath basin resource-management strategy. The Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership (www.pugetsoundnearshore.org), which shares salmon as a central management challenge with the Klamath basin, reviewed large-scale restoration programs in a search for models for integration of science into ecosystem management efforts; Figure 6-2 reproduces representative structures of four of them—the Chesapeake Bay Program; the CALFED Restoration program for the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, their tributaries, and the Sacramento River delta; the com- prehensive Everglades Program; and the Glen Canyon Adaptive Manage- ment Program (see Van Cleve et al. 2004). All reviewed programs share characteristic vertical and horizontal integration of governance and respon- sibilities, with formal paths for moving information to the planning and policy process, and all follow various models of adaptive management. In each program, an adaptive-management working group (or implementation committee) made up of land and resource managers and technical experts in key management issue areas provides a central role, bringing scientific re- view and stakeholder input to inform both policy makers and management operations. The review identified characteristics of more-successful efforts; clearly articulated problem statements and program goals, independence of science activities from policy decisions, development of conceptual and quantitative models to resolve conflict and build scientific consensus, and identification of performance measures and initiation of monitoring efforts in an adaptive-management framework. Similar characteristics were identi- fied by the NRC in salmon-restoration programs in the Pacific Northwest (NRC 1996). Organizational attributes of these diverse ecosystem management ap- proaches are actually shared with an effort ongoing in the Klamath River

OCR for page 196
204 6-2.eps consists of 4 fixed images—smaller type in boxes < 5-pt FIGURE 6-2 Organizational charts of four adaptively managed restoration programs. SOURCE: Van Cleve et al. 2004. Reprinted with permission; copyright 2004, Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership.

OCR for page 196
20 APPLYING SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT basin. The Trinity River Restoration Program has harvested organizational features of successful programs elsewhere and is applying them in an effort to reverse severe degradation to the river’s physical and biotic resources that has resulted from water diversions and dams. Dissatisfied with a standing task force of government agency and stake- holder representatives, an implementation plan (established as the “pre- ferred alternative” in the Final Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration EIS/EIR [2000]) provides a governance structure that is explicitly intended to facilitate the program’s Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Man- agement efforts toward “learning by predicting the outcomes of manage- ment actions, implementing those actions, evaluating results, and rapidly improving future management decisions (Schleusner 2006). Included in the structure are a management council charged with policy and decision mak- ing; an adaptive-management working group, which facilitates stakeholder input to management recommendations; an adaptive-management assess- ment and management team of resource specialists and scientists, which designs and implements restoration projects and coordinates interagency activities and monitoring; and an independent scientific review board, which provides review of study plans, flow recommendations, restora- tion actions, and monitoring efforts. This governance structure appears to provide clear paths for bringing information that is critical to land, water, and species management to those who can use it. Adaptive management in the greater Klamath River basin would benefit substantially by adopting organizational and process approaches that are being used to support res- toration planning in the Trinity River sub-basin and could enjoy enhanced effectiveness and efficiencies by collaborating with existing Trinity River efforts in a basin-wide science program. The Klamath Basin’s Conservation Improvement Program In response to the perceived need for organized, coordinated informa- tion gathering and restoration efforts in the Klamath basin, the Bureau of Reclamation has attempted to organize and implement a Conservation Implementation Program (CIP) (USBR 2007b). According to the USBR, “the CIP is a mechanism by which participants will work together to • Restore the Klamath River basin ecosystem. • Further fulfill tribal trust responsibilities of the federal govern- ment. • Allow continued, sustainable use of water. • Foster lasting partnerships between governments and private stake- holders.

OCR for page 196
206 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN The CIP is intended “to coordinate conservation and restoration efforts throughout the Klamath River basin and provide technical and funding resources to achieve Klamath River basin ecosystem restoration and water management goals.” The CIP also is intended to foster partnerships among government and private interests for the purpose of “restoring the Klamath River system” and sustaining “agricultural, municipal, and industrial water use, while reducing demand throughout the Klamath River basin.” The CIP proposes to “fund research to increase understanding of the Klamath River system and monitoring to evaluate progress toward” program goals. In other words, the CIP intends to meet demonstrated needs in the Klamath basin for enhanced science. Progress has been slow in the early stages of the endeavor; a pro- gram-description document is still in draft form after 3 years of discussion (C. Karas, USBR, personal communication, 2007). Unfortunately, because the effort to organize the CIP has been led by the USBR, the program, perhaps unfairly, is viewed by some stakeholders as not being independent of agency interests and biases. To be successful, the CIP must overcome long-standing issues of trust, authority, and prerogative. Some stakeholder groups appear to prefer a “bottom-up” organizational approach that em- powers existing sub-basin working groups, less bureaucracy than the CIP currently involves. But having independent and insulated working groups has contributed (if not led) to the current lack of coordination among sub- basin programmatic actions and scientific efforts. Bottom-up organization is unlikely to produce integrated science, whole-system modeling, and ef- ficiencies of scale in research and monitoring, as well as in providing the essential capacity for centralized information acquisition, synthesis, and dissemination. The resulting science will be unlikely to provide the answers to management questions that concern ecosystem management for the Klamath basin as a whole. Resolving this issue, that is, deciding whether to adopt a bottom-up or a top-down approach, or both, is critical. A working session on the CIP’s organization has been postponed from early December 2006 to an as-yet unscheduled time (USBR 2007b). Whatever the programmatic delivery system for scientific findings, a basin-wide science plan in support of adaptive management needs to be clearly articulated. The following design elements and goals are important: 1. Systematically reduce the uncertainties that limit the abilities of land and resource managers to operate the Klamath system to meet policy goals. 2. Show explicitly how knowledge derived from scientific efforts in the basin can be used to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and account- ability of management actions and the policies on which they are based.

OCR for page 196
20 APPLYING SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT 3. Develop and disseminate quantitative and conceptual models that describe the Klamath River basin and its attributes and functions to ad- vance a general understanding of the ecosystem and the challenges to its management. 4. Identify performance measures that allow assessment of manage- ment actions, the state of the system, and trends of key resources. 5. Take advantage of flexibility in water management to test alterna- tive specific flow options, which have been identified in conceptual models as having high likelihoods of contributing to salmon recovery. 6. Establish a periodic science forum at which the current state of knowledge of the Klamath basin system and its resources is promulgated and assessed, providing a basis for planning and prioritizing future scientific activities and approaches. 7. Produce periodically a volume or other written statement of the state of the Klamath River basin and the status and trends of its key re- sources of concern. Science in the Klamath Basin The models reviewed in this volume have had negligible positive effects from the viewpoints of key basin stakeholder groups. A USBR scientist re- peated the statement that ecological “models have devastated farmers” in the upper Klamath basin; although, presumably, it has been management decisions based on the outputs of some models that are viewed unfavorably. But, accordingly, the pervasive distrust of federal authorities in the Klamath system has been joined with a distrust of science, and that distrust inevi- tably spills over, affecting stakeholder opinions of the reliability and inde- pendence of scientific efforts, such as the modeling efforts reviewed by this committee that are intended to address directly key management issues. A structured science plan that is implemented adaptively should deliver products that are as value-neutral as possible, even while they address solu- tions to management problems. Those science products should not prescribe or recommend policy decisions, but should provide management authorities with knowledge that allows for better-informed decisions, and the course of implementing those decisions should be determined adaptively. Science that is problem-driven and that, by design, provides information that is directly useful in river operations and ecosystem restoration efforts should be emphasized. Current science efforts in the Klamath basin show little of that applied focus or coherence. Although focused studies are numerous, and many of them are well designed and are producing useful information, there is no comprehensive research plan, little effort to develop larger coherent under- standing from smaller scientific studies, and few clear links between science

OCR for page 196
208 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN and application in management and restoration actions. Agency sponsors of Klamath basin research say they want to see it “less ad hoc and more systematic,” and note they that “management coordination is getting bet- ter.” Without a comprehensive management and research strategy, however, Klamath basin science will continue to have marginal utility and limited direct application, and management decisions will continue to suffer from a lack of informed guidance. Science in support of ecosystem management in the Klamath River basin should have several features: • Scientific efforts must be independent of political meddling. Al- though the science agenda needs to respond to the information needs of policy makers and land and resource managers, and information that may provide the platform for research and monitoring may come from diverse sources—including stakeholders with well-established positions regarding resources—the design of the science agenda and the experimental frame- works, data collection, analysis, and publications that result should be demonstrably the products of deliberations among scientists with appropri- ate quality controls and review. The scientists involved should be able to show that they have no explicit personal interest in management outcomes, and some reasonable balance in participating scientists from academia and agencies should be sought. • Science needs to be institutionalized as a basin-wide program through which research, monitoring, and modeling efforts are organized, communicated, and subjected to independent review. A multidisciplinary science committee should be convened, with tasks that include producing a science plan that is periodically updated to be relevant and timely, and to reflect information needs of management agencies and advancements in the understanding of the Klamath River system and the status of key resources. This science committee should be more than a collection of scientists that represent particular interests in management of the basin. • Leadership for the science program is necessary. A lead scien- tist with a history of objectivity and production of high-quality scientific products, as well as management and diplomatic skills, should represent scientific efforts in the Klamath River basin and serve as spokesperson for science to policy makers, management and resource agencies, key stake- holder groups, and the interested public. • The products of scientific deliberations and activities, including research, monitoring, and modeling, must be as transparent as possible. The reasoning behind specific data gathering and analytic approaches needs to be clear, describable, and repeatable. Externally reviewed report and jour- nal publication should be one desired end point of most basin science. • Links between approaches and findings and their application in

OCR for page 196
20 APPLYING SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT land, water, and resource management need to be clearly articulated and conveyed to managers and policy makers. CONCLuSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Connecting science with public policy that produces sound decisions is a daunting challenge for the Klamath River basin, but the committee has identified two sets of conclusions and recommendations that represent a road map to success. Conclusion 6-1. Planning for management and restoration of hydrologic and ecological research in the Klamath River basin is piecemeal, the Natural Flow Study being adopted for uses for which it was not originally intended and the Instream Flow Study being buffeted by critical comment from stakeholders. There is no overall independent coordination of science as it interacts with decision making. Recommendation 6-1. A formal science plan for the Klamath River basin should support policy and decision making for the basin’s hydrologic and ecological resources. Such a plan should prioritize data needs, identify key uncertainties, specify limits to management capabilities, conduct in- dependent scientific review of research and management plans using that research, construct and oversee monitoring of the systems, and create hy- drologic and ecological models. Conclusion 6-2. There are no clearly defined connections between the con- duct of science to understand the hydrology and ecology of the Klamath River basin and the conduct of decision making for resource management. Recommendation 6-2. Planning for management and restoration of hy- drologic and ecological resources in the Klamath River basin should use the formal science plan outlined in Recommendation 6-1 in an adaptive- management approach. This approach requires institutional structures and relationships that clearly designate specific authorities for policy imple- mentation, as well as an adaptive-management working group that is an independent science-management team with representation of stakeholders, scientists, and resource management experts. SuMMARY More than 5 years after water deliveries were halted to farmers in the upper Klamath River basin in an attempt to get water to imperiled fishes downstream, and then, soon thereafter, salmon in the lower Klamath River

OCR for page 196
210 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN experienced an unprecedented mass mortality, critical questions in Klamath basin ecosystem management remain unanswered. Is the federally listed coho salmon habitat-limited in the lower Klamath River and its tributaries? Do releases of water from the upper basin actually have beneficial effects on the lower basin fishery? These and other questions may only be addressed with coordinated modeling and experiments carried out in conjunction with ongoing management and restoration efforts, as authorities address the three central challenges for Klamath basin operations—assuring water deliveries, a sustainable salmon fishery, and persistence of listed species. Each is dynamic in nature and requires adaptive-management approaches that, in turn, require a programmatic approach that recognizes often dis- tinct and sometimes complementary roles of decision makers, stakeholders, managers, and scientists. Models of nature simply cannot capture all the breadth, complexity, and intricacy of a river system. No model of the hydrology and ecology of the Klamath River basin can possibly convert the currently limited available database into a finely resolved predictive tool. However, unguided intuition and political processes are even less likely to accomplish the objectives for water management in the Klamath basin. It is not unreasonable to conclude that many of the more critical shortcomings of the Natural Flow Study and the Instream Flow Study models reflect institutional impediments to the delivery of science to management that were faced by the modeling teams. From constraints placed on the modeling efforts at the outset, to interim applications of the models in unintended circumstances, to difficulties in accessing the best available information, circumstances conspired to com- promise the content and utility of the final model products. Until the diverse and only weakly coordinated institutions that are charged to maintain and restore the Klamath River basin’s ecosystem can find a means of effectively supporting scientific endeavors and applying the products of science, even the most reliable knowledge will remain ad hoc and relegated to the mar- gins of river system planning and management. Management of the basin will then remain guided by less coherent and more controversial scientific activities and therefore more guided by political objectives with intuitive understandings of the system.