Committee on Resources - Hornady-Marshall Auditorium College Park

Home Browse Search

Scientific Pvalunplan of AlolosicaI opinion4 on Lndnngcmd and Thnrn.tenod rl9hos in the Klamath Rivo•Basl n• Interim Report (2002) nnpyhnua .ny+cHWo�cnM��Anuuw�lduh roin.htrnl. cotgtiplo `_ixiz. 2mi 1Mc rjoinW Atl*my or sci=A Wi K$hin mscmed iDLMMUCTION biological opinion was issued on-the coho population by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NNIFS 2001), which has the prime responsibility for ESA actions on these fish because they are anadromous. The two biological opinions differ sharply from the two corresponding USBR assessments in that they call for maintenance of higher lake levels and higher main -stem flows than the assessments. Year 2001 brought a severe drought to the Klamath River Basin. The Department of the Interior (DOI) determined that the biological opinions on the endangered and threatened species must take priority over other uses of water, and that the amounts of water specified as reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) in the biological opinions should be maintained to the degree physically possible prior to the provision of water for consumptive use as specified by contracts between, irrigators and the USBR through its Klamath Project. Consequently, most of the water that otherwise would have been delivered to irrigators through the Klamath Project was not delivered. Substantial agricultural losses occurred, along with damage to the economic base of the Klamath Rivet Basin (actual losses are still being estimated, but the work of Adams and Cho (1998) shows that direct losses to farmers alone would probably exceed $20 million) , Given the strong economic consequences for implementation of the biological opinions through their effect on the Klamath Project, the DOI determined that the scientific basis for the two opinions should be reviewed. The National Research Council (NRC) was asked, through the National Academy of Sciences, to form a committee to study the two opinions. Sponsors of the review include the USBR and the USFWS of the Department of the Interior and the NMFS of the Department of Commerce. A portion of the work of the NRC committee and the committee's interim conclusions are summarized in this report. The two biological opinions and the two biological assessments contain valuable literature reviews. The committee cites these documents in lieu of the primary literature for much of the background subject matter of this report, but cites individual studies that are of particular importance to the committee's conclusions wherever appropriate. Tasks of the NRC Committee The work of the NRC Committee on En&"ered and Tbmatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin is divided into two phases (see statement of task. Appendix A). The first phase, reported here, involves a preliminary assessment of the scientific validity of the two biological opinions and their RPAs, particularly as they relate to the near -term operation of the Klamath Project. Ina second phase, the committee will conduct amore broad - ranging study of evidence related to the welfare of the endangered and threatened species. Whereas the interim report focuses specifically on the biological opinions, the final report may extend beyond the biological opinions to deal more extensively with water pollution or other such subjects that arc not directly under control of the Klamath Project. This effort will culminate in a second report that will give the committee's consensus view of the long -term requirements of the species. Although the interim report specifically deals with the two biological opinions, the committee also gives its conclusions about the two biological assessments upon which the biological opinions are based. If the biological opinions were rejected fully or in part, the presumed alternative for operation of the Klamath Project would be as 966 -d BEO /OZOA 9EZ -1 8998998EOE sannom innIVN 100 -woad W H ZOOZ- 80 -93d