Bureau apologizes to Klamath Basin biologists

• By Damon Arthur

Redding.com

• Posted April 22, 2013 at 5:54 p.m.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has backed off a plan to outsource jobs and apologies to  seven Klamath Basin biologists who claimed scientific misconduct.

Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Regional Director David Murillo said the biologists would not be reassigned and promised better cooperation with employees.

In a letter written last fall, the employees were told by the Klamath Area Office manager they were being reassigned because of a perception they were biased and their work intentionally contradicted that produced by other agencies.

WELL WORTH THE READ:

 http://www.redding.com/news/2013/apr/22/bureau-apologizes-to-klamath-basin-biologists/?partner=newsletter_headlines

By TIM HEARDEN

Capital Press

Posted: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:50 AM

YREKA, Calif. – A former U.S. Bureau of Reclamation senior science adviser is criticizing the Interior Department’s review of his scientific integrity complaint about the Klamath River dam removal process.

Paul Houser, who reached a settlement with the government in December after claiming he was fired last year for speaking out, argues the government has failed to evaluate the full scope of his complaint.

Houser alleged last year that officials wrote a summary and news release to elicit support for dam removal while downplaying negative remarks from scientists that were in the full reports.

A panel assembled to investigate Houser’s allegations reported it did not find evidence that a communications official had “deviated from the standard practice” of the department, although it did conclude “the issue of how scientific uncertainty is represented in press releases needs to be addressed” by officials.

“The end result is that my scientific integrity complaint has been dismissed without being fully investigated or even cogently considered, and continues the department’s record of never finding itself in violation of its own scientific integrity policy,” Houser wrote in a rebuttal.

Houser, 42, became a darling of Klamath dam removal opponents and tea party activists after he went public about his February 2012 departure from Reclamation, over which he filed federal whistleblower and scientific-integrity complaints.

In a speech to a local group here last May, he said it appeared top Interior officials had already decided they wanted the dams out and were seeking the science to back up their decision.

A George Mason University professor and former National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist, Houser was hired by the bureau in 2011 to oversee the scientific studies on the Klamath project, which would include the removal of four dams as well as numerous river-restoration efforts.

Houser reached a settlement with the agency over his whistleblower complaint after mediation with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Terms of the agreement required that neither side disclose specifics about the outcome.

Houser’s allegations that scientific data about the project was manipulated for political purposes was investigated separately. Interior officials have said a scientific integrity website was added to demonstrate the department’s commitment to transparency.

Agency spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw declined to comment about Houser’s rebuttal, saying in an email the panel’s report “really should speak for itself.”

Online

Summary of scientific integrity panel report: http://www.doi.gov/scientificintegrity/closed-cases.cfm

Paul Houser rebuttal: http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/doi/3_25_13_Houser_rebuttal.pdf

         Townhall.com

•         By         David Spady

Something’s amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, “Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?”

Fictional book authors operate in a convenient world, unconstrained by facts and experiences of the real world. The antithesis of works of fiction are scientific findings solely based on provable facts and experience. For agenda-driven environmental science, facts can sometime prove inconvenient. It’s far easier to advance an agenda with agreeable science, even if that means creating science fiction or fictional science. Fictional science thus becomes the pseudo-reality of environmentalist’s absolutism and any science that disagrees with their predetermined conclusions of man-made harm to the environment is ignored or distorted. Now we learn that in some government agencies, scientists who question the veracity and validity of scientific evidence used to formulate environmental regulations and policies are shunned, kept quiet, and purged.

The purpose of fictional environmental science is to sway public opinion through what amounts to propaganda. Intransigent purveyors of “green” propaganda know their greatest enemy is truth. One of the most famous propaganda experts was Germany’s Joseph Goebbels, who taught that if a lie is repeated often enough it will eventually be accepted as truth. Goebbels also knew that truth has to be suppressed if it contradicts the objectives of the propaganda. Goebbels wrote, “It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Over the past three decades, government has unleashed an unprecedented wave of environmental rules and regulations that affect nearly every aspect of American life, and for the most part the public has tolerated it. Public embrace of environmental propaganda and fear mongering about the apocalyptic consequences of mankind’s abuse of the planet have elevated environmentalism to a status above national security. The public is now more likely to give up rights and freedoms for the cause of saving the planet than for security reasons.

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidspady/2013/01/18/government-scientist-gets-fired-for-telling-the-truth-n1492207

PNP comment : This group is based in Arcata on the coast of Northern California. Their statements are lies, myths and propaganda. Their numbers or known wolves are way off. Really sickening. — Editor Liz Bowen

Take Action to Protect Wolves

By Natalynne DeLapp
Friday, December 21st, 2012

http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2013/01/more-whistles-sound-on-klamath-river-science/

Two Rivers Tribune.com

The Klamath River./TRT File Photo

By KRISTAN KORNS, Two Rivers Tribune

Seven biologists claim “coercive threats” are being used to censor scientific reports and to silence scientists working for the Bureau of Reclamation.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a complaint Monday, Jan. 7, 2013 with the Department of the Interior on behalf of the seven scientists.

PEER wrote in their complaint that the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office Manager Jason Phillips had sent a memo threatening to shut down that office’s Fisheries Resources Branch because their scientific studies had been “causing problems” for other agencies.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER, said, “This was used as a way to intimidate them and put them in line.”

Pete Lucerno, public affairs officer for the Mid-Pacific Region Bureau of Reclamation, said Phillips’ memo could have been worded better, but was only intended to open a line of discussion with the scientists and their union.

“The Bureau’s new Regional Director David Murillo, who came on in mid-December, is working with Jason [Phillips] to see how best to maximize our resources,” Lucerno said. “This is clearly a case of reorganizing for efficiency’s sake to meet our mission.”

In the memo sent out in November, Phillips recommended shifting research and data collection for the Klamath area over to the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Phillips wrote, “Stakeholders in the Klamath Basin, including tribes, other agencies, and interest groups, view studies performed by USGS and other scientific entities, such as universities, as credible.”

“Unfortunately, this is not the case of the studies carried out by KBAO,” Phillips wrote.

Hoopa Valley Tribal Chairman Leonard Masten Jr. said, “Recent claims of retribution by government scientists come as no surprise.”

“The Bureau of Reclamation has used bad science in the past,” Masten said. “No one living on the Klamath can forget the Bush administration decision to manipulate science in 2002 and the subsequent death of 60,000 salmon.”

In 2002, water was diverted away from the Klamath to desperate Oregon farmers during a drought, despite Endangered Species Act regulations designed to protect the river’s fish.

By September 2002, tens of thousands of fish were dead and rotting along the banks of the river.

Then lead biologist on the Klamath for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Mike Kelley blew the whistle on what he characterized as political pressure to ignore or reverse science findings.

“I believed, both personally and professionally, that our agency had violated the law during the Klamath River ESA [Endangered Species Act] section 7 consultation,” Kelley said.

Kelley’s team had just delivered a report outlining the lowest possible flows for survival of Coho salmon, when his supervisor received a call and stepped out of the room.
When the supervisor returned, he cut the estimated flows in half.

It was later revealed by The Washington Post that unprecedented political pressure had been brought by then Vice President Dick Cheney in support of Oregon farmers.

The political pressure included direct phone calls from Cheney to officials far down the chain of command in the Interior Department, to handle “this Klamath situation.”

More recently, hydrologist Paul Hauser, a science advisor and scientific integrity officer for the Bureau of Reclamation, said he was dismissed from his post in February 2012 in retaliation for exposing “intentional falsification” and “biased summarization” of scientific results.

“The expectation for employees to compromise scientific integrity in support of Departmental missions and goals, and to engage in systematic reprisal when an employee questions the Department’s scientific integrity, is clearly an abuse of authority,” Hauser said.

Lucerno said possible reorganization of the Fisheries Resources Branch had nothing to do with scientific misconduct or reprisal, but is a way to avoid wasting resources or duplicating the efforts of other agencies.

“If Fish and Wildlife is doing scientific research, why do we need to continue to do the same research when we have other things these guys could be doing?” Lucerno said.

Lucerno added that every employee would continue to work, but the work would change if other agencies took on future studies in the region.

“Some could shift over to overseeing grants for outside agencies that do science for us,” Lucerno said.

Ruch said he viewed Phillips’ memo as an implied threat.

“They’re sort of being told ‘make nice, or you’ll all go,’” Ruch said.

                                                               PRESS RELEASE

Siskiyou County Water Users Assoc.

Yreka, CA.

 530-842-4400                      

    Scientists have accused the Department of the Interior of Klamath related scientific misconduct in yet another recent incident claiming the ignoring of credible science from its own Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Klamath Basin Area Office (KBAO). 7 KBAO biological scientists attest they are being reassigned or terminated, and the field fisheries research office shut down, in response to field office studies contradicting assertions made by several other founding Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) Agencies advocating dams removals plus Klamath Basin wide ‘Agreement’ regulatory expansion and mandate. In a meeting reportedly held Nov. 30^th, BOR cited USFWS and NMFS, along with undisclosed ‘other interests’, expressed ‘distress’ over the studies, resulting in the area director terminating further field office fisheries research and ‘shelving’ those studies from pertinent decisions for fear they may be perceived as ‘biased’ against the current ‘mission’ to remove four hydroelectric dams supplying over 79,000 homes and businesses in Northern California and Southern Oregon. Unfortunately, requested supporting ‘transparent process’ meeting documents appear ‘unavailable’ as being ‘not routinely maintained’. The 7 scientists filed a complaint with PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) charging Director Phillips and other BOR Management with ‘coercive manipulation’, ‘sublimating science to political priorities’, ‘hindering’, ‘censorship’, ‘failing to use best quality science’, and Scientific and Scholarly Misconduct among others.

    One of the studies involved contradicted the USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) claims that Lake Ewauna was a ‘dead zone’ to sucker fish resulting from ‘human activities’ and forming a basis of their ‘restoration’ assessments. The KBAO study determined that there was actually a stable and viable resident Lake Ewuana sucker fish population .

    Another of the KBAO studies which ‘distressed’ NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) revealed that Klamath Basin Project controlled Klamath River flows have very little effect upon ‘endangered’ Coho salmon lifecycles, countering NMFS demands for dams’ removals and the statistically unsupported flow increases.

    Examples of other studies, by the BOR, receiving minimized recognition include finding the minimal 20 million cubic yards of sequestered sludge which could be released by removing the dams contain toxic levels of Mercury, Chromium, Zinc and Antimony, which could decimate not only Salmon, but, 34 other species that depend on the quality of water in the Klamath River.

    In February, 2012, Dr. Paul Hauser, former Chief Science and Integrity Office of the Department of Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Reclamation Branch in D.C., was fired for disclosing DOI agenda driven bias regarding the KBRA and the intertwined Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA). He charged the DOI with “Scientific Misconduct”. The KBRA and KHSA call for the procurement of regional resources, taxpayer/ratepayer funded unaccountable authority for the ‘Agreement’ creators, ‘adaptively managed’ mandates affecting the majority of un-represented regional residents, and the regionally majority opposed removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River.

_______________________________

Richard Marshall, President SCWUA

_______________________________

Dr. Richard Gierak, Science Consultant, SCWUA

Jan. 14, 2013 —

Salmon runs are notoriously variable: strong one year, and weak the next. New research shows that the same may be true from one century to the next.

Scientists in the past 20 years have recognized that salmon stocks vary not only year to year, but also on decades-long time cycles. One example is the 30-year to 80-year booms and busts in salmon runs in Alaska and on the West Coast driven by the climate pattern known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Now work led by University of Washington researchers reveals those decadal cycles may overlay even more important, centuries-long conditions, or regimes, that influence fish productivity. Cycles lasting up to 200 years were found while examining 500-year records of salmon abundance in Southwest Alaska. Natural variations in the abundance of spawning salmon are as large those due to human harvest.

“We’ve been able to reconstruct what salmon runs looked like before the start of commercial fishing. But rather than finding a flat baseline — some sort of long-term average run size — we’ve found that salmon runs fluctuated hugely, even before commercial fishing started. That these strong or weak periods could persist for sometimes hundreds of years means we need to reconsider what we think of as ‘normal’ for salmon stocks,” said Lauren Rogers, who did this work while earning her doctorate in aquatic and fishery sciences at the UW and is now a post-doctoral researcher with the University of Oslo, Norway.

Rogers is the lead author of a paper on the findings in the Jan. 14 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Surprisingly, salmon populations in the same regions do not all show the same changes through time. It is clear that the salmon returning to different rivers march to the beat of a different — slow — drummer,” said Daniel Schindler, UW professor of aquatic and fishery sciences and co-author of the paper.

“The implications for management are profound,” Schindler said. “While it is convenient to assume that ecosystems have a constant static capacity for producing fish, or any natural resource, our data demonstrate clearly that capacity is anything but stationary. Thus, management must be ready to reduce harvesting when ecosystems become unexpectedly less productive and allow increased harvesting when ecosystems shift to more productive regimes.

“Management should also allow, and probably even encourage, fishers to move among rivers to exploit salmon populations that are particularly productive. It is not realistic to assume that all rivers in a region will perform equally well or poorly all the time,” he said.

The researchers examined sediment cores collected from 20 sockeye nursery lakes within 16 major watersheds in southwestern Alaska, including those of Bristol Bay. The scientists homed in on the isotopic signature of nitrogen that salmon accumulate in the ocean and leave behind in lake sediments when they die: When there was a lot of such nitrogen in the sediments, it meant returning runs during that time period were abundant; when there was little, runs had declined.

Climate is not the only reason for long-term changes in salmon abundance. Changes in food webs, diseases or other factors might be involved; however, at present, there are no clear explanations for the factors that cause the long-term variability observed in this study.

Most, but not all, of the lakes examined showed declines in the kind of nitrogen the scientists were tracking beginning around 1900, once commercial fisheries had developed. However, earlier fluctuations showed that natural processes had at times reduced salmon densities as much as recent commercial fisheries, the co-authors said.

“We expected to detect a signal of commercial fishing — fisheries remove a lot of the salmon, and thus salmon nitrogen, that would have otherwise ended up in the sediments. But we were surprised to find that previous returns of salmon to rivers varied just as dramatically,” Rogers said.

As the paper said, “Interestingly these same fluctuations also highlight that salmon stocks have the capacity to rebuild naturally following prolonged periods with low densities, suggesting a strong resilience of salmon to natural and anthropogenic depletion processes. Indeed, total salmon production (catch plus escapements) has been relatively high in recent years for most sockeye salmon stocks in southwestern Alaska, despite a century of intense harvesting.”

Other co-authors are Peter Lisi and Gordon Holtgrieve with the UW, Peter Leavitt and Lynda Bunting with University of Regina, Canada, Bruce Finney with Idaho State University, Daniel Selbie with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada, Guangjie Chen with Yunnan Normal University, China, Irene Gregory-Eaves with McGill University, Canada, and Mark Lisac and Patrick Walsh with Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.

Funding was provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130114153426.htm?

http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/HeraldandNews/

BOR biologists fight for jobs

Scientists say Reclamation wants to suppress their findings

By Devan Schwartz

H&N Staff Reporter

January 8, 2012

Scientists employed by the Bureau of Reclamation claimed in a complaint filed Monday that their positions were being eliminated because their research contradicted or complicated other agencies’ findings in studies related to the Klamath River.

In November, the seven people were informed the local Fisheries Resources Branch was to be closed and their jobs transferred, though no one was necessarily going to be fired, according to documentation provided by Public Employees who Protect our Environment (PEER), a nonprofit organization seeking to uphold environmental laws and values.

Klamath Basin Area Office area manager Jason Phillips said he made the decision to end the research because of perceptions about its quality and relevance.

Phillips stated in a Nov. 8 memo that U.S. Geological Survey research in the Klamath Basin was viewed as credible, although his own office’s research was not — thus making their work redundant and unaffordable.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER, said the biologists’ research had angered external stakeholders, prompting scientific censorship and agency retaliation.

“This is an effort to bring scientists into a political line,” Ruch said.

The complaint identifies specific research that Phillips found problematic. One area was a finding of higher-than-anticipated populations of endangered sucker in Lake Ewauna. The complaint suggests this may have complicated a view that Lake Ewauna was essentially a dead-zone for fish moving downstream from Upper Klamath Lake. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reportedly had to re-evaluate its recovery strategy for Lake Ewauna and the finding led to assertions that others’ work had been proved wrong.

Coho dispute

A second problematic and disputed point of research was a study of threatened coho life-cycles. The biologists argued tributary flows were more important to these salmon than mainstem Klamath River flows. Mainstem Klamath River flows are controlled by Reclamation through the Klamath Project and a series of PacifiCorp-owned and operated dams.

Phillips decided not to allow the life-cycle research to be published after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration raised concerns regarding this model, the complainants assert.

In a phone interview, Phillips denied this allegation and added he intends in the near future to “work something out for management and employees.”

Phillips indicated he would like to keep the biologists’ jobs local, though the process will likely unfold over the next year or more.

Side Bars

Disputes with researchers is not a first for the Bureau of Reclamation

This is not the first time the Bureau of Reclamation has been accused of wrongly firing an employee. Dr. Paul Houser, a whistleblower and former Reclamation scientific integrity officer, made allegations about the agency playing politics with what’s supposed to be objective research related to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and the removal of dams on the Klamath River.

Houser and Reclamation reached a settlement in December with undisclosed details.

Dam removal is a key component of two controversial water settlements, the KBRA and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement. In addition to dam removal, the agreements aim to establish affordable power rates and reliable water supplies for irrigators, restore fish habitat and help the Klamath Tribes acquire a 92,000-acre tree farm.

Klamath Basin Area Office area manager Jason Phillips said in a phone interview the allegations of seven Fisheries Resources Branch employees are being taken out of context, though he needs more time to consider them and determine appropriate responses.

The Bureau of Reclamation released the following statement: “Reclamation frequently reviews operations within area offices to make the most effective use of public resources. At the Klamath Basin Area Office we have recently determined that this reorganization meets that goal and will better utilize existing staff in Klamath Falls to accomplish our on-going work requirements. No staff member will lose their job with this proposed change, and we continue to use management discretion to best meet program goals.”

Klamath Basin Area Office biologists defend their jobs and research

After being informed the Fisheries Resources Branch of the local Bureau of Reclamation office likely would close and their jobs would be transferred, Bureau of Reclamation fisheries biologists sought support from their union.

The biologists include: Keith Schultz, Charles Korson, James Ross, Torrey Tyler, Brock Phillips, Darin Taylor and Alex Wilkins.

Todd Pederson, union president of the National Federation of Federal Employees Union Local 951, said he pressed Jason Phillips on who had objected to the biologists’ research.

The area manager for Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office then reportedly identified the following groups: the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Klamath Basin tribal governments, though specific names were not provided.

On Jan. 7, a complaint of scientific and scholarly misconduct was sent to the Department of Interior on the biologists’ behalf. It argues that DOI policies were violated by “(1) intentionally circumventing policy that ensures the integrity of science and scholarship, and (2) actions that compromise scientific and scholarly integrity.”

Requests for the Bureau of Reclamation in the Complaint of Scientific and Scholarly Misconduct:

1) Withdraw plans to eliminate fisheries positions;

2) Withdraw plans to forcefully reassign fisheries staff;

3) Withdraw plans to eliminate the Fisheries Resources Branch;

4) Rescind in writing the Nov. 8 memo issued by Jason Phillips;

5) Issue a written apology;

6) Appropriately discipline Jason Phillips and any responsible superiors;

7) Form, fund and manage an interagency team of biologists to “ensure that future scientific reports are issued in a collaborative fashion.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.

Scientists File Complaint Citing Political Interference and Censorship

http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/noaa/1_7_13_PEER_Scientific_Misconduct_Complaint.pdf

http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/noaa/1_7_13_Reclamation_evasion.pdf

PEER – KLAMATH BIOLOGISTS THREATENED WITH REMOVAL

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/01/07/klamath-biologists-threatened-with-removal/

Scientists File Complaint Citing Political Interference and Censorship

Posted on Jan 07, 2013  | Tags: NOAA, Scientific Integrity

For Immediate Release: Jan 07, 2013
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

Washington, DC — Fisheries biologists working in one of the most contentious areas of the country were told to pack their bags but were not told the reason why, according to a complaint filed on their behalf today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) charging political coercion and censorship of science. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has announced plans to outsource all its fisheries science for the Klamath Basin in northern California and southern Oregon, where struggles over water supplies have roiled for decades.

In an unusual memo dated November 8, 2012, Jason Phillips, Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Manager, outlined his intention to reassign the seven Reclamation fisheries scientists in the Fisheries Resources Branch, stating that:

“Many perceive Reclamation’s efforts as inherently biased…There’s a concern that…in some cases we are simply carrying out studies to contradict the science of other agencies.”

Phillips had complained that Reclamation’s scientific work had caused him “problems” with other stakeholders and agencies. Yet when pressed for specifics, he contended “this data is not regularly maintained” and refused to elaborate. In a November 30, 2012 meeting, however, Phillips cited the life-cycle model for threatened coho salmon developed by the Fisheries Resources Branch as work he would not allow to be published or used by Reclamation due to unarticulated concerns raised by another agency.

“Requiring that science be non-controversial is like ordering your omelet made with un-cracked eggs,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch who filed the scientists’ complaint under agency scientific integrity policies. “Scientific differences are supposed to be addressed through consultation, not suppressed by bullying and threats.”

Under rules adopted at the behest of President Obama, agency scientific work is not to be altered or censored for political reasons. In addition, agencies are required to use best available information in making decisions. The complaint seeks withdrawal of the Fisheries Resources Branch closure plan, adoption of a collaborative forum for disputes and discipline for Phillips and other complicit managers.

Reclamation does not have a good track record for tolerating diversity of scientific opinion. In February 2012, for example, Reclamation abolished the position of its own Scientific Integrity Officer, Dr. Paul Houser, after he raised questions about the accuracy of summaries of environmental analyses on expected effects of removing four dams from Klamath River. While his whistleblower complaint of retaliation has been resolved, his complaint of scientific misconduct has yet to be answered, nearly a year later.

“Our fear is that professionalism has become hazardous to our careers inside Reclamation,” said Keith Schultz, one of the seven scientists. “We hope this complaint will make a difference in allowing other scientists to come forward and be truthful about science.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.