Where the Nation turns for Independent, Expert Advice
The National Academies > Earth & Life Studies > Reports: Academies Findings > Report
Text Size
The Division The Academies
Report: Academies' FindingsLearn more about Reports >>
Read/Purchase
Scientific Evaluation of Biological Opinions on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Interim Report (2002)

Key Findings
  • A substantial data-collection and analytical effort by multiple agencies, tribes, and other parties has not shown a clear connection between water level in Upper Klamath Lake and conditions that are adverse to the welfare of the suckers.
  • All components of the biological opinion issued by the USFWS on the endangered suckers have substantial scientific support except for the recommendations concerning minimum water levels for Upper Klamath Lake.
  • Extremes of chemical conditions considered threatening to the welfare of the fish have not coincided with years of low water level, and the highest recorded recruitment of new individuals into the adult populations occurred through reproduction in a year of low water level.
  • The USBR proposals also are unjustified, because they would leave open the possibility that water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and minimum flows in the Klamath River main stem could be lower than those occurring over the past 10 years for specific kinds of climatic conditions.
  • There is no substantial scientific foundation at this time for changing the operation of the Klamath Project to maintain higher water levels in Upper Klamath Lake for the endangered sucker populations or higher minimum flows in the Klamath River main stem for the threatened coho population.
About Reports : Academies' Findings

The division produces 60-70 reports per year. These reports are unique, authoritative expert evaluations. Each report is produced by a committee of experts selected by the Academy to address a particular statement of task and is subject to a rigorous, independent peer review. The experts who volunteer their time participating on study committees are vetted to make sure that the committee has the range of expertise needed to address the task, that they have a balance of perspectives, and to identify and eliminate members with conflicts of interest. All reports undergo a rigorous, independent peer review to assure that the statement of task has been addressed, that conclusions are adequately supported, and that all important issues raised by the reviewers are addressed. Thus, while the reports represent views of the committee, they also are endorsed by the Academy.