- News Home
17 April 2014 12:48 pm ,
Vol. 344 ,
Officials last week revealed that the U.S. contribution to ITER could cost $3.9 billion by 2034—roughly four times the...
An experimental hepatitis B drug that looked safe in animal trials tragically killed five of 15 patients in 1993. Now,...
Using the two high-quality genomes that exist for Neandertals and Denisovans, researchers find clues to gene activity...
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that humanity has done little to slow...
Astronomers have discovered an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf—a star cooler than the sun—500...
Three years ago, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University proposed that a warming Arctic was altering the behavior of the...
- 17 April 2014 12:48 pm , Vol. 344 , #6181
- About Us
Avoiding a Klamath Calamity
22 October 2003 (All day)
Saving three species of endangered fish along the Oregon-California border will take more than just regulating irrigation water, according to a report released yesterday by the National Research Council (NRC). Among the fixes, the report recommends considering tearing out dozens of small dams, temporarily closing a fish hatchery, restoring wetlands, altering logging practices, and refilling long-drained lakes. Critics say such wide-ranging actions--though commendable--might not come in time to save fish stocks already in peril.
Many scientists think that the best way to help the fish is by getting more water into the Klamath River. That means turning down the spigot for farmers who irrigate crops with water from Upper Klamath Lake. Last year, however, the NRC committee released an interim report that drew widespread fire from researchers and environmentalists; it concluded that there was no scientific evidence that endangered salmon or threatened suckers would benefit (Science, 4 April, p. 36). In the final report, the committee stuck by their previous assessment. "Further negotiation over water levels will not lead to meaningful recovery of the fish," says William Lewis Jr., a limnologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who chaired the 12-member committee.
Instead, Lewis and other committee members say that the focus of recovery efforts must be on improving habitat for spawning and rearing. Also needed is monitoring to help fisheries managers select the actions that work best. "The endangered sucker and coho are a symptom rather than a disease," says Peter Moyle, a committee member and fisheries biologist at the University of California, Davis. "The only way to solve these problems is to look at collective problems in the basin," he says.
The committee estimates that it will cost up to $35 million to set up a broad-based research program throughout the basin and carry out habitat improvements such as installing screens at the headgates of irrigation canals to prevent fish from being swept inside. Major changes, such as tearing down dams, will likely cost much more. Says Douglas Markle, a fisheries biologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis: "Making any of that happen is the rub in all of this."