The myth of “no peer review” of the estuary studies

By | January 3, 2012

Just when we decide to round up all of the myths about Capitol Lake, there’s another one to put on the stack.

Last week Allen Miller, a CLIPA board member, wrote this on the organization’s facebook account:
ATM and peer review The myth of no peer review of the estuary studies

 

But, how true is the statement “The Estuary Feasibility Study is not backed by peer-science”? Not true at all.

The Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study (DEFS) ran from 2003 to 2008. In October 2007, the Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Project committee released the Deschutes Independent Technical Review Report (pdf link). The purpose of this report was to “assesses the scientific objectivity and technical merits of the four scientific reports done as part of the Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study.”

You can take a look at the report yourself, but the peer-review included seven independent researchers combing over all the technical aspects of the estuary studies. While CLIPA calls for “a peer review of just the dredging and capital improvement issues,” the review that has already been conducted included reviews of “Sediment Transport & Hydraulic Modeling” and “Engineering Design and Cost Estimating.” The other areas reviewed are “Reference Estuary Study and Biological Conditions ” and  ”Net Benefits Analysis.”