NRC Klamath Committee Chairman Rebuts OSU Critics
A prominent fisheries journal has published a scathing response by the
Chairman of the National Research Council’s Committee on Endangered and
Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin (NRC Committee) to a recent
critique of the NRC Committee’s work prepared by two Oregon State University
(OSU) researchers. Dr. William Lewis, chair of the NRC Committee, critically
dissected a widely publicized review of the NRC Committee’s Interim Report
prepared by OSU’s Michael Cooperman and Douglas Markle. Both articles were
published in the March edition of Fisheries journal.
The review prepared by Cooperman and Markle unfavorably reviewed the NRC
Committee’s 2002 Interim Report, which peer-reviewed the committee’s
treatment of a Biological Assessment (BA) prepared by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation in 2001 and a Biological Opinion (BO) prepared by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2001 for the shortnose and Lost River
suckers of the Klamath basin. Both the BA and the BO focus on potential
effects of the Klamath Project on the endangered suckers. The combined
effects of these documents, coupled with another BO prepared by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for downstream coho salmon, contributed to
Reclamation’s April 6, 2001 announcement that Upper Klamath Lake irrigation
supplies would be curtailed.
Cooperman and Markle criticized the NRC Committee’s competence, the nature
of the committee’s work, and specific scientific issues addressed by the
committee. Dr. Lewis addresses the OSU researchers’ key criticisms, while
noting that many others are “trivial”.
Lewis disputes the OSU researchers’ claim that the members of the NRC
committee could not have reached a meaningful understanding of the
scientific issues surrounding the endangered suckers over the few months
during which they studied written documentation and heard oral presentations
by researchers and others.
“The committee voluntarily and unanimously reached several strong
conclusions because it was confident that the evidence presented to it
supported these conclusions,” said Lewis.
The Lewis response, entitled “Argument is No Substitute for Evidence”,
contains a strong theme suggesting that Cooperman and Markle had a motive
other than a strictly scientific approach to their evaluation of the Interim
Report.
“Cooperman and Markle, in grasping at every item in the NRC committee’s
report that could be perceived or portrayed as an error, and in casting
doubt on the committee’s competence and even its honesty, have shown that
their main purpose is to discredit the committee rather than to deal in a
useful way with some of the important issues that the committee’s report has
highlighted,” said Lewis.
Lewis also takes Cooperman and Markle to task on their suggestion that
scientists who work the longest on a problem should have the final word in
evaluating information related to the problem.
“The committee rejects the notion that the main issues of importance in the
Klamath basin are so complex that they can only be evaluated by insiders,”
said Lewis.
Excerpts From “Argument is No Substitute for
Evidence”
by William Lewis, NRC Committee Chair
“External peer review has been minimal for work relevant to the endangered
suckers of the Klamath basin.”
“The USFWS honestly and bluntly stated in its BO….that the record of study
provides no evidence for connections between water levels in Upper Klamath
Lake, which could be adjusted through modification of Klamath Project
operations, and water quality or fish mortality.”
“Where the economic stakes are high…it is useful for all parties to
recognize which components of Biological Opinions are indeed scientifically
solid and which are to varying degrees based on informed speculation.”
“The committee ….could say with certainty that the data, which are
considerable in some instances, simply do not support the existence of
relationships between water level and indicators of the abundance or welfare
of fish….As acknowledged by Cooperman and Markle, the USFWS was
straightforward in declaring the absence of any such relationships, as were
the limnologists who made a detailed examination of the water quality data.”
“One might tell the water manager to hold the water level high but not to
expect any beneficial result because the effects of holding the water level
high are only hypothetical and in any event are conditional upon a complex
of other factors that cannot be controlled or predicted. More likely the key
to mortality and hardships of suckers lies elsewhere.”
“Cooperman and Markle fail to take into account the great morphometric and
hydraulic differences between Clear Lake and Upper Klamath Lake.”
KWUA Statement on OSU Researchers’ Rebuttal of NRC
Interim Report
KWUA was troubled by the Cooperman and Markle paper transmitted to the
Department of Interior on October 31, 2002 as a “rebuttal” of the National
Research Council’s Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the
Klamath Basin 2002 interim report. We do not address here the technical
issues in this critique. Rather, we take great exception to the authors’
policy mission, and suggest they could not have gotten it more wrong.
The authors presume to tell virtually everyone (other than the aggressive
opponents of the Klamath Project) how to conduct themselves. They suggest
the world misunderstands science. For the record, KWUA is not engaged in
attacks on the authors of the biological opinions, nor have we maintained
that we now know all the “answers.” However, we do maintain that there was a
miserable failure of process in the development of the 2001 biological
opinions. We also fully understand Klamath Project farmers and ranchers who
believe, with justification, that they were wronged in 2001.
We implore the general public to understand that, entering 2001, a very
desperate community was told by federal fisheries biologists that the
science was compelling. We were told that, despite the extremely dry
conditions, Upper Klamath Lake in 2001 would have to be held higher than
ever required in the history of the Klamath Project. “Simple” farmers were
able to point out that the hypotheses being relied upon were unsupported by,
or contradicted by, real evidence. Yet the decision (and a similar decision
made relative to mainstem Klamath River flows) was forced upon them. This
should concern anyone and everyone who cares about science and its use in
policy decisions.
Three Counties Formally Support Water Users in Current Litigation
Three Klamath Basin counties on Tuesday voiced formal support for Klamath
Project water users in current litigation threatening water deliveries to
the Klamath Project. The Klamath County Board of Commissioners and the
Boards of Supervisors in Modoc and Siskiyou counties all unanimously
authorized the filing of briefs as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) in
support of local water users.
The litigation is entitled Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s
Association, et al. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, et al, and is pending in
the federal district court for the Northern District of California in
Oakland. The Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA) has intervened on behalf
of the defendants in this case, which is scheduled for hearing on April 29,
2003.
The plaintiff environmental organizations brought suit in April of 2002 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming
that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was in procedural
violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with respect to coho salmon.
They sought a temporary restraining order that would preclude irrigation
diversions if certain Klamath flows were not met. The application for
temporary restraining order was denied on May 3, 2002. A few weeks later,
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) completed a biological opinion
for operation of the Klamath Project for 2002 through 2012.
Several months later, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against NMFS
after the lower Klamath River fish die-off, challenging both technical and
legal matters in the biological opinion, and against Reclamation, for
allegedly violating the ESA. Lower Basin tribes also are parties to this
case and contend, among other things, that inadequate flows in 2002 violated
their fishing rights. Counties from the lower Klamath basin have already
filed briefs supporting the plaintiffs, emphasizing the importance of
fisheries to those counties
Local officials believe today’s decision by Klamath, Modoc and Siskiyou
counties is a strong statement and acknowledgement that the plaintiff’s
remedy would almost certainly have severe impacts for the local agricultural
community, businesses, and the county.
“It is significant that all three counties have unanimously decided to file
a brief with the Court,” said Klamath County Commissioner John Elliot. “All
three counties are particularly vulnerable to any form of water
curtailment.”
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - KWUA Power Committee Meeting. 7:00 p.m. KWUA
Office, 2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3, Klamath Falls.
Tuesday, March 21, 2003 - Public Hearing: Proposed NPDES General Permit for
Irrigation Systems. 9:00 a.m.1:00 p.m. Jackson County Courthouse Auditorium,
10 S Oakdale, Medford. Deadline for written comments is 5:00 p.m., March 31,
2003. For more information, go to http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqpermit/wqpermit.htm
|
