Sommarstrom’s task, as cited in her report, was to “Listen to and assess the content of the Science Conference presentations for their scientific assumptions, adequacy and objectivity, particularly as they might relate to the County’s water-related issues and concerns in the Basin, including removal of the Klamath dams, flow studies, water quality/TMDLs, and salmon recovery.”
|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
Report identifies key Siskiyou County issues at Klamath science conference
Siskiyou
Daily
News
February
19,
2010
Yreka,
Calif.
-
Dr.
Sari
Sommarstrom’s
analysis
of
the
recent
Klamath
Basin
Science
Conference
in
Medford,
Ore.
was
presented
to
the
Siskiyou
County
Board
of
Supervisors
Tuesday,
and
covered
her
assessment
of
the
presentations,
science
needs
she
feels
still
exist
and
what
she
feels
were
important
highlights,
as
well
as a
number
of
other
impressions.
Sommarstrom says in her overview that she believed there was not as much of a political and adverserial tone she felt had been present at a 2004 lower Klamath Basin science conference held in Arcata, Calif., but still felt there were “innuendoes and assertions about implied ‘stressors’ and cause-effect relationships” inserted by some panelists, speakers and audience questioners “not in the tone of ‘hypotheses’ to be tested.”
“Despite these and other issues, the conference’s overall scientific content turned out to be reasonably objective,” Sommarstrom stated.
Sommarstrom also commented on what she believes was a “serious gap” at the conference – “the expectations of the role of scientists and non-scientists by the conference speakers” – and explained her position, stating that she perceived the speakers to be stating their role “as being above the fray and not needing to engage with any ‘public stakeholders,’ as that would be seen as tainting or politicizing their research.”
Sommarstrom’s summary included sections titled Recommendations for Siskiyou County, Critical Data and Information Gaps and Science Needs, Highlights, Red Flags, and Potential Bias and Disappointments.
• Sommarstrom’s reccomendations were that Siskiyou County seek funding from the United States Department of the Interior or other federal departments to hire a full-time staff scientist to actively participate in basin science meetings, insist that a “truly open and cooperative process is used to build trust with the scientific findings for the Secretarial Determination,” develop a list of science needs, request a two-way dialogue for future basin needs with or without the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and become an active participant in the planning of future science conferences, among other goals.
• Sommarstrom also stated that she believes Siskiyou County needs studies and research to include sediment transport estimates “for post-dam scenarios to apply a variety of equations to obtain a reasonable range of predictions,” the effect of recent flow regulation schedules in the Klamath and Trinity systems on adult salmon spawner population migration timing for Coho and Chinook species, the effects of “intense” sport and tribal fish take on the genetic diversity on Chinook salmon early in the season, the effect water releases from Upper Klamath Lake would have on the system after dam removal and a multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the dynamics of the Klamath’s watersheds, as well as a number of other facets of research.
• Highlights, according to Sommarstrom, included the professional way in which in the conference was run, the focus on the whole basin with talks by “top-notch researchers,” acknowledgment by United States Geological Survey leaders that “two-way” listening is needed to inform the public and the representation of “dynamic and changing conditions” due to climate change.
• Sommarstrom also listed what she believes were red flags and potential biases, including the strict timeline for completion of studies that will inform a dam removal decision, the perception of scientists that they must operate in isolation of public concerns, the differences between the solutions of management and science and the utility and drawbacks to the use of conceptual models.
• Sommarstrom also listed a number of dissappointments she came away with after the conference, including what she felt was the implication that management decisions are limited to state, federal and tribal decision-makers; the lack of a focus on the middle-basin as an area distinct from the upper and lower basin; and her sense that the attitudes of those participating ranged from “cautious optimism to euphoria.”
The report also features Sommarstrom’s assessment of the technical sessions at the conference, the “breakout” sessions for attendee input and what she felt were the take-home science and policy messages.
Sommarstrom was asked by the Daily News as to whether her report, which covers a wide variety of questions and topics, will be made available online, and she stated that it is expected to be available within a week. She said that the report will be available on the county’s Web site, courtesy of Natural Resource Policy Specialist Ric Costales.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml