In April 2011, I was hired as the
Bureau of Reclamation’s science adviser and
scientific integrity officer. After I questioned the
accuracy of science reporting and summary documents
related to the Klamath Secretarial Decision, I faced
systematic reprisal and my job as the Bureau of
Reclamation’s science advisor was terminated.
Subsequently, I filed a scientific integrity allegation, and was invited to speak publicly about it in May 2012. I was confronted with a very wide range of questions, where I carefully offered my opinion or relevant information. Recently, Mr. Dennis Lynch (USGS) questioned some of this information. Below I summarize the rationale for my comments, and offer some additional perspective (full text available at http://prhouser.com/houser/?p=830).
■ Mr. Lynch states that “our team summarized these findings in an overview report that received a second layer peer review from six independent experts.” He fails to mention the peer review comment 3-5: “The Summary and Findings section does not sufficiently express the uncertainties in the responses to restoration options” which is generally consistent with my allegation. These concerns should be addressed by writing a new summary that accurately portrays the dam removal uncertainties and risks, and the additional actions that will be needed to meet the environmental and societal goals.
■ Mr. Lynch disagrees with my
comment that a more in-depth engineering
analysis is needed to assure that Iron Gate Dam
is removed safely. My comment was based on an
environmental impact statement/environmental
impact report comment submitted by Stephen Koshy,
who warned that notching the earth-filled Iron
Gate Dam may cause it to fail. This concern can
be addressed by providing a public response to
Mr. Koshy along with the relevant engineering
analyses.
■ Mr. Lynch disagrees with my
comment that the sediment coming out of the dams
would be the equivalent volume of one to three
feet covering 190 miles of a 150-foot-wide
channel. The sediment volume studies have
discrepancies, but my volume equivalency
calculations are correct. Further, the draft EIS/EIR
states: “Short-term (two-year) aggradation of
sediment from the dams could be substantial
below Iron Gate Dam downstream to Willow Creek,
with up to 5 feet of deposition within 0.5 miles
downstream of the dam, to 1.5 feet of deposition
near Willow Creek.” Downstream impacts of
sediment are a significant concern, so alternate
options such as dredging may also need to be
more seriously considered.
■ Mr. Lynch disagrees with my
concerns that the released sediments may be
harmful to fish, and may have a significant
impact for one to two years. The draft EIS/EIR
states “… the short-term (<2 years following dam
removal) increases in SSCs [suspended sediment]
in the lower Klamath River and the Klamath
Estuary would be a significant impact.”
■ Water quality and reservoir
sedimentation in the Klamath Basin are very
complex issues. While a 2011 Department of
Interior report did show that the reservoir
sediments have toxic elements below most
guidelines, the Upper Basin is well known to
have water and sediment quality issues, and
these sediments are being deposited in the
reservoirs. A 2006 PacifiCorp study concludes
that the absence of the project reservoirs would
exacerbate water quality impairment by reducing
dissolved oxygen and promoting growth of algae.
Water quality issues above the PacifiCorp dams
may be amongst the most significant risks to
successful river restoration; these water
quality issues should be mitigated prior to dam
removal.
■ Finally, Mr. Lynch objects to
my statement that non-native coho salmon were
introduced in the Klamath starting in 1895. A
California Department of Fish and Game’s 2002
report confirms my statement and further
indicates that “historically, the practice of
importing non-native fish was common …” The
draft EIS/EIR also states that “the vast
majority of coho salmon that spawn in the
Klamath Basin are believed to be of hatchery
origin, although the percentage varies among
years.” Based on the century-long history of
non-native salmon transfers and hatchery origin
fish, it would be tough to identify a truly
native wild Klamath coho. Nonetheless, it is the
law to protect them.
The outcomes of dam removal on
this scale and in this unique environment have
significant risks and uncertainties. A positive
outcome is not guaranteed and a tragic outcome
is possible.
There are several innovative and
economical solutions to meet the Klamath Basin
goals that are not being actively considered
because they fall outside the politics of the
Klamath agreements. It is in the public trust,
and a duty of scientific integrity to seriously
consider these alternatives.
My goal is to make sure that
decision makers are aware of these risks and
uncertainties, and account for them in their
decision-making process. By only reporting the
positive aspects of dam removal without the
uncertainties and additional needed mitigation,
the meaning of the science is perturbed, which
may lead to poor decisions.