<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><br>
<div align="center"><b>More Ethical Problems with Klamath Dam
Removal Process than Press Releases</b><br>
By Pat Higgins<br>
</div>
<br>
Thanks to the Two Rivers Tribune for the excellent article on the
ethics scandal related to the government dam removal process
(Whistle-Blower Says DOI Employees Spun Science on Klamath Dam
Removal). The dismissal of Scientific Integrity Officer Dr. Paul
Houser by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for trying to keep them
true to science is very ironic, but not a surprise to someone who
has tracked the Klamath dam removal process closely. While Dr.
Houser may be restricting his concerns to whether the Department of
Interior (DOI) press releases reflected scientific findings, in fact
the ethics problems and abuse of science in the dam removal process
goes much deeper than that.<br>
<br>
Your article is correct in its assertion that government staff ended
up as promoters of the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement
(KHSA) and its companion Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA)
because of the Secretary of Interior’s strong support. Environmental
documents produced by the government provided no alternatives to the
KBRA, such as ecological restoration. This is illegal under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires the
government to "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives
to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
resources." Instead of analyzing controversial aspects of the KBRA,
the government claimed that actions under the KBRA were not yet
defined. The real reason the actions of the KBRA were not analyzed
is because they couldn’t be scientifically justified.<br>
<br>
The best scientific reports related to the Klamath dam removal
process were those produced by Expert Panels for Chinook Salmon and
for Steelhead and Coho Salmon, which were composed some of the
foremost authorities on salmon restoration. The questions raised by
these experts are not even broached in the environmental impact
report. Documents and presentations by DOI all selected the same
quote as representative of the Chinook Expert Panel: “The Proposed
Action appears to be a major step forward in conserving Chinook
compared with decades of vigorous disagreements, obvious fish
passage barriers, and continued ecological degradation.”<br>
<br>
Actually the Chinook Expert Panel stated that lack of effective KBRA
nutrient reduction in the Upper Klamath Basin would cause the Keno
Reservoir reach to remain an anoxic dead-zone for weeks a year. With
regard to sufficiency of pollution reduction of the KBRA they stated
that “The Panel is nevertheless very concerned that the magnitude of
the proposed solutions may not match the scope and extent of the
water quality problem…. Without solving the water quality problems,
a fully self-sustaining run of fall Chinook salmon to the upper
basin is unlikely.” <br>
<br>
The Steelhead and Coho Expert Panel also expressed concern that
lower Klamath River algae blooms would continue after dam removal
and create stressful conditions for salmonid juveniles and high
incidences of fish disease. “Thus, it would be premature to conclude
that any problems caused by these blooms, including low dissolved
oxygen, will be substantially reduced by KBRA.” <br>
<br>
The recently released dam removal Overview report is another example
of out of control spin. It blatantly misrepresents science and
mischaracterizes Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
findings. It says “FERC (2007) concluded that dam removal would
enhance water quality and reduce the cumulative water quality and
habitat effects that contribute to disease-induced salmon die-offs
in the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam.” In reality, the
FERC final Environmental Impact Statement on dam relicensing (p 155)
asserts that acute fish disease problems would likely continue after
dam removal and that only the location of where fish diseases occur
would change. <br>
<br>
Lost River and shortnose suckers are the canaries in the Upper
Klamath coal mine and the Overview report makes the following claim:
“KBRA implementation would provide greater promise for preventing
extinction of these species, and for increasing overall population
abundance and productivity, than would occur if the dams were left
place and KBRA was not implemented.” Only three populations of
these fish remain: Tule Lake, Upper Klamath Lake and Clear Lake in
the upper Lost River. On April 22, 2010, less than 90 days after
the KBRA was signed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
issued a revised Biological Opinion for Klamath Project operation
allowing BOR to drop Tule Lake to where it would no longer support
suckers and allowing sucker removal. Although federal agencies are
not bound by the KBRA without authorizing legislation, no other
reason but adherence to the KBRA seems to explain USFWS complicity.
The agency abdicating its responsibility to protect endangered
suckers raises additional serious moral questions.<br>
<br>
People should also keep in mind that this is not the first ethics
scandal on the Klamath. Fisheries biologist Mike Kelly blew the
whistle when he quit the National Fisheries Marine Fisheries Service
in 2004. Flows for coho are also in play with the KBRA and the NMFS
Biological Opinion for Klamath Project operation was already
compromised according to Kelly’s resignation letter. “In October
2002, I believed, both personally and professionally, that our
agency had violated the law during the Klamath River ESA Section 7
consultation, and I filed a disclosure under the Whistleblower
Protection Act. Although a federal judge eventually ruled the
Klamath consultation was illegal, my specific allegations were
dismissed. My efforts were ultimately unproductive, and appear to
have served only to create stress for my supervisors, my family and
me. Threatened coho salmon in the Klamath basin still do not have
adequate flow conditions to assure their survival.”<br>
<br>
The reason that water quality problems cannot be solved by the KBRA
is that not enough of the marsh and lakes of the Upper Basin would
be restored so that the natural water storage and water purification
capacity is rebuilt. Dam decommissioning can be achieved through the
FERC relicensing process instead of the KHSA. If the Klamath River
is ultimately to be saved, legislation taking ecological restoration
approach similar to the Everglades will be necessary because it is
the only scientifically valid solution.<br>
<br>
For more information see <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.KlamathER.org/">www.KlamathER.org</a>.<br>
<br>
<i>Patrick Higgins is a consulting fisheries biologist who has been
assisting the Resighini Rancheria with its response to the
government dam removal process.</i><br>
<br>
<br></div></div><br></body></html>