Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR): A Resource Guide for Professional Science Master’s Degree Programs

Case Studies from Environmental Sciences

Case: Making Decisions with Best Available Information

Discipline: Environmental Sciences

Topic: Making decisions with the best available information. Need for more studies, etc. Directed funding issues.

Title: Making Decisions with Best Available Information

Author: John Nishio, Ph.D.

Cringe Creek Dam Removal.

A State Agency (Department of Funding & Gains (DFG)) comes to your federally funded agency (funded through grants) to say a $2 million program is available, and that they want you to work on the project. The funds are targeted, and if the job isn’t done, the money will be lost (it will revert to the state general fund). The agency will help write the proposal, but can’t put its name on the proposal, because the funds will be going to their department. So, the DFG representatives say to you, “Here is the project, you have 3 weeks to write it up.” Your agency will benefit directly from the $2 million project. The actions that followed guaranteed the funding, but after more than two years the project is not yet funded.

Salmon Habitat Restoration. The project goal is to restore salmon habitat by removing an irrigation dam (that is also a fish barrier) and siphons. There is a need to install a pump to deliver water to landowners, since the water can no longer be gravity fed. It is suggested that solar panels be used to power the pump, etc. The project has been discussed over the past two years. Landowners understand the project, and most landowners are agreeable to the project.

You are requested to write up the details, get the landowners on board, and develop the budget. You and your agency will not be compensated for preparing the proposal. It is presumed that the grant will make the efforts worthwhile. The DFG, unfortunately, doesn’t have the time to develop the scientific background to adequately assess the project and write a proposal to your normal standards. Furthermore, during the past two years, the other agencies, such as the Department of Water Resources, involved didn’t want to do the background work. Therefore, a basic question was not considered—What is the habitat like below the dam? Will it make good salmon habitat, if the flow is restored to pre-dam conditions?

With agency help, three intense months (the 3 weeks mentioned at the start was extended) were spent preparing the proposal (you are not paid to write the proposal), and it was submitted and rejected. The project is returned for redesign (now the funds will not revert back to the general fund). The project involves a number of agencies (including a small (local) irrigation district), local non-profits, and businesses. There were 15 landowners with voting water rights. The majority of the landowners had to agree to the project. The agencies, as a selling point to get land owners on board, said they would improve irrigation infrastructure

All agencies had agreed to contents of the proposal (their roles, the objectives, etc.) before submission. Everything looks good going into the review process. Then during the review process, an engineer from the F&G (state office) looked at the proposal. The engineer was not on the original proposal review team, but engineers from another agency (DWR) had reviewed the proposal. The F&G engineer doesn’t like what was being proposed (he feels that it can’t be done), and he brings project to a screeching halt. He thought that a possible landslide would be exacerbated by expected head cutting from removing the dam (actually the concrete base). The DWR engineers had already stated the landslide issue wouldn’t be a problem based on their $100k study of the bed composition, geomorphology, etc.

How to get around the problem? So the proposal has been rewritten 3 times. The head federal regional geomorphologist came in to study the case. DWR altered the plan (no solar panels no pumps). Now the landowners won’t get what they were promised, because at present, ladders are now proposed. No in depth habitat studies yet completed. Partial studies are done, and their results suggest that the habitat is not that promising. However, the DFG now says there is good habitat and potential (good rearing habitat). DWR is not willing to play anymore, because of the lack of good habitat, because promise was 10 miles of habitat.

No funds have been spent. Landowners have lost faith in the agencies. The DWR statement that habitat is good is really a misrepresentation or exaggeration. So the premise at the start was unfounded. The original project was based on the assumption of someone who thought the project would lead to good habitat. Your agency has now spent 5 years and a lot of manpower hoping this would go through.

If you were working for the agency on the project, what would have done? What do you recommend to your supervisor.(COI, peer review, collaboration, research misconduct, data management, social responsibility, whistleblowing). DWR influence by water use (and some head cutting may not be a problem—maybe a few hundred feet). The F&G guys are afraid more head cutting; and habitat could be destroyed by two miles of head cutting. Discrepancy between engineers may be a matter of timing (DWR said they would do initial study; F&G made no offer to get the information). F&G engineer thinks a better study should have been conducted. DWR did more surveys.

If this is your first job, what would you do? Is this normal? Would you expect something different? Is there a mechanism for setting up a more formal participation agreement (Collaboration Agreement!!).

Is spending $2 million worth 10 miles of habitat (good or bad).

If broken into phases (e.g., Phase I: Engineering and Permitting; Phase II: Construction), funding may not be available after phase I, so no agreement about breaking into phases could be established. Should this block the project completely?

F&W now offered $100k for permitting. But project footprint could be changed. When in the middle of a project, what are the ethics of substantial changes? Discuss how the project might be viewed differently, if the project is broken into the two phases above. (Note that a lack of initial study has been one of the road blocks for getting the agencies to agree.)

Multiagency Projects. You are brought in as the supervisor to help resolve the problem. What would you do now? What would you do if you had this to do over?

Involvement of stakeholders. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)—agency folks and consultants had been established to assist in the project. At one stage a meeting about the project w/ a private consultant needing a permit was held. A basic proposal was provided and the TAC was asked to develop it completely. Then the TAC asked for another proposal. The revised proposal said TAC reviewed it, when they hadn’t completely. Much of the dealings ended up occurring behind closed doors, as members of the TAC indicated that they were surprised and unaware of the contents in the proposal placed in front of them. In retrospect, what could you have done to avoid the conflict between the consultants, the agencies, and the TAC? There are significant issues of COI, as the TAC is composed of governmental representatives, as well.

Was it appropriate for the DFG to ask another agency to write a proposal that would fund work that would go back to their department?

Case study 2 is complicated. It involves issues of:

  • Collaboration
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Research Misconduct (lack of studies, and ignorance of studies)
  • Social Responsibility
  • Animal/Environmental Subjects

Page 1