Department of Interior Receives Another Scientific Integrity Complaint

Earlier this week, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed another complaint against the Department of the Interior alleging violations of the department’s scientific integrity policy.  There is no official response from the Department, or the specific agency at issue, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), just yet.  (The other active scientific integrity case at the Department of Interior, dealing with Charles Monnett, is still unresolved.)

What follows is based solely on the complaint, so there could well be additional data – not currently public – that can further explain this situation.

PEER’s complaint targets a series of scientific assessments contracted out by the Bureau of Land Management.  These Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs) started in 2010, focused on seven western regions (only six are at issue in the complaint) and are intended to

“improve the understanding of the existing condition of these landscapes, and how conditions may be altered by ongoing environmental changes and land use demands.”

The problem comes with what is allowed to count as part of the existing condition.  There are two particular charges related to what counts that factor in the complaint:

What to Count – BLM staff have allegedly indicated that livestock grazing was not to count as a ‘change agent’ in these REAs.  The rationale that was allegedly given was political – that including livestock grazing as a change agent (though it still counts in resource calculations) could jeopardize funding for future assessments.  Most, if not all, of the contractors and scientists consulted in the development of these REAs objected to not including livestock grazing as a unique change agent, and considered this not consistent with best practices.

Hiding a Database – BLM staff allegedly indicated that relevant data were not available in a formalized database when they actually were.  There is a Land Health Standards Assessment database (apparently not online), but BLM staff supposedly told contractors involved in the assessments that such a database was not available.

Of the two issues, the second seems the strongest claim to a violation of the scientific integrity policy at the Interior Department.  The first, where the agency dictated the terms of the assessment, is not necessarily an obvious violation of scientific integrity policy.  I would need to know more about comparable assessments, and what existing policies at Interior and BLM have to say about assessments conducted by and/or for the agency.

For instance, the BLM outlines the change agents it wants considered in the REAs:

“REAs describe and map conservation elements, which are areas of high ecological value. REAs look across all lands in an ecoregion to identify regionally important habitats for fish, wildlife, and species of concern. REAs then gauge the potential of these habitats to be affected by four overarching environmental change agents: climate change, wildfires, invasive species, and development (both energy development and urban growth). Additional change agents may also be addressed based on ecoregional needs.”

So, while livestock grazing could be considered as a change agent, it’s not necessarily required.  How ecoregional needs are defined is not made clear from the webpage, but it’s possible that this is intended to be a judgment call to balance scientific and non-scientific interests.

Either way, I think these charges deserve a hearing through the outlined scientific integrity policies for the Department of the Interior.  I hope they choose to investigate.