| |||||||||||||||
Items in cart [0]
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
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 R1
Page i
SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS ON ENDANGERED AND THREATENED FISHES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN
INTERIM REPORT
Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C.
OCR for page R2
Page ii
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This project was supported by Grant No. 98210–1–G092 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.
International Standard Book Number:
0–309–08324–9
Additional copies of this report are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Ave., NW
Box 285
Washington, DC
20055
800–624–6242
202–334–3313
(in the Washington metropolitan area)
http://www.nap.edu
Copyright
2002
by the
National Academy of Sciences
. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Page iii
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm.A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. Wm.A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R4
Page iv
OCR for page R5
Page v
COMMITTEE ON ENDANGERED AND THREATENED FISHES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN
Members
WILLIAM M. LEWIS, J R . (Chair), University of Colorado, Boulder
RICHARD M. ADAMS, Oregon State University, Corvallis
ELLIS B. COWLING, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
EUGENE S. HELFMAN, University of Georgia, Athens
CHARLES D.D. HOWARD, Consulting Engineer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ROBERT J. HUGGETT, Michigan State University, East Lansing
NANCY E. LANGSTON, University of Wisconsin, Madison
JEFFREY F. MOUNT, University of California, Davis
PETER B. MOYLE, University of California, Davis
TAMMY J. NEWCOMB, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg
MICHAEL L. PACE, Institute for Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York
J.B. RUHL, Florida State University, Tallahassee
Staff
SUZANNE VAN DRUNICK, Project Director
RUTH E. CROSSGROVE, Editor
JENNIFER SAUNDERS, Research Assistant
MIRSADAK ARALIC-LONCAREVIC, Research Assistant
HEATHER A. MCDONALD, Project Assistant
KELLY CLARK, Editorial Assistant
Sponsors
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
OCR for page R6
Page vi
OCR for page R7
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
OCR for page R12
OCR for page R13
OCR for page R14
OCR for page R15
OCR for page R16
OCR for page R17
OCR for page R18
OCR for page R19
OCR for page R20
OCR for page R21
OCR for page R22
Page vii
BOARD ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND TOXICOLOGY 1
Members
GORDON ORIANS (Chair), University of Washington,
Seattle
JOHN DOULL (Vice Chair), University of Kansas
Medical Center, Kansas City
DAVID ALLEN, University of Texas, Austin
INGRID C. BURKE, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins
THOMAS BURKE, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland
WILLIAM L. CHAMEIDES, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta
CHRISTOPHER B. FIELD, Carnegie Institute of Washington,
Stanford, California
J. PAUL GlLMAN, Celera Genomics, Rockville, Maryland
DANIEL S. GREENBAUM, Health Effects Institute, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
BRUCE D. HAMMOCK, University of California, Davis
ROGENE HENDERSON, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
CAROL HENRY, American Chemistry Council, Arlington,
Virginia
ROBERT HUGGETT, Michigan State University, East
Lansing
JAMES H. JOHNSON, Howard University, Washington, District of
Columbia
JAMES F. KITCHELL, University of Wisconsin, Madison
DANIEL KREWSKI, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario
JAMES A. MACMAHON, Utah State University, Logan
WlLLEM F. PASSCHIER, Health Council of the Netherlands, The
Hague, Netherlands
ANN POWERS, Pace University School of Law, White Plains, New
York
LOUISE M. RYAN, Harvard University, Boston,
Massachusetts
KIRK SMITH, University of California, Berkeley
LISA SPEER, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, New
York
Senior Staff
JAMES J. REISA, Director
DAVID J. POLICANSKY, Associate Director and Senior Program Director for Applied Ecology
RAYMOND A. WASSEL, Senior Program Director for Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
KULBIR BAKSHI, Program Director for Committee on
Toxicology
ROBERTA M. WEDGE, Program Director for Risk Analysis
K. JOHN HOLMES, Senior Staff Officer
SUZANNE VAN DRUNICK, Senior Staff Officer
RUTH E. CROSSGROVE, Managing Editor
1This study was planned, overseen, and supported by the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology.
Page viii
Page ix
OTHER REPORTS OF THE BOARD ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND TOXICOLOGY
The Airliner Cabin Environment and Health of Passengers and Crew (2002)
Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update (2001)
Evaluating Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Programs (2001)
Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act (2001)
A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments (2001)
Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000)
Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research-Management and Peer-Review Practices (2000)
Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment (2000)
Modeling Mobile-Source Emissions (2000)
Toxicological Risks of Selected Flame-Retardant Chemicals (2000)
Copper in Drinking Water (2000)
Ecological Indicators for the Nation (2000)
Waste Incineration and Public Health (1999)
Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment (1999)
Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: I. Immediate Priorities and a Long-Range Research Portfolio (1998); II. Evaluating Research Progress and Updating the Portfolio (1999); III. Early Research Progress (2001)
Ozone-Forming Potential of Reformulated Gasoline (1999)
Risk-Based Waste Classification in California (1999)
Arsenic in Drinking Water (1999)
Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area (1998)
The National Research Council's Committee on Toxicology: The First 50 Years (1997)
Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet (1996)
Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest (1996)
Science and the Endangered Species Act (1995)
Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries (1995)
Biologic Markers (5 reports, 1989–1995)
Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (3 reports, 1994–1995)
Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (1994)
Ranking Hazardous Waste Sites for Remedial Action (1994)
Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children (1993)
Setting Priorities for Land Conservation (1993)
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas (1993)
Dolphins and the Tuna Industry (1992)
Science and the National Parks (1992)
Assessment of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Studies Program, Volumes I-IV (1991–1993)
Human Exposure Assessment for Airborne Pollutants (1991)
Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution (1991)
Decline of the Sea Turtles (1990)
Copies of these reports may be ordered from the National Academy Press
(800) 624–6242 or (202) 334–3313
www.nap.edu
Page x
Page xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was supported by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service. We are thankful for the assistance provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in planning the first meeting.
We are grateful for the informative briefings provided by the following individuals:
Michael Belchik, Water Management and Rights Protection Division
James Carpenter, Carpenter Design Inc.
Paul Cleary, Oregon Department of Water Resources
John Crawford, Tule Lake Irrigation District
Larry Dunsmoor, The Klamath Tribes Natural Resources
Thomas Hardy, Utah Water Research Laboratory
Jacob Kann, Aquatic Ecosystems Sciences, LLC
Ron Larson, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office
Steven Lewis, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office
Todd Olson, PacifiCorp
Felice Pace, Klamath Forest Alliance
Donald Reck, National Marine Fisheries Service
Michael Ryan, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Kenneth Rykbost, Oregon State University Klamath Experiment Station
Rip Shively, U.S. Geological Survey, Klamath Field Station
Page xii
Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Sue Ellen Wooldridge, U.S. Department of Interior
The committee's work also benefited from the written and oral testimony submitted by the public, and we appreciate their participation.
Page xiii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEW PARTICIPANTS
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Michael T.Brett, University of Washington
Alex J.Horne, University of California, Berkeley
John J.Magnuson, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Douglas F.Markle, Oregon State University
John M.Melack, University of California, Santa Barbara
Lisa Speer, National Resources Defense Council
Edwin A.Theriot, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
David A.Vogel, Natural Resource Scientists, Inc.
Eugene B.Welch, University of Washington
Donald Siegel, Syracuse University
Margaret Strand, Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly, LLP
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or
Page xiv
recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John C.Bailar, III, University of Chicago, and Paul G.Risser, Oregon State University. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Page xv
PREFACE
The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 has been invoked extensively for the protection of aquatic species in the western United States. Aquatic fauna of the West show extensive endemism because of genetic isolation associated with aridity and with the drainage of many rivers directly to the Pacific. Human intervention in the water cycle of the West is especially pervasive because of the general scarcity of water and the extensive redistribution of water in support of economic growth. Also, the West is growing and developing very rapidly. Thus, an unusual combination of biogeographic, hydrologic, and socioeconomic circumstances conspire to raise the likelihood that the legal protection of aquatic species will come into conflict with development and use of water in the West.
Fishes in the Klamath River Basin are the focus of perhaps the most prominent current conflict between traditional uses of water in the West and requirements established by law for the protection of threatened and endangered species. This case is especially interesting in that the federal government is playing two potentially conflicting roles. Through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of the Interior is attempting to serve the needs of irrigators for water that is derived from the federal Klamath Basin Project. Not only is the delivery of water a contractual obligation of the government, it also is traditional in the sense that water delivery has occurred through the project for almost a century. At the same time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce are attempting to protect three threatened or endangered fishes of the Klamath Basin drainage (the Lost River
Page xvi
sucker, the shortnose sucker, and the Klamath Basin coho salmon).
Interested parties, some of whom have livelihoods or cultural
traditions at stake, include farmers, commercial fishing interests,
Native Americans, environmental interests, hunters, and hydropower
production interests. Conflicts became openly angry during 2001 when
irrigators were deprived during a severe drought of traditionally
available water through the government's issuance of jeopardy opinions
on the endangered and threatened fishes. Economic losses were
substantial and the changes in water management were a source of great
frustration to irrigators.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) sets a framework for determination of
future water use and management in the Klamath River Basin. The ESA is
tightly focused on the requirements for survival of the threatened and
endangered fishes, the survival of which is not negotiable under the
ESA. Therefore, if the fishes require more water, ESA directs that
they shall have it, which would imply that water managers and users
must augment their water supplies, reduce their demands, or reach
other accommodations consistent with the requirements of the species.
While the ESA gives priority to the needs of threatened and endangered
species, it also requires that any allocation of resources to these
species be justified on a scientific or technical basis. The burden
for scientific and technical justification falls mainly on the federal
agencies, and especially the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service, which are the source of biological
opinions on the species. Assessment of the requirements of any species
in a manner that is scientifically or technically rigorous is
difficult and often cannot be accomplished quickly. The agencies have
assembled considerable data and have interpreted the data as showing
need for higher flows in the Klamath main stem and higher lake levels
in the upper part of the basin.
External review increases confidence in scientific and technical
judgments, and is especially important when such judgments underlie
important policy decisions. Accordingly, the Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce have arranged through its agencies
for the National Research Council to form the Committee on Endangered
and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, whose charge is to
conduct an external review of the scientific basis for the biological
opinions that resulted in changes of water management for year 2001.
The committee is to conduct its work in two phases. The first phase,
which is reported here, gives an interim assessment of the evidence
behind the biological opinions. A second phase, which will
Page xvii
occur over approximately the next year, will take a broader approach
to evaluation of evidence for long-term requirements of the threatened
and endangered fishes.
In formulating its interim assessment, the committee has been greatly
assisted by individuals who have provided it with information orally
and in written form. The committee is especially indebted to the
invited speakers and members of the public who attended the first
meeting of the committee and also to NRC staff members Heather
McDonald, Jennifer Saunders, David Policansky, and Suzanne van Drunick
and to Leslie Northcott of the University of Colorado.
All NRC committee reports are subject to external peer review as well
as internal quality control processes. The committee and the NRC are
grateful to the reviewers who contributed their time and expertise to
the review process.
The NRC committee is pleased to provide scientific and technical
assessments that it hopes will be helpful to federal agencies as they
attempt the difficult process of guiding water management toward
practices that are consistent with the welfare of threatened and
endangered species while also accommodating to the fullest practical
extent other uses of water in the Klamath River Basin.
William M.Lewis, Jr., Chair
Committee on Endangered
and Threatened Fishes in the
Klamath River Basin
Page xviii
Page xix
CONTENTS
Summary
1
1
Introduction
6
2
Evaluation of the Biological Opinion on Shortnose and
Lost River Suckers
11
3
Evaluation of the Biological Opinion on Klamath Basin
Coho Salmon
21
4
Conclusions
26
References
28
Appendix
:
Statement of Task
32
Figure 1
Map of the Upper Klamath River Basin showing surface waters and landmarks mentioned in this report (modified from USFWS sources),
7
Page xx
CONTENTS
Figure 2
Overview of monthly levels for Upper Klamath Lake proposed by USBR through its biological assessment of 2001, USFWS through its biological opinion of 2001, and observed conditions for the years 1960–1998. Hydrologic categories used by USBR in its proposals (dry years, critical dry years) are explained in the text. Mean depths, excluding wetlands, corresponding to water levels are as follows (feet): 4,137=3.5; 4,139=4.8; 4,140 =5.7; 4,141=6.6; 4,142=7.6 (Welch and Burke 2001, Figure 2–5),
14
Figure 3
Historical record of level at the end of September for UpperKlamath Lake (from USBR sources),
16
Figure 4
Relationship of chlorophyll a and median August lake level in Upper Klamath Lake between 1991 and 1998. Chlorophyll data are averages as reported by Welch and Burke (2001). Recruitment and mortality information is as reported by USFWS (2001),
18
Figure 5
Estimated age frequency distributions using opercles from Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers collected from 1997 fish kill in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Estimates did not include all suckers collected, but were calculated using only suckers from which a length measurement (fork length) was obtained. Data are truncated from 1987 to 1994, additional information exists on other year classes of suckers. Source: USGS, unpublished data, 2001,
19
Figure 6
Three flow regimes for the Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam: USBR (USBR 2001b, minima for dry and critical years) proposed historical mean minima for dry and critical dry years, and RPA minimum flows from NMFS (2001). Hydrologic categories used by USBR in its proposals (dry years, critical dry years) are explained in the text,
24
Page xxi
INTERIM REPORT:
SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION of BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS on ENDANGERED AND THREATENED FISHES in the KLAMATH RIVER BASIN
Page xxii