Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River Basin



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 1
Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River Basin

OCR for page 1

OCR for page 1
Summary The Klamath basin of northern California and southern Oregon has been the scene of controversies over water allocations in recent years. As often is the case with environmental controversies, a considerable amount of science has been done in the basin. However, the continuing lack of an overall model or vision to provide a framework for identifying science needs has prevented the science from being used effectively enough in decision making and management to resolve the continuing controversies, which have led to the involvement of the National Research Council (NRC). This report, which has as its main focus review of two large efforts to model the hydrology of the basin (the Natural Flow Study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) and the relationship of Klamath River hydrology to habitat for salmon (by Utah State University), also addresses the broader ques- tions of the ecological needs of the anadromous fishes and the importance of a broad, comprehensive view of the basin’s science needs as a guide to scientific activities. The Klamath basin has been extensively modified by levees, dikes, dams, and the draining of natural water bodies since the Klamath Project was begun in 1905 to improve the region’s ability to support agriculture; other changes have occurred as well. All those changes have been accom- panied by changes in the biota of the basin. Of particular concern in this report are changes in the distribution and abundance of several species of fishes in the Klamath River and in its tributaries. Those fishes were the subject of earlier NRC reviews prompted by conflicts that arose after management actions were taken to protect the basin’s fishes during the very dry year of 2001; one result of those actions was a severe reduction in the 3

OCR for page 1
4 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN water available for agriculture. In addition, in September of 2002, more than 33,0001 mostly adult fish died in the lower Klamath River, about 95% of which were Chinook salmon, the remainder being mostly steelhead. Less than 1% of the deaths were coho salmon. This mass mortality intensified the controversy over water operations in the Klamath basin. The management and uses of the natural resources of the basin, includ- ing water and fishes, are complex. Many federal, state, county, and other agencies and organizations are involved, and the basin’s resources are man- aged to achieve a variety of divergent purposes. RECENT EVENTS LEADING TO THIS STuDY The Endangered Species Act requires that the U.S. Bureau of Recla- mation (USBR) make assessments of the effects of the Klamath Project operations on fishes listed as threatened or endangered and consult about those assessments with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Lost River and shortnose suckers in Klamath Lake and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for coho salmon in the lower Klamath River. The assessments that led to the NRC study initially were conducted in 2001. After consultations, the USFWS endorsed some of the USBR proposals, but concluded that more water than the USBR proposed was needed to maintain Upper Klamath Lake at levels that would protect the suckers. The NMFS also agreed with some of the USBR proposals, but concluded that more water was needed to maintain higher minimum flows in the Klamath River below Iron Gate Dam than the USBR had proposed. The “biological opinions” of the USFWS and the NMFS indicated that some of the USBR’s proposals would jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species, and therefore the USBR was required to allot more water to the lake and to the river than had been planned, leaving less water than had previously been allocated for agriculture. Those restrictive allocations, coupled with a very dry year, resulted in hardship for many of the basin’s water users, and the controversy surround- ing the allocations became intense. As a result of the controversy, the U.S. Department of the Interior asked the NRC to review the scientific bases of the USBR biological assessments and the USFWS and NMFS biological opinions. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, which issued an interim report in 2002 that focused on the biological assessments and biological opinions and a final report in 2004 that took a broader look at strategies for recovery of the endangered and threatened fishes of the basin. The in- 1 The California Department of Fish and Game, which made this estimate, described it as “conservative.”

OCR for page 1
 SUMMARY terim report concluded that most of the recommendations of the biological opinions had scientific support but that available scientific data did not support the higher minimum lake levels or the higher minimum river flows recommended in the biological opinions to benefit the species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The later report confirmed those conclusions and included many recommendations for actions to benefit the listed fish species and to improve scientific understanding of the basin. Since the publication of the NRC reports, two new documents have become available: an estimate of natural or unimpaired flows in the basin as they were before the project was begun (the Natural Flow Study) and a model of the relationship of flows in the Klamath River to habitat in the river available for endangered and threatened fishes there, especially coho salmon (often referred to as Hardy Phase II, referred to here as the Instream Flow Study Phase II). Because those new documents have the potential to change scientific conclusions and management options based on earlier information, the Department of the Interior asked the NRC to evaluate them and their implications for the biota of the basin. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River Basin, which prepared this report. New developments have occurred since the previous reports were published, so this report is not a revisiting of the issues covered by the earlier ones. This committee endorses the recommendations of the earlier reports for reversing the declines of the listed species, and this report should be considered as building on the previ- ous ones, continuing where they left off. THE pRESENT STuDY Statement of Task A multidisciplinary committee will be established to evaluate new sci- entific information that has become available since the NRC issued its 2004 report on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin. The new information to be evaluated by the committee will include two new reports on (1) the hydrology of the Klamath Basin and (2) habitat needs for anadromous fish in the Klamath River, including coho salmon. The committee will also identify additional information needed to better understand the basin ecosystem. To complete its charge, the committee will 1. Review and evaluate the methods and approach used in the Natu- ral Flow Study to create a representative estimate of historical flows and the Hardy Phase II studies, to predict flow needs for coho and other anad- romous fishes.

OCR for page 1
6 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN 2. Review and evaluate the implications of those studies’ conclusions within the historical and current hydrology of the upper basin; for the biol- ogy of the listed species; and separately for other anadromous fishes. 3. Identify gaps in the knowledge and in the available scientific information. Committee Process To execute its charge, the committee met four times. At the first three meetings, the committee heard presentations from scientists and others, in- cluding agency officials familiar with various aspects of the region and the operation of the Klamath Project; the committee also received presentations from the public. The committee visited a restoration and research project on the upper Shasta River, the Iron Gate Dam and hatchery on the Klamath River, and the monitoring station near the mouth of the Shasta River. In- dividual members of the committee and staff also visited other parts of the basin, including portions of the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam, Upper Klamath Lake; the Williamson, Sprague, and Wood Rivers; the Link River and Link River Dam; Keno Dam, and J.C. Boyle Dam. CONCLuSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We present the committee conclusions on the Natural Flow Study and the Instream Flow Study Phase II, along with recommendations for their improvement, followed by more general conclusions and recommenda- tions for the conduct of science for management in the Klamath basin. The committee concludes that a more coherent, systematic, and comprehensive analysis of scientific and management needs for the basin should be con- ducted to identify the most important and urgent science needs to inform management decisions. Only when—and if—that analysis concludes that the Natural Flow Study and the Instream Flow Study Phase II are important components of such a comprehensive framework should the committee’s recommended improvements to them be implemented. THE NATuRAL FLOW STuDY USBR conducted the study Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River to “estimate the effects of agricultural development on natural flows in the Upper Klamath River Basin” using an “estimate of the monthly natural flows in the Upper Klamath River at Keno.” Essentially, the USBR study provided flow estimates that would be observed if there were no agricul- tural development, such as draining of marshes and diversions of flow, in the upper Klamath basin. The products of the study were to be used as

OCR for page 1
 SUMMARY inputs for the Instream Flow Study. The study and the committee’s evalua- tion of it are described in detail in Chapter 4. Committee Evaluation The Natural Flow Study for the Klamath River has several admirable attributes. The data sets describing stream flow that the Natural Flow Study assembled are extensive and are highly useful. The conceptual model developed to identify the components needed in a natural-flow model ap- pears to be adequate. The simulated data adequately reflect the monthly seasonality of the flow system. Human activities have modified that system over substantial portions of the basin above the Iron Gate Dam gauge site, and USBR investigators included many of these modifications in their calculations. Investigators recognized the importance of marsh conversions and agricultural activities in affecting river flows, and included these factors in their calculations. The documentation for the Natural Flow Study is ac- cessible to the reader and provides a straightforward explanation of what the modelers did and how they did it, and provides the complete output of the research. The report also addresses important issues about the natural flow model, including brief accountings of model verification, sensitivity, and uncertainty. The committee concluded, however, that the Natural Flow Study was seriously compromised by several fundamental issues, including its choice of a basic approach for understanding natural flows, choices of the models for calculations, and serious omissions of factors likely to influence river flows at the Iron Gate Dam gauge site, as described below: • The products of the Natural Flow Study, flow values for the Klam- ath River at the Iron Gate Dam site, were calculated as monthly values. The ecological applications of these calculated flows require daily values, and as a result, the output of the study would not have satisfied its ultimate use requirements even if the study had been executed without other errors. • The USBR researchers relied on a “black box”2 method of ac- counting for flow using a standard spreadsheet as the foundation. The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) Modular Modeling System (MMS) provides greater flexibility and adaptability and provides a firmer theoretical founda- tion than a straightforward accounting system. • The calculations of the fate of water in the upper basin related to evapotranspiration were not done according to the best current methods, 2A “black box” method attempts to investigate a complex process—in this case, flows— without making assumptions about the mechanisms or structures that affect the process.

OCR for page 1
8 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN such as the Food and Agriculture Organization’s3 (FAO’s) version of the modified Blaney-Criddle method. A more serious concern was the model behavior when a sensitivity analysis of its output concerning agricultural land was conducted. The results were not explained, and the apparent anomaly appears to be related to the component of the model that deals with reduction of evapotranspiration in the Upper Klamath Lake marsh when it is converted to agriculture. • The USBR attempted to calculate flows at Iron Gate Dam without adequately addressing important controlling factors for those flows, includ- ing groundwater. • More generally, the Natural Flow Study did not fully address the issue of changes in land use and land cover. The inclusions of land-use and land-cover analyses in the study would have increased confidence in the resulting calculations because, if such changes are important, they would reflect their influence in the model output; if the changes are unimportant, that outcome could be convincingly demonstrated. • The study failed to adequately model the connection between the Klamath River and Lower Klamath Lake. • The study did not adhere closely enough to standard scientific and engineering practice in the areas of calibration, testing, quality assurance, and quality control. For example, the natural-flow model cannot be cali- brated using standard modeling practices. A reasonable check on the model can be made only by using the data from the earliest available measure- ments of flows. The committee concluded that the Natural Flow Study includes calcu- lated flows that are at best first approximations to useful estimates of such flows. The present version of the Natural Flow Study is less than adequate for input to the Instream Flow Study Phase II and does not provide enough information for detailed management of flows for the benefit of listed and other anadromous fish species in the Klamath River downstream from Iron Gate Dam. However, it does provide some basis for understanding unimpaired flows in the basin and for providing a context for more detailed management decisions. To become useful for more precise decision making in daily or even monthly flow management, the Natural Flow Study should be improved by (1) replacing the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)4 modified Blaney-Criddle method for calculating evapotranspiration with a more ac- curate and modern version, such as the FAO version of the method, using generally available data; (2) including groundwater dynamics in the model 3 An agency of the United Nations. 4 An agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, now called the Natural Resources Con- servation Service.

OCR for page 1
 SUMMARY in at least a general way; (3) improving the portions of the predictive model relating to land use and land cover so that changes in these variables are represented in a more complete fashion; (4) including the role of the Lost River and Lower Klamath Lake in the complicated high-flow scenarios; (5) replacing the black-box accounting method based on a spreadsheet with a more robust physically based model for generating flows, such as the USGS’s MMS, or its new model GSFLOW, which combines the MMS with the groundwater model MODFLOW; (6) including an extensive investiga- tion of high flows along with their geomorphic and ecological implications; and (7) adhering more closely to standard scientific and engineering prac- tice by extensively calibrating and testing the models and their underlying software, while addressing issues of quality assurance and quality control. The Natural Flow Study also should be modified to better meet the needs of the Instream Flow Study. Although the Natural Flow Study has advanced our understanding of the basin, its weaknesses also point to next steps that would help devel- opment of hydrologic models better suited and more transparent for the basin’s current problems. INSTREAM FLOW STuDY pHASE II The Instream Flow Study Phase II for the Klamath River Basin accepted information from the Natural Flow Study discussed above and produced recommendations for instream flows at the USGS stream gauge below Iron Gate Dam. To reach those recommendations, the Instream Flow Study Phase II included an elaborate series of investigations and model-building efforts. The general technical elements of an instream flow study, the pro- cedures followed in this particular case, and the committee’s evaluation of those procedures are described in detail in Chapter 5. Committee Evaluation Several aspects of the Instream Flow Study Phase II are praiseworthy. The measurement of stream-bed topography and of substrate characteris- tics in this study represents innovative cutting-edge methods that provided generally useful representations of the river channels. The two-dimensional hydrodynamic model in the Instream Flow Study Phase II represented the state-of-the-art application of flow models in simulating habitats. The application of two-dimensional approaches represented a willingness on the part of the investigators to engage in a highly complex and ambitious project to deal with the hydraulic and hydrologic aspects of the problem of characterizing fish habitat. The study incorporated distance to escape cover, an important variable that is sometimes ignored in other studies.

OCR for page 1
10 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN As a general perspective, the Instream Flow Study Phase II followed steps outlined in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), which has seen wide application in studies of this type. The authors of the Instream Flow Study Phase II applied the IFIM properly. They also used bioenergetics and a fish-population model to test their results, and they tested model output by comparing observations of fish with predicted fish locations. Despite these strengths, the committee found important shortcomings in the Instream Flow Study Phase II and its use of various models and data. Two major shortcomings—use of monthly data and lack of tributary analyses—are so severe that that they should be addressed before decision makers can use the outputs of the study to establish precise flow regimes with confidence. Neither was the fault of the authors of the Instream Flow Study Phase II; the shortcomings resulted from constraints imposed by the USBR, which indicated that lack of time and resources prevented them from providing additional calculations that would produce daily flows for the ecological modeling. Although monthly flow values can be useful for general river-basin planning, they are not useful for ecological modeling for river habitats, because the monthly average masks important discharge values that may exist only for a few days or even less. In short, planners operate on a monthly basis, but fish live on a daily basis. The elimination of consideration of tributary processes apparently resulted from an agreement reached by basin managers not to include tributary processes in the habitat studies to simplify the engagement of stakeholders in the process. Since only the main stem of the Klamath River was subject to analysis, stakeholders with interests in tributary locations would not have to deal directly with the study. The Klamath River is not a confined gutter for rainwater, and therefore analyzing the river without considering its tributaries is akin to analyzing a tree by assessing only its trunk but not its branches. In addition, the study did not include important water-quality attributes, such as dissolved oxygen levels, nutrient loadings, contaminants, and sediment concentrations, although each has important implications for the vitality of the fish populations of the Klamath River. Second, high flows are especially important to the physical and biological processes of the Klamath River, and further analysis of their frequency, du- ration, and timing is essential in understanding the dynamics of the river’s hydrologic, geomorphologic, and ecological processes. Reliance on monthly flow data, as outlined above, made analysis of high flows impossible within the scope of the study. Third, there was a lack of a thorough assessment of the relationship between flow-data time series and the behavior of different species and life stages and the population dynamics of coho and Chinook salmon. Fourth, the claim that the model outcomes are accurate, as assessed by some em-

OCR for page 1
11 SUMMARY pirical tests of fish distributions and by use of the SALMOD model, are not substantiated, impairing the utility of the Instream Flow Study Phase II. Statistical measures of the closeness of fit between model predictions and fish occurrence would substantially increase the confidence of users in the outputs of the study. Finally, there are three major shortcomings in the experimental de- sign of the Instream Flow Study Phase II: a fundamental beginning as- sumption about limits on salmon habitat, a lack of thorough assessment of the representativeness of the reaches used for detailed study, and the statistical approach to analyze the calculated set of instream flows did not use normalized data and did not have provisions for identifying serial autocorrelations. Despite these limitations, and in the absence of any better informa- tion currently available, the committee concludes that the recommended flows resulting from the Instream Flow Study Phase II probably represent an improvement for the anadromous fishes in the Klamath River over the current flow regime. These are improvements in flow because they include intra- and inter-annual variations and probably will enhance Chinook salmon growth and young-of-the-year production. Because the study was based on three species—Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead—it is not possible to know how well the recommendations apply to any one species or to all the species as a whole. Indeed, most of the information was from Chinook salmon, which suggests that confidence in its applicability to that species would be greater than to other species. To the degree that the studies conclusions are followed, it should be on an interim basis, pending the improvements the committee outlines below and a more comprehensive and integrated assessment of the science needs of the basin as a whole. The study would be improved for greater utility by (1) using daily flows as a basis for calculations; (2) taking into account habitats, water, and sediment contributions from tributaries; (3) specifically testing how representative the selected test reaches are of the entire river; (4) rigorous statistical testing of the model outcomes to support claims of accuracy; (5) including water-quality measures, sediment loadings, and contaminants in the modeling process; (6) including extended analyses of high-flow events; (7) exploring through thorough analysis of the habitat times series the presence or absence of any life-stage habitat limitations for a variety of spe- cies and life stages for natural and existing flows; (8) substituting another stochastic approach rather than the Periodic Autoregressive Moving Aver- age model to analyze the statistical nature of the calculated flows; and (9) conducting sensitivity analyses using dynamic fish-population growth and production models to investigate the influence of alternative flow regimes on life cycles and stages of salmon to understand the nature of bottlenecks that can potentially constrain population growth, as well as the potential

OCR for page 1
12 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN for flow-related improvements. Additional suggestions for improving the model are in Chapter 7. IMpLICATIONS FOR ANADROMOuS FISHES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER The Natural Flow Study The implications of the model investigations are mixed. From a positive perspective, the results define monthly “natural” variation that managers might reasonably expect, absent their own activities. The monthly varia- tion depicted by the model represents a simulated picture of the conditions under which the biological community of the river evolved and provides a backdrop for assessing the degree to which the present regulated flow regime departs. The flows also provide a general view of the total amounts of water involved in the river and lake regime, with about 1.4 million acre feet annually flowing out of the lake on the average. The Natural Flow Study reasonably captures the decadal variations in flows in the system that are likely to have occurred in the absence of upper- basin development and the installation of dams. These variations imply that some decadal fluctuation in flows is reasonable in the regulated system and that a completely unchanging regime imposed by engineering structures would not reflect the natural regime. However, the internal workings of the model in the Natural Flow Study include several computational shortcomings that limit its use. These issues imply that the natural flow model produces results that probably cannot be used as a precise replication of natural flows and that the individual numbers generated by the study are not firm, irrefutable values. The study’s shortcomings imply that managers of the biological resources of the basin may use the results of the model in a general way as a form of guidance for the broad characteristics of the natural flow regime, but they cannot use the exact values produced by the study as a template for developing a flow regime with much confidence. The model is a general representation, and because its output is in monthly time steps, it is not capable of generating the daily time step needed for a completely effective instream flow model to be used in any ecological model downstream. As described in consider- ations of the Instream Flow Study in Chapter 5, this limitation has a ripple effect that limits the utility of the instream flow recommendations. Finally, the current model is severely restricted for two general reasons. First, the basin and its biota have changed so much in the past century that the implications for the fishes of restoring “natural flows” are not clear.

OCR for page 1
13 SUMMARY Second, the model does not treat the tributaries of the Klamath River, al- though they are and have been an essential part of the environments of the anadromous fishes. Without understanding the ecological and hydrological condition and dynamics in the tributaries, it is not possible to understand the ecological and hydrological condition and dynamics of the river. A modified version of the Natural Flow Study model, using suggestions made in this report, could have management utility. It could be used as a template for a model of the present-day system. Such a model could be used to simulate “What if?” scenarios, test certain hypotheses, and demonstrate to stakeholders the implications of assorted management decisions and stakeholder choices. Since the Natural Flow Study model is built upon a familiar, user-friendly platform (Excel), a modified model might find wide use among stakeholders. The Instream Flow Study The basic conclusions of the Instream Flow Study are recommended flows expressed as monthly target values for discharges below Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River. The most important outcome of the Instream Flow Study was that it indicated that increases in existing flows downstream from Iron Gate Dam probably would benefit fish populations through im- proved physical habitat associated with more water and through reduced water temperatures. If these conclusions were borne out by studies incor- porating experimental flows and monitored responses, managers would be able to have greater confidence that decisions to increase flows would have a beneficial effect on anadromous fishes in the lower river. The authors of the Instream Flow Study mention two caveats, and this committee agrees with them. First, the flow recommendations apply to the needs of the anadromous fishes in the lower Klamath River, and they do not account for competing water demands for other purposes, such as agricultural needs or the needs of federally listed fishes in the upper basin. Second, the flow recommendations address the needs of all the anadromous species in the lower Klamath River. They are not targeted for any individual species (listed or otherwise), and it is not possible to evaluate the conclusions separately for individual species. Despite various concerns about the study, it is extremely unlikely, in the committee’s judgment, that following the prescribed flows of the Instream Flow Study Phase II would have adverse effects on any of the anadromous fish species. Based on general principles and the information developed in that study, following its prescribed flows probably would have some beneficial effects on the suite of anadromous fishes in the Klamath River considered as a whole, although not necessarily for every species.

OCR for page 1
14 HYDROLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND FISHES OF THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN DEVELOpING A COMpREHENSIVE SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK TO CONNECT SCIENCE AND DECISION MAKING The committee found that science in the basin was being done by bits and pieces, sometimes addressing important questions, but not linked to other important questions and their studies. The Natural Flow Study and the Instream Flow Study Phase II were major science and engineering inves- tigations, but the linkage of one to the other was only partially achieved. Other studies in the basin, such as the USGS’s hydrologic studies in the Sprague River basin, or the extensive research in the Trinity River basin (which is part of the Klamath River basin), seem not to have had any influ- ence on each other or on the flow studies examined in this report. The com- mittee found that the most important characteristics of research for complex river-basin management were missing for the Klamath River: the need for a “big picture” perspective based on a conceptual model encompassing the entire basin and its many components. As a result, the integration of indi- vidual studies into a coherent whole has not taken place, and it is unlikely to take place under the present scientific and political arrangements. To address science and management in the basin, the committee first recommends that the agencies, researchers, decision makers, and stakehold- ers together define basin-wide science needs and priorities. One method of achieving success in this effort would be through the establishment of an independent entity to develop an integrated vision of science needs. The body that defines this vision must be viewed by all parties as truly indepen- dent for it to be effective, unlike the Conservation Improvement Program, which, despite good intentions, appears to many people in the region as a creature of the USBR, and therefore associated with the bureau’s official mandates and responsibilities. If the proposed task force reports to the secretary of the interior, rather than to any specific agency, it is more likely to avoid the appearance of being controlled by any particular agency or interest group in the basin and thus more likely to be and to appear inde- pendent. Leadership of the task force by a senior scientist who reports to the secretary would be a major step toward removing perceived biases in science and its application. The committee concludes that when the science needs for the basin are better characterized, the individual studies necessary to create a sound science-based body of knowledge for decision makers and managers will be more easily identified. Only if this general vision and process determines that the Natural Flow Study and the Instream Flow Study Phase II might help satisfy science needs in the basin should investigators seek to address the shortcomings that the committee has identified. The Trinity River basin experience, despite some difficulties, provides a good example to follow in many aspects of the overall basin-wide effort.

OCR for page 1
1 SUMMARY Connecting effective science with successful decision making for deliv- ering water to users, sustaining downstream fisheries, and protecting the populations of protected species has been problematic in the Klamath River basin. The Natural Flow Study and the Instream Flow Study Phase II are not likely to contribute effectively to sound decision making until political and scientific arrangements in the Klamath River basin that permit more cooperative and functional decision making can be developed. The employ- ment of sound science will require the following elements: • A formal science plan for the Klamath River basin that defines research activities and the interconnections among them, along with how they relate to management and policy. • An independent mechanism for science review and management that is isolated from direct political and economic influence and that in- cludes a lead scientist or senior scientist position occupied by an authorita- tive voice for research. • A whole-basin viewpoint that includes both the upper and lower Klamath River basins with their tributary streams. • A data and analysis process that is transparent and that provides all parties with complete and equal access to information, perhaps through an independent science advisory group. • An adaptive-management approach whereby decisions are played out in water management with monitoring and constant assessment and with periodic informed adjustments in management strategies. The committee recommends that the researchers, decision makers, and stakeholders in the Klamath River basin emulate their colleagues in the Trinity River basin in connecting science and decision making and that the two units coordinate their research and management for the greater good of the entire river basin.